Legislative Assembly 2319 30 October 1991

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

WEDNESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Statement by Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! On Wednesday, 23 October, during the summing-up of his Estimates debate, the Honourable Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing used several unparliamentary words in reference to the honourable member for Sherwood. The honourable member for Sherwood was not present in the Chamber at the time and therefore was unable to take a point of order and ask for a withdrawal. As a result of this incident, today a meeting of the Temporary Chairmen was held and, in conformity with the practice of the House, it will be the policy of the Chair that when unparliamentary language is used and the honourable member aggrieved is not present in the Chamber, the Chair will intervene and order the withdrawal of the offending words. The Standing Orders will be enforced by the Chair to ensure proper conduct in the House. I ask the Acting Clerk to read the petitions lodged. Mr DUNWORTH: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have this matter referred to the Privileges Committee. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the member for Sherwood that that is out of order. I have just asked the Acting Clerk to read the list of petitions lodged.

PETITIONS The Acting Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Child-care Legislation From Mr Foley (18 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Child Care Bill 1991 and promote the development of associated regulations. Similar petitions were received from Mr Hayward (25 signatories) and Mr T. B. Sullivan (92 signatories).

Use of Agricultural Chemicals From Mr Hayward (1 641 signatories) praying for urgent provisions to be made in the laws for the protection of human health from agricultural drifts and oversprays.

Abortion Law From Dr Flynn (235 signatories) praying that action be taken to ensure that the law prohibiting abortion on request be enforced. Legislative Assembly 2320 30 October 1991

Redcliffe Police Station From Mr Santoro (2 021 signatories) praying for urgent action to provide for additional police and resources at the Redcliffe Police Station. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Builders Registration Board of Queensland Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board Rental Bond Authority Department of Resource Industries Legal Aid Commission Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 Harbours Act 1955 Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Golden Casket Art Union Office Mortgage Secondary Market Board Queensland Machine Gaming Commission Queensland Treasury Department By-law under the Harbours Act 1955 Regulations under— Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act 1991 Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 Proclamation under the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Rural Adjustment Scheme Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (2.35 p.m.), by leave: I inform the House that yesterday Federal Cabinet approved a significant relief package for the hard-hit rural sector. Included in this package is an additional $30.6m for the Rural Adjustment Scheme, of which $12m will be allocated to Queensland. In fact, this is the largest increase in RAS funds for any State. The Commonwealth’s package is broadly in line with the proposals put by myself and the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Casey, at last week’s meeting of Federal and State Ministers in Melbourne. In essence, the Commonwealth’s package incorporates two Legislative Assembly 2321 30 October 1991

significant initiatives. The first will see the Commonwealth take up a bigger share of the Commonwealth/State funding arrangements under RAS Part B which relates to carry-on assistance. This means that the Commonwealth will now provide $2 for every $1 of State funding for carry-on assistance. The other significant initiative relates to income support for farming families experiencing severe financial hardship. This program alone is expected to help about 2 000 farmers. Queensland will play its part in this specific program with the Government schemes division of the QIDC assessing eligibility on behalf of the Department of Social Security. The total Commonwealth package, together with the Queensland Government’s own drought-relief programs, will ensure that there is adequate assistance for our rural producers. However, the Queensland Government will continue its close monitoring of the rural sector in this State, and it will not hesitate to again press the Commonwealth for further assistance if the situation deteriorates. In this respect, the Commonwealth Government has given a commitment to review rural assistance measures next March. As I said, the Queensland Government welcomes the Commonwealth’s initiatives, but there is one area of concern for the State. Queensland believes that the Commonwealth should lower the trigger point for Federal funds for the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements—NDRAs—to make allowance for its decision to exclude drought from these arrangements. This decision has meant that the cost of freight subsidies on fodder, water and restocking during the current serious drought have to be fully met by the Queensland Government. Mr Cooper: Hypocrite! Mr SPEAKER: Order! That word is unparliamentary. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it. Mr COOPER: I withdraw it. Mr De LACY: We estimate that, in addition to the direct cost to the State of these subsidies, the 1989 decision by the Commonwealth to remove drought from the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements will cost the State up to $14m this year. Mr Hobbs: Whose fault was that? Mr De LACY: The honourable member’s Government was in power when it happened. However, yesterday, the Commonwealth gave an undertaking to review the trigger points. This is a step in the right direction, and the Queensland Government will continue to press the Commonwealth to take the final step. I give a commitment that, whatever the outcome of that review, the Queensland Government will maintain these freight subsidy programs and other assistance measures announced in our drought relief package. In conclusion, I wish to respond to those who say that the Commonwealth’s initiatives are too little, too late. These people ignore the fact that RAS funds have been providing relief to rural producers for months. This may be difficult for some members opposite to swallow, but the figures speak for themselves. Since 1 July, there have been 1 954 applications in Queensland for RAS funds, and total assistance approved now totals more than $7m. Mr Stephan: That won’t go very far. Mr De LACY: The honourable member should listen. This includes subsidies on loans totalling $100m. The State Government will continue to provide assistance to the rural sector under our comprehensive drought relief package, and we will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that appropriate resources from both the Commonwealth and the State are available to meet emerging needs. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Legislative Assembly 2322 30 October 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mater Hospital Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa—Minister for Health) (2.41 p.m.), by leave: I refer to a report in today’s Courier-Mail stating that surgery would be delayed and services cut as a result of so-called budget shortfalls at the Mater hospital in Brisbane. The story was based on a provocative memo which had been prepared, on his own initiative, by the medical superintendent, Dr John Waller. I find it extraordinary that a senior member of the hospital staff would distribute such a provocative and uninformed document without proper consultation with the hospital executive, the regional director or, indeed, my office. It was then no surprise that this memo was passed to the Liberal Party spokesperson on Health. I think that it is disgraceful that this baseless document has been used to stir up a so-called crisis in funding at the Mater hospital complex. There were no facts provided in the document to support the claims made and no indication of who or what authority had given directions to cut costs. The Goss Government is a Government of sound economic management. Responsible managers are provided with an appropriate budget allocation and expected to manage within that budget. Let me outline the true funding position at the Mater. There have been no budget cutbacks at the Mater hospital. The base budget allocation for the Mater public hospitals in the 1990-91 financial year was $86m. The base allocation for the 1991-92 financial year is $90,675,900. What there has been is a budget overrun within the first three months of this year’s financial operations. This overrun, if projected to a full year effect, could represent a potential deficit of $3m. To deal with that situation, the immediate concern is to identify the inefficiencies which are responsible for services running over budget and then to rectify the situation. Additionally, the Government also has a commitment to fund the Mater New Life Centre in the Mater mothers hospital with an additional $2.5m in this financial year. This will represent an additional $5.5m full year increase to the base allocation. It is clear from these figures that the Goss Government’s Health budget for this financial year has resulted in an increased level of funding at the Mater hospital complex. The hospital executive has the responsibility to provide services within the budget allocated to it, and I expect it to do exactly that. Scaremongering by the Liberal Party will do nothing to assist the Mater in achieving that objective.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Report of Lay Observer Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (2.44 p.m.), by leave: Firstly, I seek leave to table a report of the Lay Observer, which there is no statutory requirement upon me to table. Leave granted. Mr WELLS: In tabling the fourth annual report of the Lay Observer, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Lay Observer during his year of office. Mr Jim Munro has diligently and professionally undertaken his role as the voice of the lay person in processing complaints against solicitors. He has introduced systemic changes which allow him to monitor all complaints received by the Law Society. Each month, he gets a schedule of complaints received so he can identify practitioners who accumulate more than a reasonable number of complaints in any given time. During the year, the media have highlighted concerns expressed by some members of the public with the Law Society’s Legislative Assembly 2323 30 October 1991 method of handling complaints. The Lay Observer notes, however, that the Law Society takes its responsibility seriously, and does a creditable job of regulating the profession, given the constraints identified. It is these constraints which we now need to address. I believe it is our collective responsibility to use this opportunity to best benefit both the honest practitioner and the legal consumer by ensuring that the complaints handling process is open, accountable, accessible and cheap. There is no doubt that there is much public disquiet about the profession—some justified, some not. The Lay Observer believes that the Law Society should have a consumer protection role, as well as an enforcement and disciplinary role, if it is to effectively regulate the profession and maintain public confidence in its ability to do so. He says that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal should be able to make compensation payments of up to $5,500. This would provide people with an alternative to the courts for relatively small claims. But should the job remain with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, or should it be given to another jurisdiction—the Small Claims Tribunal, for example? The Law Society is currently not empowered to deal with matters of negligence, incompetence, delay or neglect, unless the facts of the case show they amount to professional misconduct. The Lay Observer recommends that the definition of “negligence” should be widened to include incompetence, delay, or neglect. The Lay Observer is in a good position to observe the process and recommend change. I will be examining the recommendations in greater detail, with a view to recommending in future to Cabinet changes which will restore public confidence in the way in which complaints against solicitors are handled. I look forward to working with the Law Society with a view to achieving this important aim. It will be noted that pages 20 to 29 inclusive have been removed from the report. Those pages made somewhat detailed reference to orders of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In terms of the Queensland Law Society Act, such orders are not, in normal circumstances, open to the public. Accordingly, although there is no legislative requirement for me to table this report, I do so without the aforementioned pages so that members of the House may be as fully informed as possible.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Comments by Member for Merthyr in Debate on Land Management Estimates Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (2.46 p.m.): I seek leave of the House to make a ministerial statement. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the Minister has a right to make a ministerial statement, if leave is granted. Leave granted. Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (2.47 p.m.): Last night, the honourable member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, told the Committee during an Estimates debate that this Government was wasting public money on unnecessary regionalisation. We all know that Mr Santoro has a seat in Brisbane. That means that he has access to all available services whenever he wants them. The trouble is that not everybody lives in Brisbane, and under past Governments not everybody has had access to the same level of services as Mr Santoro has. For instance, Mr Santoro claimed—— Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. Is this not debating the issue of the Estimates debate? Legislative Assembly 2324 30 October 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to hear whether the Minister is referring to the Estimates debate or not. Opposition members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, the Minister indicated—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will be quiet so that I can hear the member on his feet. Mr BORBIDGE: The Minister did refer to the Estimates debate. Mr EATON: It was a statement that the honourable member made in the Estimates debate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the Minister that that is out of order.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (2.48 p.m.), by leave: Yesterday, in the Matters of Public Interest debate, the member for Surfers Paradise misled the House by grossly misrepresenting comments that I made on the Sunday program on Channel 9 last Sunday. The comments that I made in that segment of the program were not in any way related to the Criminal Justice Commission, to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee or to my position as chairman of that committee. They related to other issues. I am entitled to make whatever public comments I believe are appropriate, and they are not the business of the member for Surfers Paradise or the member for Roma. Those who play politics at the expense of the Fitzgerald process betray the people of Queensland. Mr SANTORO proceeding to give notice of a motion—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Was that statement made in the House? Mr SANTORO: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is out of order. Mr SANTORO: Mr Speaker, they were made in the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is right. That is why it is out of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Electricity Supply to Rural Consumers Mr FITZGERALD asked the Minister for Resource Industries— “With reference to changes to the Statewide standard conditions of supply of electricity to consumers on extensions in rural areas, where the electricity boards have implemented changes to conditions of supply whereby the limit on the board’s contribution is adjusted such that annual potential revenue represents 22.5 per cent of the contribution rather than 15 per cent— Did he, at the direction of Cabinet, approve this change in 1990 and request that the change be implemented after 30 June 1991?” Mr VAUGHAN: The general managers of Queensland’s electricity boards began reviewing the conditions for supply extensions in rural areas in 1989, during the term of the previous Government. In the latter part of 1990, the general managers decided that the required rate of return on new rural extensions should be changed from 15 per cent to 22.5 per cent. The 22.5 per cent rate has already applied to domestic and commercial Legislative Assembly 2325 30 October 1991 consumers for about 30 years, so the change was to achieve uniform conditions for new connections. In October last year, I was notified of the changes and, as a matter of course, I informed Cabinet. Cabinet indicated that, because of the economic situation and so that rural customers would have sufficient notice of the proposed changes, it would be preferable if the change was not implemented until 1 July 1991. At my request, the Electricity Commissioner sought and obtained the cooperation of the electricity boards in meeting the later implementation date.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Comments by Member for Brisbane Central on Sunday Program Mr COOPER: I refer the Premier to the reported comments of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, the honourable member for Brisbane Central, on the Sunday program wherein he stated— “We’re in Government, and that beats the hell out of being in Opposition and I’m not going to do anything that’s going to in any way jeopardise our standing in this Government. And if I have to bite my tongue, I’ll bite my tongue until it’s got blisters.” I ask the Premier: in view of those comments, how can the honourable member for Brisbane Central continue in his role as Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee without prejudice when he has openly put the Government’s public relations image ahead of vital issues before the Criminal Justice Committee? In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee is currently considering important issues regarding prostitution, amongst other things, do his comments not indicate that he will be seeking a political solution rather than one that is in the best interests of Queenslanders? In view of the fact that the Fitzgerald report indicated that corruption flourishes in an atmosphere in which politicians are guided by political expediency, does the Premier admit that those views stated by the member for Brisbane Central are sufficient to justify the Premier removing him from the position of chairman? Mr W. K. GOSS: Unfortunately, I did not see the program in question so I do not know the context in which the reported comments were made. To the extent that the comments have been quoted in this place by the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think that they justify in any way the criticism or the calls that he has made. The honourable member has made particular reference to the issue of prostitution, and I think that issue itself gives the lie to the claim that he is making. I do not think it is fair to say that the member for Brisbane Central puts the image of this Government ahead of his activities in relation to the Criminal Justice Committee. I think the issue to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is ample evidence of that because the member in question has repeatedly made public statements that are quite at odds with my personal views, which are somewhat similar to those of the Leader of the Opposition. So I think the conduct of the honourable member for Brisbane Central in relation to that particular issue demonstrates that he is prepared to pursue his own views and his own opinions independently of those of the Premier or the Government. If it were true that in fact he was putting his own independent views to one side for those of the Government, surely he would not be making those statements. I find no foundation in the criticism.

Special Prosecutor Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the relationship between his Government and the Special Prosecutor, Mr Doug Drummond, QC, who—members have been frequently informed by the Government—operates Legislative Assembly 2326 30 October 1991 independently, and I ask: will the Premier inform the House whether he recently attended a private dinner at the home of the Special Prosecutor? Was the future of the Special Prosecutor discussed at that meeting? Were any other matters relating to the role or activities of the Special Prosecutor discussed over dinner? In more recent times, has the Premier had any discussions with Mr Drummond, or any of his Ministers, about Mr Drummond’s possible appointment to the Federal Court to fill the vacancy caused by Judge Pincus’ appointment to the Queensland Court of Appeal? Mr W. K. GOSS: I must say that I am gravely disappointed that a person in the responsible position of Leader of the Opposition would even ask such a question. If the Leader of the Opposition had genuine concerns in that regard, it is a matter of such sensitivity that he should have approached me privately rather than in this place. It involves quite a serious slur on the Special Prosecutor. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine! Mr W. K. GOSS: Irrespective of some of the false statements—— Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders will cease interjecting. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. The Premier referred to my asking the question as a slur. No slur was intended. I find that accusation offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will withdraw the remark. Mr W. K. GOSS: I withdraw it. To clarify my statements—to the extent that the factual basis of those claims in the honourable member’s question can be interpreted as a slur on me, I make no complaint whatsoever about that. Mr Cooper: No slur intended; just asking a question. Mr W. K. GOSS: In the basis of the question, there is by implication the suggestion that the Special Prosecutor would engage in that conduct. That is a serious criticism of his integrity. In relation to my contact in recent times with the Special Prosecutor—I have heard this rumour that is being put round the Bar by Mr Russell, QC, a close associate of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is referring to a rumour being put round the Bar by some particular person. I find that offensive. It is untrue. I ask that it be withdrawn. The man is not even here to defend himself. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I warn the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 124. Mr W. K. GOSS: I was referring to another Russell. The claims being put round by Mr Russell, QC, and members of the National Party in relation to a private dinner are completely and absolutely false. To complete the record, let me say that the only meeting that I have had with Mr Drummond in the last I do not know how many months was a meeting that took place during the week of the passage through this Parliament of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act. That meeting occurred in my office here in Parliament House in the presence of the President of the Law Society and the Attorney-General. The only matters discussed related to the reforming legislation that was passed last week through this Parliament. As for the rest of the disgraceful allegations contained in the Legislative Assembly 2327 30 October 1991

Leader of the Opposition’s question—they are completely and dishonestly false, but consistent.

Supply of Poker Machines Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to criticisms by the National Party of the awarding of poker machine supply contracts to two companies which the Nationals say are undesirable, and I ask: can the Treasurer assure the House whether the background of those companies had been thoroughly checked and whether the machines supplied by those companies are already in use in Queensland? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for that question, because this is an important point. All honourable members would be aware of the campaign being waged by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition against the introduction of poker machines, and his constant allegations of impropriety on behalf of the companies that are tendering. It may surprise most members in this House to learn that, for the past five years, two of those companies, namely, Ainsworth Nominees and IGT Australia, have been supplying gaming machines to Queensland casinos. They were supplying them under the approval of the previous National Party Government. I guess that the only difference is that, under the National Party, those companies—which Mr Borbidge now calls undesirable—used to deal directly with the casinos. Under the legislation introduced by this Government for the introduction of gaming machines into licensed clubs, those companies can deal only with the Government; they do not deal directly with licensed clubs, casinos or anybody else. Mr Borbidge: Tell us what happened on 19 December. Tell us about the pay-off on 19 December. Mr De LACY: I ask the honourable member to listen. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. Goss: You will get a question in five minutes. Ask it then. Mr De LACY: As the Premier says, the member can ask a question later. There is no record of Mr Borbidge making any of these allegations when the National Party was in Government and those companies were supplying poker machines to the casinos. All of a sudden, now that Mr Borbidge is in Opposition, those companies have become undesirable. Mr Borbidge is now making a whole range of allegations. He has made something like 70 allegations; he has had 70 swings and 70 misses, but he has not yet got off the tee. I hope that he does a little better with his most recent referral. He has been referring things to every organisation that he can think of around Queensland, but they have been sent back by return mail.

Effect of Decision by Australian Industrial Commission Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, I refer to a decision brought down today by the Australian Industrial Commission, and I ask: will the Minister advise the House what effect that decision will have on Queensland employees and employers? Mr WARBURTON: It is true that the national wage bench did bring down a very, very important decision that affects either directly or indirectly every employer and employee in this country. The commissioners brought down that decision after deliberating for quite some time on a number of submissions, the most important being in relation to the continuation of structural efficiency arrangements, the metal industry Legislative Assembly 2328 30 October 1991 award agreement—which was before the commission for ratification or otherwise—and, of course, enterprise agreements. On the most important subject of enterprise agreements—the national wage bench, despite the fact that it has indicated that the fears it expressed in April this year have not been allayed, has agreed to the introduction of enterprise awards and agreements subject to quite a number of requirements that it set out in that decision. I am very, very pleased that those learned people on the full bench brought down a decision on enterprise awards and agreements that sits very comfortably, very well indeed, with the enterprise awards and agreement arrangements in the Queensland Industrial Relations Act introduced and put in place by this Government in 1990. That decision shows that, once again, the Government has led the way in this country in respect of sensible and workable industrial relations. It is a very, very sad day indeed that, if certain individuals—some of whom are in this House today—had the opportunity, they would dismantle industrial legislation which, in effect, looks after the employees of this State. It is unfortunate, but I would have to say that those people are industrial relations fools. It is unfortunate also that people such as Mr Howard of the Liberal Party, aided and abetted by Mr Santoro, who sits down the back in this place and continually defames people, continue to be critical. I once before warned Mr Santoro, as a new member in this House, about some of the things that he was saying on radio, and it looks as though his run will come to an end. By their criticism, those people show that they have no feeling for the employees of this State. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. I take exception to the fact that the Minister saw fit to say in this House that Mr Howard has defamed people. He is not here—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mrs SHELDON: —to defend himself and it should not have been said. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was on my feet and the member for Landsborough continued to speak. I deem that to be highly disorderly. I point out to the member that she is not here to defend members outside this place. I call the member for Toowong.

Tully/Millstream Project Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Minister for Resource Industries, I refer to the annual report of the Queensland Electricity Commission, which states— “. . . if the Tully-Millstream scheme is not approved for construction by July 1991, then arrangements should be made for the provision of alternative generating plant.” I ask: could the Minister inform the House what action he has taken to ensure alternative power supplies for Queensland if the Federal Government vetoes the Tully/Millstream dam project? Mr VAUGHAN: As the honourable member indicated, the annual report of the Queensland Electricity Commission deals pretty conclusively with all aspects of the Tully/Millstream project. As he would have read, the report contains a number of references to the Tully/Millstream project. In answer to his specific question: yes, the Queensland Electricity Commission is well aware of the position on the future planning of the State’s generating capacity. As the report indicates, power stations in Queensland currently have a capacity of more than 5 000 megawatts. The maximum demand, which was on 25 July last year, was just over 4 000 megawatts. Queensland power stations have a spare capacity of approximately 1 000 megawatts of generating capacity. Mr Elliott interjected. Legislative Assembly 2329 30 October 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cunningham will cease interjecting. Mr VAUGHAN: The member would be aware also that the construction of the Stanwell Power Station is proceeding on target. In March 1993, the first generating unit, which has 350 megawatts of generating capacity, will come on line. Subsequently, the other three units will come on line at 12- monthly intervals. The member would be aware also that reference was made in the report to the Queensland Electricity Commission analysing the alternatives to the Tully/Millstream project in the form of coal-fired power stations. As the member would be aware, three sites in Queensland have been reserved for future coal-fired power stations. In addition, quite an amount of work is being done by the Queensland Electricity Commission in relation to the potential for gas-fired generating capacity, which would fit the bill in the event that the Tully/Millstream project did not go ahead. I assure the honourable member and all other members of the House that, as far as the planning of the electricity generating capacity of this State and the future electricity needs in this State are concerned, I am closely watching the situation and discussing the matter with the acting Electricity Commissioner, Mr Keith Hilless, at regular intervals to ensure that Queensland will continue to have a safe, reliable and secure electricity supply.

Queensland Public Health System Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer to his ministerial statement in which he indicated that poor management at the Mater public hospital had resulted in cost overruns in the first three months of this financial year, and I ask: have those so-called cost overruns occurred in any other public hospital in the south Brisbane region this year and, if so, by how much, and is that not a further sign that our State’s public health system is on the verge of collapse? Mr McELLIGOTT: I thank the member for Toowong for that strange question. I am sure that he does not seriously expect me to know the precise financial position of every hospital in south-east Queensland. Today, I merely responded to a statement put out yesterday by the Liberal Party spokesperson on Health in respect to the Mater hospitals in particular. I am sure that the member for Toowong understands what a budget is, and he would therefore understand that the figures I gave earlier today indicated clearly that there has been no cut-back in the budget of the Mater hospital or any other Queensland hospital. Apparently what has occurred in the Mater hospital complex is that the management has made a determination that, if expenditure continues at its current rate, at the end of this financial year there will be a potential cost overrun of $3m. I am sure that the member would also appreciate that Queensland Health, like any other part of this State’s administration, has to balance its budget, and therefore individual hospitals and health programs within Queensland Health have the same requirement. I expect that the management of the Mater hospital will respond in an appropriate way to ensure that their budget is balanced by the end of this financial year. In so doing, they must not put the health of their patients at risk, and to ensure that that does not occur, I have asked that they provide me with details as to how they propose to deal with their particular financial concerns at the moment. Earlier this morning, I made the point, which I would like to repeat—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister does not repeat it. Mr McELLIGOTT: I want to conclude by making the point that—— Mr BEANLAND: Can I ask when the Minister is going to answer the question? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowong may not ask. I call the Minister. Legislative Assembly 2330 30 October 1991

Mr McELLIGOTT: I conclude by saying that, unlike the Liberal Party, I have faith in the competence of the executive and management of the Mater hospitals and the other hospitals in south- east Queensland. I think it is disgusting and disgraceful that the spokesperson for the Liberal Party chose to use a stolen document to get some sort of political pleasure out of this whole process. Finally, I make the point that, by the look on her face, it is one of the few pleasures in life that she gets.

Federal Police Report on Illicit Drugs Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: will he advise the House whether the Queensland Police Service has studied the Federal Police report on illicit drugs in Australia? If so, will the Minister advise the House whether they have advised the Minister if the claims made in the report in relation to Queensland are correct? Mr MACKENROTH: The newspaper report was handed around yesterday, and it certainly alarmed me. I asked the Police Commissioner to advise me as to the truth of the matters raised in that report. I wish to advise the House of the information that has been provided to me by the commissioner. He has advised me that the Queensland Police Service provides information to the Federal Police to compile these reports on a yearly basis. He advised me as follows— “The return provided to the Federal Police approximately 2 months ago has a number of attachments which indicate as follows:— A. HEROIN Heroin is regarded as readily available at the street level in this State. Its price has remained stable for the last couple of years and the total seizures by Queensland Police in calendar year 1990 totalled 1.685kg in 82 seizures. Generally speaking, the information in relation to heroin indicates no dramatic changes over previous years. . . . The statements at pages 9 and 11 of the abovementioned document that there was ‘an abundant supply of heroin . . . in the Gold Coast area’, and ‘cocaine was readily available particularly around the Gold Coast’ are reputed to be contained in police documentation provided to the Federal Police but I have been unable to confirm that claim. It may be the opinion of one or two people and I am pursuing verification of those opinions, if possible. I will advise you further on this point but at this stage there is insufficient evidence to justify them in my opinion. On balance, the objective evidence has shown in the actual seizures on the official return to police indicates those statements are not well founded.” I have now received a further report after the report received earlier today, which states— “I refer to my preliminary report faxed to your Parliamentary House Office at 2.35 p.m. today and, in particular, to the final three paragraphs. I have now viewed the reports upon which the statements at pages 9 and 11 of the Australian Federal Police document are alleged to be based. These are the police documentation which I had not been able to view at the time of my earlier report. Legislative Assembly 2331 30 October 1991

Having now sighted copies of those reports, I can confirm that there is nothing in them to justify the extravagant claims in the Federal Police document. The situation on a fair reading of the Queensland Police data is essentially as conveyed to you earlier.” That is, the situation is no different from when the National Party was in Government. The commissioner continues— “It may be that the Federal Police have information from other sources which complements that in our possession, however, without knowledge of any such sources it appears that the statements at pages 9 and 11 (above) are the result of a considerable over- use of journalistic licence.” Mr Borbidge: Are you saying the Federal Police are lying? Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, and the commissioner goes on to say this— “I have discussed this matter with the Acting Assistant Commissioner for the Australian Federal Police region covering Queensland, and he is of a mind similar to myself. I will take this matter up with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police as soon as practicable.” That is signed by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service and those are his views. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is sailing close to the wind.

Illegal Brothels Mr TURNER: I direct a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Following the extraordinary revelations of the Channel 9 Sunday program about the boom in brothels in Queensland in the past two years, I ask: what action is the Minister proposing to take to combat the upsurge in both male and female illegal brothels and what powers does he intend to give to the police to allow them to carry out their duties? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the honourable member’s question—it is a shame that the Sunday program did not have a prerelease copy of Sir Robert Sparkes’ views in relation to prostitution, particularly his statement that the strongest critics are the people who use brothels the most. Mr Cooper: What powers are you going to give the police? Mr MACKENROTH: A member of the Opposition asked the question, and I will give the answer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting. Mr MACKENROTH: The Fitzgerald report clearly indicated that the matters of prostitution should be investigated and that a report should be made to this Parliament by the Criminal Justice Commission. Our Government adopted the view that it would await that report before taking action in relation to changing the laws. The timing of the report about prostitution was not in our hands, but was decided by the Criminal Justice Commission. I took action last year when I gave the Police Commissioner a written direction that police officers in Queensland were to continue to police the laws in relation to prostitution as they presently exist. Our Government will consider the report of the parliamentary committee in relation to prostitution. We will then amend the law in relation to Legislative Assembly 2332 30 October 1991 prostitution as we believe it is necessary to do so. The difference between policing prostitution under the present Government and under the previous Government is that the police are no longer getting paid.

Under-age Drinking Fines Mr TURNER: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to the Government’s announcement today of $1,500 fines on teenagers who transfer identification for the purposes of attempted under-age drinking which is associated with the reported police crack-down on schoolies. In view of a Federal Police report that illicit drug-trafficking has climbed dramatically under the present Government, along with increased prostitution and violent crime, I ask: when is the Government’s emphasis on crime prevention going to swing from targeting the Mr Smalls to the Mr Bigs of the crime world? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the honourable member’s mixed-up question—I think I have already answered the part in relation to the Federal Police report. Mr Veivers: That’s your version. Mr MACKENROTH: It is not my version. It is from Commissioner Newnham. Mr Littleproud: It is still your version. Mr MACKENROTH: It is not my version. Commissioner Newnham has advised me that the Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police also believes that yesterday’s report is incorrect. The fines for under-age drinking are maximum amounts, and I think that we need to keep that in mind. This Government has taken action in relation to the Mr Bigs. We have brought into this Parliament laws that provide for the confiscation of the profits of the Mr Bigs of the underworld—something that the Leader of the Opposition’s former Government would never take on, because most of those involved were in his party.

Drought Relief Mrs BIRD: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: is he aware that while he was in Cabinet on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition was in Mackay criticising the Goss Government for its lack of support of the State’s primary producers in the present drought? If so, can he indicate—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member’s question. I suggest that members on my left allow me to do so. Mrs BIRD: If so, can the Minister indicate those drought assistance measures that this Government has put into place that are additional to those put in place by Mr Cooper’s Government? Mr CASEY: This Parliament is quite used to the hypocritical actions of the honourable Leader of the Opposition as he goes about the countryside—as he did even on Monday of this week—knowing full well, as a former Premier of this State—— Opposition members interjected. Mr CASEY: —that he expected—in fact, he issued authoritative instructions—his Ministers to attend Cabinet on a regular basis. Opposition members interjected. Legislative Assembly 2333 30 October 1991

Mr CASEY: While he is running around the countryside with his couple of henchmen, trying to cause trouble and problems around the place, as usual, he is not fully up to date as far as the facts are concerned. Mr BREDHAUER: I rise to a point of order. The interjections make it impossible for members at the back of the Chamber to hear the answer to the question. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Lester interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CASEY: In fact, I was in Cabinet presenting details on some of the achievements for which this Government is responsible as far as drought relief for Queensland’s primary producers is concerned. Mr Speaker, they are far and above—— Mr Lester interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Peak Downs under Standing Order 123A. Mr CASEY: Mr Speaker, they are far and above anything created by the National Party in this State—I repeat “far and above”—and this is where the big problem arises. The achievements announced by me yesterday were those that were taken to Cabinet on Monday. The report given by the Honourable Treasurer to the House today concerned matters that were discussed by him and me in Melbourne last week on behalf of the primary producers of this State. Mr Lester interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Peak Downs under Standing Order 123A. I now ask him to leave the Chamber. Mr CASEY: It is quite a shame because we do not see him very often these days. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I am sorry, I did not—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may not debate the issue. Mr LESTER: Mr Speaker, I did not hear your warning, and I am sorry, truly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Peak Downs now that if he does not leave the Chamber, I will name him under Standing Order 124. Mr LESTER: Yes, all right. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. As one of the people who gets into trouble from time to time, I understand that a member is given a warning, that a member is warned under Standing Order 123A, and that if the member defies that warning, he or she is thrown out. The honourable member for Peak Downs did not get the warning. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr KATTER: There was no warning. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the member for Flinders that I warned the member for Peak Downs under Standing Order 123A and he interjected again. He has been asked to leave the Chamber. In many ways, I think the member for Flinders is misusing the time of the House by debating this matter. Mr Katter: You didn’t warn him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Flinders that I am on my feet. I suggest to the member for Peak Downs that he leave the Chamber, or I will name him. Mr Lester interjected. Legislative Assembly 2334 30 October 1991

NAMING OF MEMBER Mr SPEAKER: Order! I name the member for Peak Downs. Mr KATTER: I rise to a further point of order.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (3.23 p.m.): I move— “That the member for Peak Downs be suspended from the service of the House for seven days.” Whereupon the honourable member for Peak Downs withdrew from the Chamber. Question—That the member for Peak Downs be suspended from the service of the House for seven days—put; and the House divided— DIVISION

Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister for Primary Industries wish to continue with his answer?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr CASEY, continuing: Before I was rudely interrupted, I did intend to mention some of the things that this Government has put in place, such as the Drought Information Centre—which has been a great success—an extension of the RAS funding, assistance for cane-growers under the RAS, the widening of the freight subsidy, the initiation of a fodder register in Queensland, a livestock freight subsidy, and many, many others. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. Legislative Assembly 2335 30 October 1991

At 3.30 p.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Fifteenth Allotted Day

Estimates-in-Chief, 1991-92

Environment and Heritage Hon. P. COMBEN (Windsor—Minister for Environment and Heritage) (3.31 p.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $98,257,000 for Conservation, Recreation and Culture, Department of Environment and Heritage (Consolidated Fund).” I rise in an Estimates debate for the second time as a Minister proud of the great achievements and progress of the Department of Environment and Heritage. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I gave honourable members a chance to leave the Chamber. Will honourable members either go back to their seats or leave immediately. Mr COMBEN: Those achievements and that progress would not have been possible without the total dedication and commitment of individuals, teams, branches and divisions within the department. To all those individuals in all sections of the department who work so hard for a single commitment to an improved environment, I say “Thank you”. The team, from Dr Craig Emerson and his deputy, Tom Tolhurst, through to the newest filing clerk or park ranger, increasingly work together as a committed team seeking the common good. Community involvement and support is an essential part of the process of environmental protection and it is pleasing to see the increasing level of support over the past year for the wide-ranging environmental policies of this Government. The relations which we have with most of the non-Government conservation organisations is close and constructive. There has been an increasing awareness in the community that no Government or population can do everything immediately. However, the department is attempting to do its best in the full range of areas. The achievements of the past year include the preparation of drafting instructions for new conservation legislation, public consultation on environmental protection legislation, release of Green Papers on heritage and coastal protection, release of the Moreton Bay Strategic Plan, declaration or acquisition of more than a million hectares of national parks, commencement of a number of wildlife research projects, preparation of a schools recycling kit, establishment of a joint National Trust and Department of Environment and Heritage research project, implementation of the report of the commission of inquiry into Fraser Island, and in the wet tropics area, development of legislation and the establishment of the authority and agency. Following the PSMC review of the department, restructuring of the department continues, with great advances being made. I wish to now comment on each part of the department. This year’s 25 per cent increase in the budget follows last year’s 50 per cent increase, and effectively doubles the departmental budget in two years—the only State environment budget to be so Legislative Assembly 2336 30 October 1991 treated. Out of the total departmental budget of $98.25m, $84.318m is the estimated expenditure in relation to the conservation management program within the Division of Conservation. Recognising the inadequacy of existing legislation, we have allocated funds totalling $45,000 for the preparation of a new nature conservation Bill to provide better protection of Queensland’s native plants, animals and habitats. Key features of the legislation will be fauna and flora guarantees; a representative world-class system of national parks and other protected areas; the development of cooperative arrangements with land-holders to protect wildlife and habitats; and public involvement in nature conservation planning and social justice principles to protect the rights of land-holders. There will be increased emphasis on education and the provision of detailed information on wildlife so that other agencies can take up their responsibilities for nature conservation. The legislation will take nature conservation planning into the twenty-first century. It will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy these natural areas, that species security is guaranteed, and that there continues to be a well- managed base for our tourism industry. The program to establish a worldÐclass system of national parks has progressed substantially since the Goss Government came to power, and up to 5 October this year over a million hectares of new national parks have been gazetted. A further 525 000 hectares has been purchased and is awaiting gazettal as part of the program to increase the area of conservation reserves within Queensland to 4 per cent of the State by December 1992. The international significance of the park acquisition program has been shown by the involvement of Prince Philip and Sir David Attenborough in park declarations. This financial year sees an increased allocation of $11.5m to acquire approximately 1.6 million hectares of additional area for nature conservation purposes. Acquisitions are being pursued in a number of locations in order to achieve the maximum biodiversity representation possible, particularly in those areas of western and northern Queensland previously poorly represented in the national park estate. The level of biodiversity captured has risen from about 52 per cent to 64 per cent in the last two years. For the information of members, I table a list of the major national park declarations achieved between 26 November 1990, the last Estimates debate for the department, and 5 October 1991, and I seek leave to have these incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. List of Major National Parks Declarations achieved between 26/11/90 and 5/10/91 Park Name Action Area Lamington Addition 259 ha Noosa Addition 1 138 ha Nuga Nuga New Park 2 550 ha Porcupine Gorge Addition 1 160 ha Currawinya New Park 148 000 ha Palmgrove New Park 25 600 ha Blackwood New Park 1 648 ha Expedition Addition 23 900 ha Simpson Desert Addition 457 000 ha Precipice Addition 780 ha Bartle Frere Addition 34 800 ha White Mountains Addition 59 900 ha Lumholtz New Park 46 800 ha Narrien Range New Park 4 020 ha Total 803 355 ha Legislative Assembly 2337 30 October 1991

ENVIRONMENTAL PARKS Park Name Action Area Coolmunda New Park 89 ha Vernon New Park 59 ha Mt Kinchant New Park 66 ha Tooloombah Creek New Park 261 ha Venman New Park 134 ha Woogoompah Island New Park 632 ha Coomera Island New Park 268 ha Kangaroo Island New Park 415 ha Princhester New Park 722 ha Total 2646 ha Mr Katter: I’ll say! They’re an indictment of the fellow! Mr COMBEN: I remind the honourable member who interjects that his party’s policy at the last election was to increase the park estate to 5 per cent, a 50 per cent increase over what I wanted and what we are now seeking to achieve, and I say to each of his rural communities: think of what he would have done to you. A specific allocation of $130,000 has been provided to support the community nature conservation program. This includes the Roadside Conservation Committee, which acts as a forum for road and stock-route managers and those interested in the nature conservation values of those areas to discuss and promote the habitat values and advise on their management consistent with their traditional uses. Local authorities make many decisions which impact upon nature conservation, and to assist in this regard, officers of my National Parks and Wildlife Service are preparing a town-planning bulletin to outline the methods by which local authorities can assist wildlife. Restrictions have been placed on duck-shooting in the State with duck-shooting bans in five western shires aimed at protecting the endangered freckled duck, and the Statewide introduction of duck identification tests. Law enforcement activities will continue to receive attention, with an amount of $43,000 being provided to support the operations of the Police Fauna Protection Squad. This year the conservation research program is targeting— maintenance of biodiversity; rare and threatened species management problems; and management of species of special interest such as kangaroos and crocodiles. This year, we have been successful already in attracting additional research grants for the golden- shouldered parrots, for wetlands inventory, for green turtle population dynamics— Mr Elliott: Are those State or Federal funds? Mr COMBEN: The funds for the golden-shouldered parrot were raised by me and a range of bird- watchers in this State from the twitchathon; the $100,000 for wetlands inventory was from the Federal Government; and the World Wide Fund for Nature has also come forward with financial assistance.This year, an allocation of $70,000 has been made to research on the non-commercial macropods, including reproductive studies of small tropical macropods, the yellow-footed rock wallaby, the red- legged pademelon and the musky rat kangaroo. Additionally, money will be sought for the northern hairy-nosed wombat. We acknowledge the importance of having the capability of managing the newly expanded National Park Estate. In this regard, an amount of $8.2m has been provided for national park management in the 1991-92 Budget. This amount represents a 14 per cent increase on the last year’s allocation. Legislative Assembly 2338 30 October 1991

Priority areas for spending in 1991-92 will be the good neighbour policy—$771,000—and Aboriginal employment—$248,000—to allow for the hiring of an additional eight Aboriginal officers Statewide and $2m for the specific management of new national parks. An amount of almost $1m has been provided for undertaking capital works on existing national parks. Such works relate to the provision of staff barracks, internal roadworks, water supply, walking track upgrades and the construction of worksheds or stores. It is anticipated that at least $700,000 will be collected from commercial tour fees and user-pays camping charges. These funds will be distributed to provide for park visitor services and facilities such as improved walking tracks. A further $255,000 has been provided for distribution to certain local authorities to allow for the upgrading of access roads to national parks. An amount of $1.85m will be available from the Commonwealth under the National Rainforest Conservation Program. These funds will be matched by Queensland in kind, dollar for dollar. Of this amount, $544,000 will be committed to national park management projects, with the balance allocated to conservation research projects and projects by other Queensland agencies. Continued emphasis on the preparation of management plans for national parks is reflected in increased funding of $300,000. Currently, there are 60 management plans in various stages of preparation for individual national parks or groups of national parks. The Budget also recognises the activities of non-Government conservation organisations. Grants will be made to assist these organisations in meeting the cost of general administration expenses, environmental education programs, research and technical assistance. Honourable members may be interested to know that there will be a series of advertisements in this weekend’s press asking for voluntary groups to make application for the grants. One of the greatest challenges facing us as Queenslanders and the department is the protection of the World Heritage values of the wet tropics World Heritage area. It is pleasing to know that we have one of the most competent conservation managers in Australia heading the agency team, Mr Peter Hitchcock, AM. The agency and the authority are quietly working to establish methods of protecting the World Heritage values of the wet tropics. Following the recent ministerial council meeting, a number of actions are being taken to ensure more rapid implementation of the planning process for the area. New legislation is being prepared by the Department of Environment and Heritage, DASETT and the director of the agency. This will implement the intergovernmental agreement on management of the area. The Wet Tropics Management Authority will give advice to the ministerial council, whilst overseeing the preparation of a strategic plan. The director of the agency will be the accountable officer in the process, whom I am seeking to be made a member of the authority. Whilst ultimate decision-making will reside in the ministerial council, the authority will be left to get on with the provision of independent advice to the council. Day-to-day management of the area will be the responsibility of the State agencies. Preparation of the strategic plan, tourism plan and planning for the interpretive centre sought by Mrs Kelly and me can now proceed at what I hope is an increased pace. To all members of the authority—to Mr Hitchcock and members of the consultative and scientific committees—may I say, “Thank you for the work being done.” To protect the Great Barrier Reef, $6.8m has been allocated to the authority. Major funding allocations for the year include— $400,000 for the purchase of a 12-metre vessel to be based at Dungeness and tasked to patrol the Hinchinbrook and Palm Island areas, as well as $130,000 for a 7-metre to 10-metre vessel to be based at Cardwell—— Mr Elliott: Did you say seven separate 10-metre vessels? Mr COMBEN: No. I said a 7-metre to 10-metre vessel. Mr Elliott: Is that just one single vessel? Legislative Assembly 2339 30 October 1991

Mr COMBEN: I assume we will wait for the contract to come up, but it is for one vessel. Other allocations include— the allocation of $180,000 for joint patrols with the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol in remote and offshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef marine park which have received inadequate attention in the past; and an amount of over $70,000, allocated outside the day-to-day management budget funded by the department and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, for continuing work on over 17 management plans for islands and reefs in the Great Barrier Reef marine park. The State marine park budget has been allocated $150,000. Queensland’s first coastal protection strategy will continue to be developed with $1m in funding. This financial year, the Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to manage and protect Queensland’s coastline. Public consultation will be an essential part of the strategy. Other elements will be a Statewide coastal protection plan, field studies and essential data collection. The department has established a coastal management unit within the Division of Conservation. This unit will co-ordinate the coastal protection strategy utilising specialised professional work groups that will apply a strong multidisciplinary planning and environmental review process to coastal management. These groups have expertise in beach protection, coastal processes, dune conservation, approvals of coastal works, marine parks and wetland conservation and management. A further $280,000 has been allocated to assist local authorities in implementing coastal management demonstration projects. This program is funded on a fifty-fifty basis between the Beach Protection Authority and coastal local authorities. In 1990-91, we allocated $1.75m for pollution control policies and guidelines and environmental education. During 1991-92, this will be increased by $500,000 to $2m, with environmental education receiving an additional $90,000. Of this, $298,000 will be spent in upgrading equipment used to collect and analyse environmental samples. Obsolete field equipment will be replaced, and chemical analytical capability will be improved. A $38,000 contribution to a program for monitoring coal dust in Gladstone will include both administration of the program and its technical management. This program will identify priority dust sources to target for control, and is being funded by a number of industries in that area. A monitoring program, costing $107,000 over three years, will be undertaken for water quality in Port Curtis. The program will provide baseline data for aquatic systems in Port Curtis. A new environment protection Bill will be prepared to enhance environment protection and reduce pollution. It will provide flexibility to enable the department to address emerging issues. The new legislation will replace the existing piecemeal and ineffectual laws covering litter, air, noise and water pollution. It will also address issues such as waste management, land contamination, vehicle emissions and ozone layer depletion. Mr Elliott: I hope you are going to put your money where your mouth is as far as waste-recycling or something useful like that is concerned. Mr COMBEN: Wait for it! The new legislation will also address issues such as odours, smoke and industrial chemicals. The focus will be on prevention rather than treating problems after they occur. However, new substantial penalties for pollution will be introduced. The legislation will be introduced in 1992, following extensive public consultation. Already, my department has undertaken 63 meetings in 32 centres throughout the State. Part of the philosophy of the proposed legislation is delegated implementation of environmental policy. My department is well on its way to developing the broad policy framework, which will be in accord with Federal initiatives, and will shortly be establishing working groups to develop policy on individual issues such as transportation Legislative Assembly 2340 30 October 1991 noise. $638,000 has been allocated to develop this legislation together with the policies and guidelines to support it. These policy documents will set the ground rules and standards for industry and the general public and will also outline abatement measures or attainment programs. Last year, funds were provided to establish new offices in Mackay, Toowoomba and the Sunshine Coast for the environmental management program of the department in regional centres of Queensland. Funding to operate these offices on a continual basis has been provided and is now an ongoing commitment to those regionally based offices. A major achievement of the past year has been the release of the Moreton Bay Strategic Plan. Funding will be allocated to progress the implementation of the Moreton Bay plan and establishment of the Moreton Bay marine park. This includes the current public review phase and the subsequent development of administrative and legislative procedures. Following a meeting I convened in July 1991, which was attended by a range of Government agencies, local authorities, industry groups, users and environmental and community groups, a discussion paper on improving the Brisbane River’s management will shortly be released. Funding to the extent of $75,000 in 1991-92 has been allocated for the provision of secretarial services to the proposed Brisbane River management group, the preparation of a state of the river report, and the establishment of necessary inventories, databases and project registry. The department is also totally committed to the concept of SEQ 2001—Managing for Growth. $60,000 has been allocated to this. An essential part of the process will be what is known as Naturesearch 2001, a voluntary program aimed at surveying the flora and fauna of south-east Queensland as part of the planning process. Some of the best minds in the department are looking at that and fully supporting it. Waste minimisation has been an ongoing concern of the Government. The waste minimisation and recycling resource kit for schools has been completed and distributed to all schools in Queensland. Preparation of this resource was shared by the Waste Management Unit and the Education and Information Unit. Development of a waste minimisation strategy continues with the preparation of a public discussion paper to promote further consultation with industry, local government and the community. Funding of $120,000 has been provided under the recycling grants scheme for 14 local authorities for community-based recycling schemes. Funding grants in the current year included the first joint recycling scheme, a cooperative effort involving the City of Bundaberg and the Shires of Gooburrum and Kolan. Data provided to date by participating local authorities indicates that all funded schemes are achieving significant recoveries of material for recycling, including not only glass and aluminium but also plastics, other metals, paper and cardboard and lubricating oil. Development of an industrial waste exchange register is proceeding, with close attention being paid to the possibility that the Queensland scheme may form the basis of a national waste exchange information network. Such a scheme has the potential to reduce significantly the amount and toxicity of industrial waste by facilitating the use of one industry’s by-products as another’s raw material. The establishment of the Research Centre for Waste Management at Griffith University has again been assisted with a further $100,000 grant. The centre is to provide expert consultancy services to Government and industry in relation to the minimisation, treatment and disposal of wastes in addition to carrying out research work. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council (Queensland) has been offered a grant of $80,000 to assist in the continuation of its work in litter abatement. The popularity of the Tidy Towns and Tidy Schools competitions is witness to the high standing of the council in the community and to the effectiveness of its efforts. The formation on 5 June 1991 of the Queensland Recycling Advisory Council represented a major development in waste management in Legislative Assembly 2341 30 October 1991 this State. The advisory council brings together State Government, local government and industry in an initiative to promote recycling and reduce litter. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr Katter interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. Madam Temporary Chairman, could we receive the protection of the Chair? We members down here are trying to listen to some sensible comments from the Minister and all we can hear are some inane bleatings from the other side of the Chamber. Mr COMBEN: The council comprises the Department of Environment and Heritage, the Local Government Association and the Litter Research Association, representing the major industries making and using beverage containers. The establishment of a task force is being considered. It will include other Government departments, industry bodies and community groups. The commitment of industry is demonstrated in its agreement to contribute $600,000 annually towards funding the activities of the council. The remaining council members will contribute equivalent amounts in the form of resources and other assistance. Initial council activities include a contribution of $250,000 towards the Recycling Grants Scheme, and a proposal to expand an existing school-based recycling program. The Division of Corporate Services is a key component of the department responsible for providing cost-effective and progressive support services to meet the needs of our colleagues. Some $8.983m has been allotted to the division to cover program costs, including salaries and wages. The Division of Corporate Services incorporates financial and human resource management, administration and records management, program evaluation and review, education and information, computer, geographical information and library services. Some of the initiatives planned for 1991 include a mobile education display which will be provided in 1992 to travel to schools and public events. The department will continue its association with television networks and private film companies to produce documentaries and features on Queensland’s environment. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that the first documentary for the year will be seen on the Channel 7 network on Saturday, 2 November. It is titled Ribbon of Gold and discusses objectively the question of coastal management. The budget for the Education and Information Unit for this financial year is $490,000. In the financial management area, a project team has commenced to redesign the accounting and budgeting system to meet the needs of the restructured department. Emphasis will be placed on providing managers with high-quality information to meet their needs as financial decision-makers and as financial stewards of public resources. That is something that we never saw under the previous Government. Also, an integrated financial planning system will be developed to link the budget planning cycle with the strategic planning process. In regard to information technology and computer services—$320,000 has been allocated as the first stage in improving the management of departmental information. This will include a corporate computer facility that will provide a host for the larger systems required in the department, rather than using the smaller and less suitable personal computers that are used at present. The new Human Resource Management—HRM—System is an integrated system that combines personnel functions with payroll functions. Currently, we operate under several major computer-based information systems functioning independently of each other—staff time, public service payroll and leave management. The HRM System will provide for integration of the various personnel/payroll functions as they presently stand, sharing a common database, and will Legislative Assembly 2342 30 October 1991 replace the existing systems already referred to. It is also linked to other Government systems, such as financial management and State superannuation. The Heritage Branch of the department has as its role to promote and facilitate conservation of the cultural heritage of Queensland and to provide opportunities for its understanding, appreciation and enjoyment by the community. Heritage grants are given to improve community involvement in the conservation of historical and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage places, to protect and conserve the cultural heritage of Queensland and to improve the range and quality of heritage- based tourism opportunities. A total of $1.2m has been allocated for cultural heritage grants under the 1991-92 State Budget. The National Trust administration grant has as its aim support for the administration of the National Trust of Queensland, thereby assisting the management and protection of properties under the control of that organisation. It also ensures that the National Trust remains a strong, community-based, independent heritage organisation with a monitoring role throughout the State. This morning, I had pleasure in handing over a cheque for $110,000 to the National Trust. The Heritage Branch is responsible for the administration of the interim Heritage Buildings Protection Act, which was introduced in June 1990 to prevent the unauthorised demolition of certain important heritage buildings throughout the State. This Act expires on 10 March 1992, and is proposed to be replaced by a Queensland heritage Act. New initiative funding for additional labour and non- labour resources to ensure effective administration of the new heritage legislation were obtained under the State Budget. Funding has been allocated for the creation of five permanent positions for Aboriginal/Islander people specifically for community liaison and protection of cultural heritage places. A staged increase in permanent heritage positions for Aboriginal/Islander people will be sought over a three-year period. Fraser Island is one of the many environmental success stories of this Government. The department is responsible for administering the $38m joint State/Commonwealth Government growth and development package for the Great Sandy Region. In total, the Commonwealth Government will contribute $16.5m with the remaining funds to be provided by the Queensland Government. The package will extend over three years. We have negotiated the surrender of the remaining sand-mining leases on Fraser Island in return for reimbursement, in current dollar terms, of the costs incurred by the lease-holder in maintaining those leases. The Queensland Government is under no legal obligation to pay compensation to affected businesses. As a special case, the Government has announced that it is prepared to make ex gratia payments to businesses which have been directly and substantially affected by the cessation of logging on Fraser Island. Such businesses have been invited to lodge an application for compensation. On 17 September 1991, the Premier announced the growth and development package for the Great Sandy Region. This package includes financial assistance for workers displaced as a result of the cessation of logging on Fraser Island. In addition, $3.62m is provided for projects which will provide alternative employment opportunities for workers displaced as a result of the cessation of logging of Fraser Island. A further $0.8m is required to cover other costs involved in meeting the financial and staffing aspects of implementing the recommendations of the Fraser Island report. These costs include the preparation of a nomination for World Heritage listing; preparation of the proposed Great Sandy Regional Park Act; preparation of the management plan and associated strategy documents; counselling services; and business and employment development initiatives. The future that I have outlined in this speech is one of growth and expansion in the environmental endeavours of this Government, and thus our society and Queensland. The Dark Ages of environmental vandalism are behind us. Today, we stand with the only State Budget that is actively expanding in the environmental field—not only expanding, Legislative Assembly 2343 30 October 1991 but doubling in two years. This will continue, and a range of challenges lie ahead. Regardless of the nit- picking, and the quick headlines sought to be obtained by the conservative minority on the other side of this Chamber, the environment in Queensland is one of the great success stories in a range of success stories of the Goss Labor Government. It will continue to be a success story. That story, which will be held for decades hence, is about expansion of national parks, protection of coastal areas, protection of our species, and protection of heritage so that the days of midnight demolition are gone. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Dr Clark): Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Fund and Trust and Special Funds). Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.03 p.m.): In relation to the Estimates for the Department of Environment and Heritage—once again, we see a 15 per cent increase over last year’s massive allocation for acquisition funds, whereas the allocation for management services has risen by 14 per cent, following a 13 per cent rise last year. The Government is increasingly falling behind in the management program of its major national parks throughout the State. Obviously, the whole ability of the Government to manage, run and service Queensland’s national parks is falling further behind. Consequently, is it any wonder that the Government and the Minister in particular are coming under massive criticism from not only rural producer groups but also a number of thinking conservationists. Whether we like it or not, Australia is now in the midst of a depression. The Minister has an opportunity to emulate the work done by Roosevelt. If the Minister looks back to the time of the Great Depression of 1933, he will note that Roosevelt enlisted the support of most of the States in his country in a program known as the civilian conservation corps. Under that program, people were required to build access roads, walking tracks and small dams in national park areas of America. I put it to the Minister that those major park projects laid the foundations for the hugely successful recreation/tourist industry which America enjoys today. If the Minister feels that that is a program suited only for Federal involvement, he should think again, as the State of California has embarked on the Californian conservation corps. With conditions and unemployment figures approaching those of the thirties, it is worth examining the Californian corps to see how well it works. That corps grows close to three million trees from seed and plants them each spring. The people in the corps clear streams, build trails, construct park facilities and restore landmarks and national monuments. A feature of those volunteers is that at least 30 per cent of them are women. The corps does much the same work as the original civilian conservation corps. The workers receive relatively low pay. Everyone does the same work and wears the same uniform. The corps members operate from 26 centres, with the residents on call for emergencies 24 hours a day. Those centres are strung 1 000 miles from the border of Oregon right through to Mexico. Although work is the order of the day, morale is high. Daily life for corps members while on camp is run on a no-nonsense schedule with five strict rules: no drugs, no alcohol, no violence, no destruction of State property and no refusal to work. To quote one corps member as to why he joined— “I am here because I was out of work for six months and I found my life was going nowhere. Every day, I would get up at 11 o’clock and watch TV for two hours.” To quote another enroller— “The conservation corp has given me faith that restores one’s belief in physical, mental and spiritual self and in one’s association in the future.” The Minister has the opportunity to slow down the national parks acquisition program and commit a large part of those funds to a scheme that could well become known as the Legislative Assembly 2344 30 October 1991

Queensland conservation corps. That has the potential not only to overcome the massive backlog of building and maintenance required to bring up to scratch the standard of visitor facilities in our national parks—which would, of course, receive public acclaim—but also to employ young unemployed people from the cities and towns in the whole of this State and to utilise the services of a large number of rural contractors and farmers who have the organisational skills required to get the best out of those young people who would obviously be enthused about such a program being forward looking and who are environmentally conscious. Let us consider the national parks acquisition program. Although I advocate a slowing-down of the acquisition program, no-one should interpret that as a view that we on this side of the Chamber see no need for further park purchases. The main criticism by members of the Opposition other than that already outlined with regard to management is that, in many respects, the Labor Party is purely and simply acquiring large grazing holdings to increase the total area of national parks and thereby increase their percentage of the total land mass of this State. A typical example of that is the Riversleigh proposal. I believe that the Minister should seek a second scientific opinion on the significance of the fossil find on this property. I have heard people from similar disciplines to those of the gentlemen involved in the Riversleigh find suggest that the significance of the find has been considerably overstated in the interests of obtaining further grants for the work to continue. We already have a national park of major significance in the Lawn Hill Gorge. In my opinion, through his actions at Riversleigh the Minister is guilty of destroying a whole family’s future. The find is of questionable significance and the way in which the Minister’s inspection was carried out is a national scandal. Not only did he waste some $1,300 having his LTD driven all the way up to Mount Isa so that it could pick him up from the jet, but also massive resources were wasted by having two vehicles go out to Riversleigh. I suggest he should have acted as his predecessor did when he visited the same area. He bounced around in the back of a station Toyota, accepted the hospitality of the people there and had meals with them. In addition, I understand that the Minister flew to Mount Isa and back again rather than use the national park facilities at Lawn Hill. I will be interested to hear his comments in relation to that exercise. It is my contention that we should take advantage of this massive slump in land prices to purchase key areas of land which are needed to complete such concepts as the scenic rim, which is a concept of world standard. Backpackers could hike from Laidley in the west all the way across the top of the Great Divide to Point Danger in the east. This is a concept which in the future could encourage increasing numbers of overseas and interstate tourists. Additionally, the Government should be looking at the newly developing centres in Queensland and ensuring that, firstly, they have sufficient areas of open space for the provision of public parks of less environmental significance, thereby ensuring there is room for families and their children to take advantage of leisure-related activities; secondly, environmental parks are based within an hour or two’s drive of such centres to ensure that those people who have the desire to walk and observe the natural wonders of our State are able to do so; and, thirdly, that major national parks are within realistic driving range to ensure that people can use these natural areas for both bush walking and camping without such activities having a detrimental effect on the environment. I wish now to turn to heritage matters, which are of great concern to a large number of Queenslanders, regardless of whether the buildings are in Queen Street, other areas of the City of Brisbane, or in regional centres. I have said before in this Chamber that it is very important that the Government look at an incentive process, that is, a carrot, rather than getting out a big stick and belting people over the head with it. I am encouraged that possibly the next heritage Bill to be introduced into this Parliament—rather than the interim Legislative Assembly 2345 30 October 1991 legislation that we are working under at the moment—will contain measures along those lines. I live in hope. The Opposition believes that incentives should be provided and that the Government should work together with its Federal colleagues to ensure that tax breaks are provided for people who are prepared to look after their buildings. Mr Comben: They won’t come into it. Mr ELLIOTT: They are absolutely mad. I really cannot understand that. This happens in other countries. If a Government wants people to look after buildings, obviously the first thing it has to do is provide incentives. When I was Minister, the Federal Government wanted to establish a film industry and it worked with us in respect of that program. It gave over $1 by way of concession for every $1 spent in the film industry. In that way, a film industry was established in this country and it now stands us in good stead. We should be doing exactly the same in respect of heritage buildings. This Government is retaining land tax and, therefore, it should be giving land tax incentives to people who are prepared to look after heritage buildings. This is an obvious area in which incentives should be provided. At the same time local authorities should be involved in rate remissions. It is a nonsense to suggest that someone who owns a building prior to it being listed has a multistorey—— Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the member is actually suggesting that the Government do something that is currently before the House in the form of a Bill, the Land Tax Legislation Amendment Bill. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will continue. Mr ELLIOTT: The member for Glass House is totally off line. I am talking about what we will do when we come back into Government. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Are you going to retain land tax? Mr ELLIOTT: No. Mr J. H. Sullivan: You are on record as saying you are going to retain land tax. I will use that. Mr ELLIOTT: No. The honourable member is the one who has made a total error whilst listening from the back of the Chamber. While this Government has land tax in place, I suggest that it give land tax concessions to these people. When we come into power, we will abolish land tax and, therefore, it will no longer be relevant. It is a nonsense to suggest that someone who owns a building on land with high rise potential should pay the same rates as someone who is in a similar position, but whose building has just been listed and who has thereby lost any ability to build a high-rise building on the land. We look forward with interest to seeing what transpires in the final legislation concerning compensation. It is totally unreasonable to expect individuals throughout this State to carry the can for those of us—and I am one of them—who want to preserve heritage buildings. If we want to preserve heritage buildings, then we must take it upon ourselves to put our collective money where our collective mouths are. We must assist those people, because in many instances they will not be in a financial state to be able to do anything for themselves. The Government will have to do it and it may well be a better proposition to suggest to those people that they sell their property. This may apply particularly to older people. They may not want to live in the property any longer, and it may well suit them to sell. It is not good enough that pensioners could be financially threatened by having to preserve heritage buildings. The Minister should look very carefully at the problem. To my mind, the whole thrust of environmental management should be one of encouragement rather than of taking people on all the time and saying, “Thou shall not do this or that”, which does not work. A policy of assistance and encouragement is the way to go. Legislative Assembly 2346 30 October 1991

I turn now to the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service’s crocodile management program. I could not come into this Parliament to debate the Environment and Heritage Estimates and not say something about crocodiles, could I? Mr Comben: You could not. Mr ELLIOTT: Because the Minister squirmed and did not answer the question I asked in the House recently regarding the crocodile management program, I now take this opportunity to seek clarification for the people of Queensland of the exact status of that program. I ask: as the crocodile protection program relates to crocodile farms, what is the National Parks and Wildlife Service’s policy regarding who has the right to remove those crocodiles that can only be described as rogues because they are threatening public safety at swimming holes and around boat-ramps, etc.? Is it the Minister’s intention to use his own National Parks and Wildlife staff and put them at risk, or hire a contractor or contractors to remove those animals? If it is the Minister’s intention to remove them—either himself or with these contractors—what does he propose to do with these particular crocodiles, when they have been taken out of circulation in the public interest? Mr Comben: Let me assure the honourable member that I will not be removing them. Mr ELLIOTT: No. Recently, I saw the Minister wandering around with am umbrella. It was slightly different from the one used by the Minister for Primary Industries, I must admit. Mr Comben: We will carry on with the policy that was in place with your Government previously until the new policy comes in, which is presently being debated. There is to be a big meeting in Cairns chaired by Warren Pitt on the sixth of next month, and it is up for grabs then; but, effectively, it is the same policy as previously, except around Rocky where Mr Leaver withdrew from the crocodile management program. An honourable member: You can now throw away half your speech. Mr ELLIOTT: All right. That is fair enough. I mean, that is what we come here for, surely. Members should not be upset by that. For once, I was given a decent answer, which was all I was trying to accomplish when I asked my question originally. When the shock leaves me, I will be able to continue. I believe that the Minister should look at the kangaroo management program with great interest, too. Mr Comben: Would you eat kangaroo? Mr ELLIOTT: I would not, personally, but that does not mean that people who come from other parts of the world, and who do not know the significance of kangaroos to Australians, should not necessarily eat them. To my mind, as well as being part of our national emblem and an emotional symbol for all of us, kangaroos are a resource. I would describe the Wildlife Preservation Society as one of the most sensible groups in the conservation movement. Some of its members are the most rational conservationists in this State. People such as Michael Hurst, and dozens of others I could mention whom the Minister knows well, strongly support the program and realise that the kangaroo-culling program is scientifically based. It is not a program that members of the previous National Party Government dreamt up in a back room. I strongly recommend to Government members who do not understand the issue or who want to know more about it that they read The Kangaroo Keepers, which was written by Dr Hugh Lavery and which explains the whole program very well. Basically, it comes down to measuring the size of the skulls and using scientific instruments on professionals’ culling runs and also national parks rangers who take samples to ensure that there are no discrepancies in the culling runs undertaken by the professionals. They boil the skulls down and then measure them. The method is similar to examining the mouths of sheep or horses. There are a few horse-traders around, and there are a few in this Parliament. Legislative Assembly 2347 30 October 1991

Mr Comben: One of my staff talks about the old days of boiling down the heads. Mr ELLIOTT: The program is scientifically based and works in much the same way as the method for determining the ages of sheep and horses. It is a commonsense method, yet it is quite a scientific program. I urge the Minister not to allow people such as Jackie Kent or those grubs—and they can only be described as “grubs”—who produced the Goodbye Joey film to take control. They tried to sue me because I had the temerity to tell them that they were perpetrating a fraud upon the public, which they were. Of course, they went out to Dirranbandi and got those two blokes who were out of work to shoot a kangaroo in the leg. The TV crew filmed the kangaroo being wrapped up in a barbed- wire fence and being hit with hats. The inane cruelty of these people was unbelievable, and they then tried to use that footage to say that that was what was happening in the previous Government’s kangaroo-culling program. They thought they could make money by selling that film, but they were shown up for what they are because we were able to identify those “gentlemen”—and I use the term advisedly—and take them to court. We obtained a conviction against them and, from then on, they were kept on a fairly short rein. I urge the Minister to keep people informed about the whole kangaroo- culling program because it is essential to the long-term well-being of the kangaroos as well as to the industry. Mr Comben: I agree absolutely with what you have said, and I would also like to put on the public record my appreciation of your not criticising the recent prosecution of Mr Kimmorley in the west for a similar thing. Some people wanted to stir it up. Mr ELLIOTT: I had it brought to my attention. I did my own research and discovered that it was not just as it appeared in a particular press article. The press article stated only part of the facts. This is something that needs to be thought out because people who have shot kangaroos over many years and who are gun experts will tell you that at night—and I have been with people who have been spot- lighting—it is possible to shoot kangaroos in the head with great accuracy. Almost 100 per cent of them get head shots in. If a person is hunting for skins during the day, and if he starts trying to do that, he is on very fragile ground. There will be a wind effect on the shots, and the kangaroos will also tend to move their heads around. People have found kangaroos with half their lower jaw blown away, with ears blown away, and that sort of thing. So, it is important that that line is not pushed too hard. I understand that those people were not doing the right thing and they were chastised. They obviously got what they deserved. The other national parks issue that I would like to touch on is Fraser Island. The National Party, of course, takes a stance differentfrom that of the Labor Party in respect of the Fraser Island issue. It concerns me that the Government does not use the sovereign powers that it has in respect of looking after the State of Queensland. I do not know why the Government continually turns to a body like the World Heritage mob—and I use the word “mob” advisedly. Quite frankly, when one looks at how the forests in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia are managed, how those forests are clear-felled and burnt and resources wasted, I do not see why the Government should be taking their advice, or having the World Heritage mob telling it how to run Queensland’s forests. If Fraser Island or other areas of the Great Sandy Region are regarded as being important for national parks, then the Government should declare those areas itself. I find the whole Fraser Island business distasteful because I believe that there are a lot of issues in regard to it that have not been cleared up. In relation to Noosa north shore, I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether or not he has on record the analysis of those properties—and I speak now of the Leisuremark land and also the two adjoining privately owned blocks of land—that are suggested for acquisition by the Noosa Shire Council for inclusion in the Great Sandy Legislative Assembly 2348 30 October 1991

Region park. I would like to know on whose say-so or recommendation those lands were considered to be of sufficient environmental standard to become part of the national park. As everyone is well aware, I declared the second stage of the Cooloola national park. At that time, my Government looked at those lands, and it was felt that they were too degraded for inclusion in the national park because they had been sand-mined and used for cattle grazing, dairying and all sorts of other purposes. Those lands were not really up to scratch for inclusion in the national park. Geoff Pye, who is an architect, furnished me with a proposal and a copy of his suggestions for the blocks adjoining the Leisuremark land. I might add that I know nothing about Leisuremark’s activities and I have not had much contact with Mr Loiterton or his Leisuremark company. I have never been given a clear indication as to what Leisuremark had in mind for its land, but Geoff Pye has. I find his suggestions for the adjoining blocks very sensible and in tune with the environment. I think that his proposal for low-rise dwellings, housing only 400 people, is environmentally sound. That was the basis of the agreement between the Noosa Shire Council and the consortium concerned with the other blocks outside the court. They did not actually go to court; they settled before they went to court. My understanding was that the consortium was talked down from about 1 000, which was the number given to the council, to 400. The impact on that area would be minimal. It would give people an opportunity to go and stay in an area adjacent to a national park. A lot of time is wasted in going from Noosa, across the river, into the national park. People could enjoy the national park by hiking from the dwellings that were proposed in Geoff Pye’s development concept. The development would not be able to be seen from Noosa. That meets one of the requirements, that is, that one should not be able to see the development. Mr Comben interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: No, I have looked at it, and I have been onsite. I do not know whether the Minister did what the Premier did and just went up along the foreshore and along the dunes themselves. I would like the Minister to do what I did, that is, walk all over the land, look at the hill, look at it from the other side, really take it in and ask himself, “What is really the basis of what they are trying to do? Is it acceptable? Is it reasonable?” If he thinks not, fair enough. I think it is quite a reasonable proposal. I am disappointed that the council—and it would set a precedent in this State— has suggested taking over land from private owners and then develop it on its own. It is not as though the council is taking it just for a path, a road, or some other purpose. The council wants to go in there and develop that land in its own way. The council is not God, although I know that it likes playing God and it is very good at it. The council has been trying to take over from the Minister and his colleagues in respect of the Noosa River. The other day I attended a meeting. The council was rather surprised to see me bob up out of the audience. The council got well and truly rolled at that meeting because it thought that the people of Noosa were going to support its taking over of the river. I suggest that that is the role of the Government and its departments. What the Government should do—and this is what my Government did in relation to Fraser Island originally—is put together a task force comprising people from Government departments, the shire council—which should have a say in this—and those people who use the river commercially, because they also have a vested interest in the river. Those people may not necessarily have an adverse environmental interest and they should be consulted. All of those groups of people should work together in the interests of the Noosa River. That is why I gazetted Stage 2 of the Cooloola national park—to protect the entire ecosystem of that river. Mr Comben: Why did you leave me 21 000 hectares? Legislative Assembly 2349 30 October 1991

Mr ELLIOTT: The National Party also created an environmental park along the river to give people from Noosa closer access to the river. I would like to speak about the Statewide environmental legislation proposal. I have attended one of the meetings that the Minister has spoken about. I asked a gentleman at that meeting how problems such as those being experienced in the cotton industry were going to be handled when the Government is suggesting that it will contain all tail water that should be used for irrigation and dry-land properties. I cite the example of a catchment area that has been declared an erosion hazard area. One cannot put into place any banks that will adversely affect the natural flow of the catchment proposal that has been put together by the DPI. The Government is going to be in a catch 22 situation it if is not careful. I want the Minister to put his mind to solving that problem. Mr Comben interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: I am running out of time. I have to keep going, I am sorry. The other area that I think is very, very urgent is that the Minister looks hard, and I would like him to give us a “Yes” or “No” answer, at whether or not we are really looking at areas of conservation interest being declared over private property, freehold or leasehold, and then those people being required, firstly, to look after it—and I can live with that—but, secondly, then to give the public access to it. Mr Comben: No. Mr ELLIOTT: That is very important, because the old concept which was brought up in regard to the original Heritage Act about a man’s home being his castle still applies. Mr Comben: The English concept. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, that is right, it is the English concept—the Minister is correct. In respect to waste management generally—it surprises me that if we look back to when members of the Labor Party were in Opposition, they were very much strutting the political stage, shall I say, and talking about how they were going to put their money where their mouths were when they came to Government. I am suggesting that this Government now has had the opportunity presented to it and it has been found wanting in relation to Rochedale and many other problem areas. I ask the Government to do something about them. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before I call the member for Pine Rivers, I would like to commend the Minister and the member for Cunningham on the way they have conducted themselves in this Estimates debate. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (4.33 p.m.): I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak today in support of these Estimates for the Department of Environment and Heritage. This department was one of the big winners in last year’s State Budget, with an increase in funding of 58 per cent, if for no other reason than this Government realised something had to be done after the years of neglect by previous Governments which had no commitment whatsoever to environmental protection and reform. The good work has continued this year, for in this current Budget we see a record $98.257m allocation for the department, which represents a 24 per cent increase on last year, and an overall rise of 103 per cent since this Government came to office in December 1989. In my opinion, this is proof positive that the Goss Government accepts that it has a heavy obligation to protect and conserve the environment for future generations. The $11.5m allocated for new national parks will enable the Government to move closer to its goal of doubling the area of national parks in its first term. This also represents an increase of 15 per cent on last year’s acquisition budget, and I congratulate the Government and this Minister on this result in this most important area. Funds have been allocated for the management of national parks, for management and Legislative Assembly 2350 30 October 1991 infrastructure in north Queensland’s wet tropics World Heritage area, and for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority towards managing the park. An amount of $1.2m has been earmarked to fund the Queensland heritage program. An amount of $2m has been allocated for pollution control and recycling, including $638,000 to introduce new environmental legislation, policies and guidelines, about which I would like to say a little. A reading of Budget Paper No. 3 reveals that the goal of the environmental management program is— “To promote the concept of ecologically sustainable development within the community and to secure the adoption of policies and practices designed to achieve ecologically sustainable development. To assess the quality of Queensland’s environment and to evaluate and manage the impacts on environmental quality of human activity on the environment.” This program focuses on the development and implementation of strategies to minimise human impact on the quality of the environment of Queensland. One very simple way we can all contribute to minimising human impact on the quality of this State’s environment is through attention to recycling. It was not too many years ago that recycling was unheard of in Queensland—and in Australia too, for that matter. Of course, most of our suburbs back in the sixties and seventies had the usual bottle bins or the bottle collection depots for the local boy scouts where mainly beer bottles were taken, and certainly the bottle depots were well supported by the locals. In my opinion, this support was more for the money-raising aspect rather than out of any thought for the environment and the advantages of energy-saving through recycling. Then we saw the emergence of collect-a-can depots. They were not as well utilised as the bottle depots, but the records show that, in 1978, 165 million cans were returned out of a total of 917 million, or about 18 per cent, sold in Australia. That is not too good when compared to the 1989 figures, which show that out of 2 523 million cans sold throughout Australia, over 1 500 million, or 62 per cent, were returned. That is quite an improvement. The 1960s also saw the introduction of the blue paper bin, which was provided to most Brisbane homes by APM. The blue bins took all our unwanted paper and paper products, and was welcomed with open arms by Mr and Mrs Brisbane. I was living in Brisbane at that time, and I certainly always had more newspapers and magazines than I knew what to do with. At least we were getting rid of our papers, hopefully to be somehow melted down to be reused. It was not until years later, when I moved to the Pine Rivers Shire where APM operates at Petrie, that I discovered that this service had been discontinued because nobody seemed to know just how to use or what to do with the monumental stockpile of papers accumulated as a result of the blue bin collections. There may have been other early instances of recycling, but bottles, papers and cans certainly were the only reusables taken seriously. Nowadays, people have been and are being educated about the benefits of recycling—and not before time. In the area of waste management, presently per head of population our country stands second only to the United States as the world’s greatest throw-away society. Most of our garbage in this country is buried in landfill sites, much of the remainder is burned, and only a small fraction is recycled. Things are improving, but there is much room for improvement. The time is long overdue for us all to look farther afield than paper, glass and cans for recycling. A recent excellent publication by the Queensland Parliamentary Library entitled Waste Management—Reducing Rubbish and Recycling Refuse explores some of the more complex issues involved with recycling, including a few of the more unusual recyclable materials. For example, one of the most useless, unwanted things on this earth would be prawn shells. Who would ever have thought that prawn shells would ever find a Legislative Assembly 2351 30 October 1991 use in the recycling business? The publication from the library points out that prawn shells break down in nature at a very slow rate and are quite a disposal problem, as we all know. Prawn shells and bacon- rasher rinds were the big no-noes, and high on the list of things not to put down garbage disposal units. It seems that chitin, the main structural component in the shells of prawns, shrimps, crabs and lobsters, is a valuable natural polymer. It has been found to be an excellent water-purifier. It will remove 97 per cent of suspended solids from waste water, and from toxic or radioactive water. It will remove nearly all of the highly dangerous materials, especially heavy metals such as mercury, lead and uranium. It also contains properties which are beneficial to the hair and the skin and is now being used in shampoos, skin lotions, nail varnishes and the like. All that from recycled prawn shells! Each year, around the world approximately 36 700 tonnes of prawn shells are wasted. That makes me feel guilty about throwing out the prawn shells every Sunday night. Another major waste disposal problem has been citrus peel. Each year, our juicing plants generate over 20 000 tonnes of residue. However, scientists have recently hit upon a novel method of converting this waste into stock feed by partly drying the peel, adding diluted raw molasses, and allowing the mixture to ferment for 72 hours. It is then air dried, ground into powder and used as stock feed. The protein level is 13 per cent, which is considerably higher than conventional forage such as straw. Other recycling challenges have been met and won in such diverse areas as sewage sludge, waste water, tyres, road and building waste, stringy bark, rice hulls and winery effluent. Many people see recycling as desirable because it saves energy, reduces pollution and the production of greenhouse gases, and protects the ozone layer from further depletion. That is true in many instances. However, the recycling process itself can actually generate pollution. For example, approximately 1.15 litres of water is required to wash each refillable glass bottle, and the water used is discharged into the sewer with the caustic soda and product residues it contains. Even though recycling may be one way to prevent harmful wastes from entering our environment, it may not be the preferred option for pollution control. That depends on appropriate regulation and enforcement of emissions and correct pricing by waste management authorities of waste disposal facilities. The Industry Commission sums up the situation as follows— “There is no simple relationship between recycling and conservation. While recycling often does conserve natural resources, energy and water, it also uses resources—particularly in transport, sorting, cleaning and materials preparation. From a conservation point of view, it is important that all of these uses of resources be taken into account.” There certainly are problems with certain aspects of recycling. However, the important thing is that people generally are more recycling-aware. During the 1989 election campaign, the Australian Labor Party produced an excellent booklet on recycling, and at every street corner information booth we staffed and at every house we doorknocked, the book was in demand. It was the item people most wanted from our campaign workers. We found it very hard to meet that demand. In Pine Rivers, we are certainly taking recycling seriously. The Minister would remember visiting my electorate earlier this year to officially open the recycling depot of Cleanaway at Brendale. In July of this year, the Pine Rivers Shire Council introduced a recycling system with a new method of refuse collection. Households already had a green 240-litre bin for general rubbish purposes, yet in that month a new 120-litre green and gold bin was delivered to each house specifically for recyclable material such as the disposal of glass bottles and glass jars, plastic soft drink and plastic milk bottles, and aluminium and steel cans. The bins are emptied fortnightly and have proved a huge success. The Cleanaway depot at Brendale sorts all the recyclables. The scheme is sure to provide a financial success for both Cleanaway and Legislative Assembly 2352 30 October 1991 the shire council, which stand to gain financially out of the success of the program. I congratulate the Pine Rivers Shire Council on that bold move, and I am pleased to note that some adjoining councils are investigating having the same system introduced into their areas. In fact, I firmly believe that there is no excuse for any local authority not to give the opportunity to their ratepayers to recycle metals, in particular aluminium. It makes sense from both an economic and an environmental point of view to recycle metals. Aluminium can be easily and economically recycled. Reprocessing uses a mere 5 per cent of the energy that is required for manufacture from raw bauxite. There is no aluminium product that cannot be recycled again and again without losing any of its properties. One tonne of cans recycled saves about five tonnes of bauxite. At least we can take some comfort from the fact that Australia, with a 62 per cent recovery rate, is a world leader in recycling aluminium beverage cans. That probably occurs because we drink more. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mrs WOODGATE: If the cap fits! Last year, 1 700 million cans were returned to industry recycling centres, and collectors received over $26m in return. Mr Littleproud: Did you know that they still have the biggest return from the races at Birdsville? Mrs WOODGATE: I would believe that. Each year, one recycling plant in Sydney reprocesses up to 60 000 tonnes of aluminium cans and scrap. The Department of Environment and Heritage has produced an environment information pamphlet, Household Waste, which gives valuable information on recycling. It talks about such things as how reducing, re-using and recycling help the environment. It also addresses the recycling potential of household waste such as kitchen and garden waste, glass, metals, plastics, and paper and cardboard. Earlier this year—in June, if memory serves me correctly—I was pleased to learn that at least $4m will be spent over the next five years in Queensland on a waste minimisation and recycling campaign. An agreement signed by Minister Comben with the Local Government Association and the Queensland Litter Research Association, comprising the major drink and container manufacturers, formed a new recycling body called the Queensland Recycling Advisory Council. I believe that the formation of that council and the associated $4m funding will be the greatest boost to recycling ever in Queensland. The Goss Government recognises that waste minimisation cannot be achieved in this State without the full support of industry and local government, and it is good to see such excellent cooperation between Government and industry. In the Budget, we saw the allocation of $2m for pollution control and recycling, including $638,000 to introduce new environmental legislation, policies and guidelines. As well, $340,000 has been earmarked for environmental education. The time is long overdue for coming to grips with the ever-growing problem of waste disposal. People must realise that, once they put something in their rubbish bins, the problem of waste disposal and, therefore, their personal responsibility is finished. I remember reading in one of the Minister’s media statements that Brisbane residents alone generate 625 000 tonnes of solid waste each year, which is the equivalent of 200 Ballymores or 200 Lang Parks, or enough cubic metre blocks to stretch from Brisbane to Perth via Melbourne. During last year, a series of seminars and trade displays to promote consumer demand for recycled goods were held in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville and Toowoomba under the title Enviro-Link 1990. I believe those seminars, together with the preparation and distribution to local authorities and the community generally of advisory and promotional material on recycling, as well as the introduction of direct funding grants to local authorities for recycling schemes, have all assisted to inform the populous of the importance of thinking globally and acting locally. Congratulations must also go to the Government on its decision to prepare submissions to the Federal Government regarding Legislative Assembly 2353 30 October 1991 sales tax relief in respect of goods with a substantial recycled content. Recycled goods must be made more affordable or else people just will not buy them. As well as individuals, quite a few recognisable organisations are showing their concern with protecting the environment. A quarterly that I received recently from the Queensland Teachers Credit Union said that not only did the union lend money but also it was lending a hand by using recycled paper to print its quarterly and using, from a company in Melbourne, recycled plastic which in the future will be used to wrap the quarterly for mailing. Before I conclude, let me make mention of the quite large increase in this department’s budget for grants to organisations for recycling programs. Last year’s budget figure was $142,000. This year, the figure of $911,000 has been allocated, which is quite a substantial increase, I think all members would agree. As well, local authority recycling programs will receive $120,000 from this budget. I have spent my allocated time speaking on environmental management. However, the Government has been quite generous in the area of conservation management also. This program focuses on promoting the wise use and protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Queensland for the long-term benefit of the community in areas such as national parks and wildlife, coastal protection, wet tropics and cultural heritage. I congratulate the Government and this Minister on their performance in 1990-91. I am sure that the forthcoming year will prove even more rewarding for Queenslanders in the areas of environment, conservation and heritage. I am more than pleased to support these Estimates. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (4.48 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Heritage. I believe that the Minister has performed adequately and has, much to the pleasure of the Liberal Party, adopted and implemented many platforms of the Liberal Party’s conservation and environment policy. These initiatives include the accelerated acquisition of national parks based on Paul Sattler’s model of biodiversity. This initiative is to be applauded. It conforms to section 3.3.1 of our current policy under the heading “National Parks Acquisition”. The Minister has also implemented section 3.1 of our policy under the heading “State Conservation Strategy”. But the Minister’s conservation strategy needs to be further extended. Again, the Minister has been attempting to introduce heritage legislation which the Liberal Party recommended in section 5.1 of its policy dealing with heritage. But apparently this legislation has been severely truncated. Mr Comben: You will still object when it comes in because it protects heritage; it is not a Claytons legislation. Mr DUNWORTH: If it does that, we will not object. The Minister has personally been involved with wildlife protection, particularly in relation to the golden-shouldered parrot and the cassowary. This personal involvement is to be applauded again, although the false water rat must wonder why it has been abandoned to such an insecure future, particularly at Myora on Stradbroke Island. There are a number of areas in which the Minister has been trying to make some headway but has handled things rather clumsily. The recycling strategy is under way but proceeding very slowly, and the toxic waste strategy of the Government is a total mess. I know that, at this stage, that strategy is not under the Minister’s auspices. The CHEM Unit should be, and I believe is being, transferred from the Police and Emergency Services portfolio to the Department of Environment and Heritage, where it should have been in the first place. Apparently, the Deputy Premier, Tom Burns, was asleep in the Cabinet subcommittee meeting when the decisions on the content of portfolios was made. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member really cannot make personal assertions such as that. Legislative Assembly 2354 30 October 1991

Mr DUNWORTH: I will withdraw it. This is a very gentle speech this afternoon. This Government does not have a toxic waste strategy, as the decisions that are made do not appear to relate in any way to a Statewide plan. The decisions seem to be based purely on party politics. The criterion is, “Thou shalt not site a toxic waste dump in a Labor electorate.” The Liberal Party could probably assist the Minister in drawing up a more comprehensive toxic waste strategy. As I have so far dealt briefly with initiatives that the Minister has taken or is trying to take, I would now like to refer to some of his failures. Prior to the last election, the Minister was strident in his charge that the National Party Government was trying to destroy the national parks service. He promoted himself as the defender of the service. Now he will, with his soon-to-be-introduced nature conservation Act, destroy the professionalism of the service by taking all the power from the independent professional Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and depositing it in the waiting arms of the director of his department. This has never before been done, and now all the power of the Minister’s department will be in the hands of a Labor crony, a politically appointed apparatchik. Does the Minister realise that it was only by having a professional, non-political public servant as the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service that Lindeman Island was saved? The director at that time would not sign a certificate presented to him by the then Government saying that the proposed massive encroachment into the existing national park would not affect the national park, hence the Lindeman Island decision was staved off and eventually the national park was saved. The Minister has gone back on his word by failing to guarantee the independence of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Minister has again failed in his responsibilities by allowing the Aboriginal Land Act to take precedence over the National Parks and Wildlife Act, as section 5.21 (b) contains the words “subject to this Act”, which means that both the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the proposed nature conservation Act will be subject to the Aboriginal Land Act. So here we have the real agenda whereby the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is in a stronger position in regard to national parks than is the Minister for Environment and Heritage. This Minister will be in a subordinate position which does not bode well for the future of national parks. Are all our national parks, which are set aside for all the people of Queensland because of their natural and cultural significance, to be gazetted as claimable by Aboriginal groups? Mr Comben: No. Mr DUNWORTH: Does this mean that there will be no claims on Fraser Island? No? Will there be any claims on parks such as those in the border ranges? Can the Minister confirm or deny that? Will there be claims on Carnarvon Gorge or Girraween? Could they all become Aboriginal land? I believe that this is certainly the agenda of the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Either this Minister has been deceived or he has been colluding. The exact same words in the Aboriginal Land Act were used in the Recreation Areas Management Act, which was the first Act repealed when this Government came to power. The Minister has abrogated his responsibilities to his portfolio by failing to clarify whether Aboriginals will own national parks in fee simple or whether a caveat will be included to the effect that the title cannot be dealt with. There is some discussion in legal circles as to whether these arrangements could be entered into by Aboriginal groups without duress and, if duress is proved—as none of the Aboriginal groups want conditions attached—whether these arrangements would be null and void. I shall now dwell on some issues that the Minister and his department have completely botched. The Wet Tropics Management Authority and the wet tropics Ministerial Council, of which the Minister is Chairman, have stated publicly that a strategic plan would be prepared in six months. That was more than 12 months ago. Now the director, Mr Hitchcock, is saying that it will be over two years before the plan is Legislative Assembly 2355 30 October 1991 prepared—if all goes to plan. Nothing that the wet tropics authority has done has gone to plan. The Minister, Mr Comben, says that the strategic plan will be ready by mid-1992. But that will be 18 months after the strategic plan was promised. What is the wet tropics authority actually achieving, apart from helping to keep five-star hotels in Cairns full of bureaucrats holding interminable meetings and achieving nothing? Mr Elliott: Ask yourself what’s going to happen on Fraser Island. We’ll see the same sort of deal with that. Mr DUNWORTH: I am getting to that. In the past 12 months, the Wet Tropics authority has met five or six times, at great expense. But what has it achieved? What policies has it developed? What plans has it prepared? It has spent a couple of million dollars on recreation facilities and road maintenance, but we did not need an authority, a ministerial council and two advisory committees to achieve that. The National Parks and Wildlife Service could have planned and constructed those projects with its hands tied behind its back. The wet tropics authority has the most comprehensive, scientific database in Australia, thanks to the Department of Forestry, which developed a very powerful computer-based geographic information system. In 1989, the Forestry Service also prepared a comprehensive management plan. Given all this background material, what more could possibly be required for a new management plan to be prepared? I believe that the geographic information system developed by the Forestry Service is highly sophisticated and can generate maps with all the information needed for planning, including vegetation, fauna, cultural sites, roads, tracks, public utilities, etc. It is vital that, when this country emerges from the recession, a management plan for the wet tropics is in place so that investors and developers will have some guidelines by which to operate—unlike the current shambles in which there are queues of investors, farmers, home-owners, local governments and tourist operators being stalled by the inability of the authority to get its act together. So far, the authority has approved only one application from the Wangetti Crocodile Farm. That authority has 15 staff members and millions of dollars in funding. The Minister is the chairman. It is his responsibility. He should get something moving. Are we to look forward to a similar fiasco with Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region? The Great Barrier Reef is very well managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That is the result of an agreement entered into by former Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Fraser and former Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Why does the Minister not follow the same procedures with the wet tropics, Fraser Island and the border ranges? Are we to see five, six or seven little agencies, all with their own agenda? Or is the Minister going to support their management by the National Parks and Wildlife Service? The Liberal Party calls for clear-cut guidelines, with the Federal Government providing funds and advice, and the Queensland Government providing the management through the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I turn now to deal with some of the Budget figures. Under “Conservation Management” and “Program Goals”, it is stated— “To conserve the land-based and marine biological diversity and outstanding natural features of Queensland. To conserve and enhance the coastal zone of Queensland.” Under “Performance 1990-91”, it is stated— “Some 840,000 ha of new national park estate was secured, with a further 800,000 ha pending . . . ” Legislative Assembly 2356 30 October 1991

We are looking at an area of almost 1.7 million hectares. However, the number of full-time employees has increased by 12. If there is to be an increase in national parks of 1.7 million hectares, each additional employee will be responsible for 150 000 hectares. That is better than the current situation at Lakefield, where I believe that two staff look after an area of 500 000 hectares. Mr Comben: There are six staff at Lakefield. Mr DUNWORTH: The Minister states that there are six staff at Lakefield. Does he know how many there are at Kakadu, which has a similar area? There are 120! But Lakefield has only six. The Minister’s much-vaunted program is creating national parks that are underresourced and underprotected, and will be subject to land degradation. According to the Budget documents, salaries and wages and related payments for the Environment and Heritage Department have increased by approximately $4m, with 12 additional employees. Perhaps the Minister could explain that to the Committee. Where do the costs go? Obviously, they go into the bureaucracy in Ann Street. Administrative charges have increased by 65 per cent, from just under $11m to just in excess of $17m. As to environment and heritage—the Budget documents also talk about assessing the quality of Queensland’s environment and evaluating and managing the impacts on environmental quality. Once again, there is an increase in staff of 13. Salaries, wages and related payments have increased by approximately $1.5m. It looks as though that is a good place in which to have a job! As well, there is an increase in administrative charges of approximately $2.5m. All up, that represents an increase in administrative charges approaching $10m. In the limited time that is available to me, I shall raise a couple of other matters. I admit that one matter does not come within the Minister’s portfolio. However, he was very vocal during the controversy about the Mitchell River and Mr Quaid. I note that this Government has granted Mr Quaid a further lease. A newspaper report states— “Cairns developer George Quaid—described as an environmental rapist by the State Government—has been given a 40-year lease on 13,600 ha of Crown land which has been a proposed National Park since 1970.” Dr Clark: Don’t you know that was a National Party deal? You’re just revealing your ignorance. Mr DUNWORTH: Since I have been here, this is the first time that I have heard the honourable member for Barron River discuss any environmental matter. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will return to the Estimates debate. Mr DUNWORTH: I would like the Minister to comment—— Dr CLARK: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member asked for that comment to be withdrawn. Mr DUNWORTH: I withdraw it. I would like the Minister to comment on the Richters Creek/Marlin Coast scheme—the proposal for a marina right in the middle of the member’s electorate. I will read briefly some of the comments from members of the Richters Creek action group, which sent 5 000 letters to the Minister. They state— “The immediate effects on the beach and associated estuary systems of the proposal are as follows, loss of a important marine habitat, destruction of a well used recreational area, increase in turbidity of the already, sometimes, muddy waters, loss of Mangrove and Melaleuca stands . . .” Legislative Assembly 2357 30 October 1991

What is the Minister’s coastal protection study all about? Why did he overrule development at Noosa and put a moratorium on development at Bribie Island yet, apparently, say the Richters Creek scheme is okay? A headline states “Barron River delta endangered”, yet the member for Barron River does not say a word—not a word! Another headline states “Residents fight to save undeveloped waterway”. Mr De Lacy had to say— “It would have been destroyed forever, the visual and recreational character of a previously undisturbed shoreline.” I would like the Minister to comment also on whether he will support the tramline proposal on Fraser Island. The Liberal Party would certainly support it. When the Minister visited the wet tropics with David Attenborough, he discussed ecotourism. This is certainly eco-tourism. Time expired. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (5.03 p.m.): One of the first acts of this Government was the abandonment of the National Party’s futile and expensive High Court challenge to the listing of the wet tropics on the World Heritage List. Since that time, the Government’s commitment to World Heritage values has been witnessed by a decision to nominate Fraser Island for World Heritage listing. Wise management of Queensland’s magnificent World Heritage sites—the Great Barrier Reef and wet tropics—is vital for the protection of flora and fauna, many of which are endemic to those regions and are rare or endangered. Wise management is also essential if the tourism industry based on those natural attractions is to be sustainable. The Queensland Government’s commitment to our World Heritage sites is clearly evident by the Budget allocation this year. The allocation of $6.8m from the State Government for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been matched by the Commonwealth and will allow for the continued management of our reef. Of particular assistance will be the allocation of $400,000 for two patrol vessels. I would like to spend the majority of my time in the Estimates debate this afternoon discussing the Wet Tropics Management Agency. It will be quite clear when I have completed my address that many of the criticisms raised by the member for Sherwood are quite without foundation. In the case of the wet tropics World Heritage management area—the funds available for the Wet Tropics Management Authority comprise $14.95m. That total consists of $11.16m from the Commonwealth and $3.79m from the State Government. Commonwealth funds are divided into capital funding of $7.1m and recurrent funding of $4m. The Commonwealth has undertaken to provide $10m over three years for capital works funding and, to match the State’s recurrent expenditure, up to $4m annually. The Wet Tropics Management Agency commenced operations at the end of June this year. Since that time, a budget of $12.1m has been allocated to some 150 projects spread over four programs. Currently unallocated funds of $2.8m are expected to be fully allocated following the December meeting of the authority. The principal recipients of funds under the current Budget are the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Queensland Forest Service and the Wet Tropics Management Agency. Some funds have also been provided to local authorities and community groups. Projects are divided into four programs: heritage conservation, management planning, community relations and corporate support. In the current year, heritage conservation and community relations have been the dominant programs, with $4.05m and $4.63m allocated respectively. Highlights of the heritage conservation program include $2.2m for land acquisition. A short list of priority acquisitions was prepared by the authority in consultation with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Queensland Forest Service. That acquisition process recognises that some very significant areas were not included in the Legislative Assembly 2358 30 October 1991 original nomination and will improve management of the wet tropics if acquired. Negotiations have commenced with a number of willing vendors, and progress to date is satisfactory. At this point, it would be inappropriate of me to reveal the titles and ownerships of the priority properties. Suffice it to say that the majority of the land-owners are already well aware of the interests of the Wet Tropics Management Agency in the purchase of their properties. Indeed, a number of acquisitions have been initiated by offers made by land-owners. There is one acquisition of which I can speak today, because the knowledge is publicly available, that is, the land owned by the Kuhn family at Julatten, who owns a very important block of land which, if acquired, would widen a very narrow corridor linking northern and southern sections of the World Heritage area in that locality. I sincerely hope that those negotiations will be completed successfully. An amount of $300,000 has been allocated for research grants and consultancies contributing to management and preservation of heritage values. Very shortly, expressions of interest for research grants will be called through advertisements in national newspapers. Applications by young scientists and local organisations will be particularly encouraged. Dr Hugh Spencer, who has established a field studies centre at Cape Tribulation, has been carrying out at his own expense important work on the role of bats in rainforest ecology, and I hope that he will be a successful applicant for such a research grant to continue his work. A total of $250,000 has been made available for pest control in the wet tropics, a vitally important management task. Members opposite have frequently raised that topic in the Chamber, and it is well recognised that in the wet tropics feral pigs, in particular, are a real problem, as are cats, cane toads and other domestic animals. An amount of $50,000 is allocated for a comprehensive, systematic approach to pest control to be established. In addition to that, $200,000 is allocated for actual on- ground control to make things start to happen. That includes $100,000 for pig control in the Cape Tribulation area. This grant to the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service will in fact employ a small team of local people, including Aboriginal people, to control an area of very high pig density and the quite serious damage that is currently occurring. This is a good example of employment being created and money flowing through the Wet Tropics Management Agency. As I have said, pigs pose an enormous threat to the rainforest, not just by eating roots and seedlings, but also by eating cassowary eggs. This rare bird has been the subject of increasing study, and I welcome a grant of $76,000 to the consultative committee for cassowary conservation at Mission Beach. These funds will be used to employ a full-time conservation officer to coordinate the activities of the committee. This has previously been done on a voluntary part-time basis, and done very well. The officer will organise the committee’s activities, which include implementing the cassowary management plan in the Mission Beach area, undertaking population monitoring, germinating and planting cassowary food trees, maintaining a nursery, preparing signs, leaflets and public displays and experimenting with different methods of pig control and difference types of gates and fences. Some of these funds will also be used to operate a small shop-front for the committee to further assist in public education and involvement in this important project. Following a recent visit to Mission Beach to meet with members of the committee, I can certainly attest to their enthusiasm, highly productive activities and the amount of community support they have generated for cassowary conservation in the Mission Beach area. I wish to place on record my recognition and appreciation of their excellent work. There are two further projects of particular interest to me in far north Queensland. One is the Cairns hillslopes fire protection program. The sum of $77,000 has been allocated to hire and provide equipment for a fire-management officer who will prepare site-specific fire management plans for the Cairns/Mulgrave area. I look forward to seeing the Legislative Assembly 2359 30 October 1991 hillsides around Cairns regenerating and the hillsides regaining their former glory after being burnt out in the past. In addition, I look forward to seeing further regeneration of the hillslopes because I, along with others, have spent many years replanting those sites, which is a very rewarding experience. Weed management is another important component of management in the wet tropics area, and $50,000 has been provided for a consultancy contract for the development of policies and strategies for the management of degraded habitats, including roadsides, power-line corridors and areas previously affected by logging or mining infrastructure. At this point, I wish to recognise the work of groups such as TREAT on the Atherton Tablelands which has carried out this fine work for many years. In addition, I wish to mention a project carried out by the Mulgrave Shire Council with funding from the Commonwealth Government. A nursery has been set up to reforest many of those important areas, such as hillslopes, creeks and many other areas around the fringes of the World Heritage region. I sincerely hope that further representations to the Commonwealth for additional funding are successful. An allocation of $600,000 has been provided for management planning in the wet tropics. This planning will draw on the information collected through the heritage conservation program and is likely to receive a higher proportion of Budget funds in future years. Management planning will comprise two different levels of planning: firstly, the overview or strategy planning, and, secondly, the more detailed management control planning. The Wet Tropics Strategic Plan will be commenced shortly and the Minister for Environment and Heritage has determined that it will be complete to draft form by May 1992. The agency is getting on with the job and there will soon be results. The first strategic management plan will be a very important step. Because of time constraints, the plan will provide only a general indication of management emphasis across the entire region. It will highlight areas requiring heritage protection and conservation management, areas occupied and likely to be occupied by essential public services and areas which, subject to more detailed planning, may be available for appropriate recreational use. One such area will be the Mowbray River valley which contains a very beautiful piece of land adjacent to a World Heritage region. The land-owners, the Connollys, are currently entering into negotiations and discussions with the Wet Tropics Management Agency and may surrender two leases that they have of land to facilitate management planning in the region. There are two particular sections of the wet tropics area which warrant accelerated detailed planning, and I wish to mention those because they are both within my electorate. One is the Wangetti Coast. This particular section of the World Heritage region extends from the vicinity of Cairns up to Mossman. I travel this area very regularly as I go to the northern parts of my electorate at Port Douglas and Mossman. I can attest to the outstanding scenic value of that coastal road and am pleased that it has been recognised as being in need of more careful planning and attention. The long-term transportation routes through that World Heritage area and other needs can be considered, as well as such issues as the future of the Quaid road which connects a private tablelands subdivision development to the Wangetti Coast. The other very important area that is subject to accelerated planning is that section of the World Heritage area north of the Daintree River up to Cape Tribulation, which is one of the ecologically most important parts of the whole World Heritage area. It has also become the centrepiece of the very successful rainforest-based eco-tourism industry centred in Cairns. A management plan that takes into account and reconciles the important heritage values with the obvious tourist and community interests in the region will be implemented. I am glad that the Douglas Shire Council is also preparing a strategic plan and development control plan for this area that will recognise the pressure that the region is under. In fact, projections indicate there could be an eightfold increase in the number of day-trippers to the area that will increase numbers to 1.5 million a year. Clearly, we must find a means of controlling Legislative Assembly 2360 30 October 1991 that number of visitors and possibly limiting the numbers. We must look at how we will control development in the region. Some very important strategies will be put in place to control those visitors, and I am working closely with the Douglas Shire Council and the Wet Tropics Management Agency to ensure that we get the best possible result. Last month, the Wet tropics Ministerial Council announced the preparation of a draft tourism strategy for the whole wet tropics heritage area. This will be undertaken in close consultation with the tourist industry, local government and other interested organisations. It will be coordinated with the overall strategic plan due for completion in May 1992. I believe that the preparation of the Wet Tropics Strategic plan will reduce future conflicts arising from development proposals because there will be clear guidelines as to the type of development that is appropriate, and where it should and could occur. I will refer briefly to a development in my electorate that has been approved by the ministerial council, namely, the Wangetti Crocodile Farm, which has caused some concern to local residents. It is an example of conflict caused by a decision that was made before the plan was available and put in place; thus, while the crocodile farm is an environmentally sensitive location within the World Heritage area, the ministerial council felt bound by the previous conditional endorsements given by the Commonwealth Government in 1989. The land at Wangetti has subsequently been rezoned by the Douglas Shire Council to allow the crocodile farm to proceed. The Wet Tropics Management Authority will play a major role in determining that the conditions that have been imposed on the development are met. In conclusion, I mention the progress that has been made by the Wet Tropics Management Agency. I refer to advertisements for six additional positions that appeared in the press last weekend. The positions are for two additional managers—one for planning and one for community relations; a senior principal scientist; an information systems officer; a planning officer; and an Aboriginal liaison officer. Those initiatives demonstrate clearly the progress that is being made and the commitment of this Government to ensuring that appropriate management of the wet tropics area continues. I place on record my support for the director of the Wet Tropics Management Agency, Mr Peter Hitchcock, and his staff in Cairns. As the former deputy director-general for policy and wildlife in the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Mr Hitchcock came to Queensland with excellent qualifications, and there is no doubt that the Wet Tropics Management Agency is in good hands with Mr Hitchcock as its director. I look forward to continuing to work with him in Cairns on matters that affect the World Heritage area within my electorate. I support the Estimates presented by the Minister. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (5.18 p.m.): Mr Chairman—— Mr Elder interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Nundah! Mr KATTER: I pay a tribute to the member for Cunningham, Mr Elliott, who was the finest environment and Tourism Minister I have seen in this Parliament over a long period. I would venture to suggest that over the last 10 or 15 years he was the best Minister in both fields in Australia. Having said that, I ask people to reflect upon the intelligent comments and in-depth approach to the subject adopted by the Opposition spokesman, which is in sharp contrast to the modus operandi of a member of this Parliament who evokes from me a violent reaction that I seldom experience in relation to other people. I have this reaction not because of anything personal, but because of the pain and human misery that are in the minds and voices of people who have rung me on the telephone. Mr Hollis: How else would they ring you? Legislative Assembly 2361 30 October 1991

Mr KATTER: I am sorry, but I do not believe this is an occasion for humour. I wish to give the Committee some idea of the damage that is being done by the Minister and by people in Canberra who have similar attitudes. Let me take as an example the declaration of World Heritage areas. I do not like using my own figures in this place, so I will use the Prime Minister’s figures instead. He said that more than 800 jobs would be lost as a direct result of the World Heritage declaration. When the first declaration was made in relation to Fraser Island, 80 jobs were lost, and when the second declaration was made, another 70 jobs were lost, which is a total of 150. As a result of World Heritage listing of areas of north Queensland and Fraser Island, 900 jobs have gone up in smoke. Queensland runs approximately 11 million head of cattle—or as few as 8 million, depending upon the time and the situation—on 4 per cent of the State’s land, and I can safely say that 200 meat- workers and 100 cattlemen are now out of work as a result of the national parks take-over and the increases in national park areas for which the Honourable Minister is responsible. There were 400 jobs taken away when sand-mining at Shelburne Bay ceased. The job loss figures in both those fields are separate from the jobs lost on Fraser Island. I am one who believes strongly that Queensland should look carefully at a pump-storage power supply. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this so- called Environment Minister—who makes such a noise in this Parliament—cannot come forward with a constructive proposal with respect to the Tully/Millstream project that would make all the parties happy and get the project under way, instead of continuing with the constant non-decisions for which he is renowned. In any event, this Government freely and frankly admits that 1 000 jobs are involved in the construction of a power station such as the Tully/Millstream project. Although it can be argued that those jobs are temporary only, the point I make is that there are a great number of decisions in relation to projects that are pending as a result of the activities of the Minister for Environment and Heritage. It would be quite safe for me to assert that when I use the term “Tully/Millstream” it could apply to another dozen projects that are hanging out a sign reading “Nothing Happening” because people cannot get a decision from the non-decision Minister who sits opposite me. I can most certainly verify the loss of 400 jobs associated with the shooting, processing and tanning of kangaroos. The figures that I have cited are direct job losses, but it would be possible to apply the multiplier effect on the basis of three jobs in associated industries or services for each job to which I have referred, and I do not believe that any member of this Parliament would question my arithmetic. The total number of jobs lost would be 10 500, which means that 10 500 Queenslanders have been thrown out of work because of the actions and attitudes that are exemplified by the comments made by the Minister and some other Labor members of this Parliament. As some may care to adopt a cavalier and flippant attitude to the loss of 10 500 jobs, and as some may question the enormously angry reaction of people such as me, I feel it is important, for the information of this Committee, to read the contents of a suicide note that was left by a constituent of my electorate. I knew this young man personally. Unfortunately, I cannot mention his name. His death occurred some time ago, and the real cause cannot be pinned down. Regrettably, a number of suicides have occurred in my electorate. The suicide note that this person wrote to his parents states— “I have tried desperately to get a job. I got a job at the goldmine but the goldmine closed. I got a job at the meatworks, but the meatworks closed.” I make the point that much of the land that has been converted to national parks was used to graze cattle and was essential to keep the Charters Towers meatworks open. The suicide note states further— “I have tried. I know that I am a burden upon you. You are both on the pension. I know that I can’t stay as a burden. I have tried to live away from home, but the cost Legislative Assembly 2362 30 October 1991 of rent does not allow you really to stay alive, so I’ve come home again. I’ve tried again and again to get jobs, as you well know. I can’t bear to be a burden upon you both because I love you so much. Goodbye. Please pray for my soul.” One wonders why we come into this Chamber when we know that, without any scientific or intelligent approach 10 500 jobs have been flippantly thrown aside. I will not go over the same ground that I went over last night, but I cannot find on the record of this place a single intelligent statement which gives some sort of scientific basis for the return to wilderness of large areas of this State. For those honourable members who are not familiar with the ecology of the country that we have inherited, I point out that because of floods, droughts and fires, when Europeans arrived it was in a very advanced state of erosion. If one wants to render it back the way it was, then one can kiss goodbye a large segment of the sort of country that all of us like. I have 10 acres of land into which my children and I put a bit of time. On my small block of land we have planted 3 000 trees; we have saved 2 000 tonnes of overburden from flying away, and in one day last week I was able to count 23 bird species. Every single person can achieve that, but by rendering these areas back to the wilderness that God gave us, then all we are doing is rendering it into the advanced state of erosion where the ground is of no use to anyone on earth, and most certainly of no use to the native flora and fauna in this country. Most of the native flora and fauna—and this may come as a surprise to some honourable members opposite—require water. The number of kangaroos in the State of Queensland has multiplied again and again because of the proliferation of water. In the area that I represent, there was no surface water whatsoever when the white man came. One can read the history—and it is a very sad history—of the pioneers and the explorers who went through the area—the Burke and Wills party and the Leichhardt party to name just two. Both groups were wiped out to a man, as everyone knows. Because they were Englishmen and they assumed that there was water where there was not, many pioneers who came into area, died of thirst. They did not believe they would not find water even if they travelled 1 000 kilometres. In that area today flow some 7 000 kilometres of waterways. Massive numbers of wildlife have been created where there was simply no wildlife before. By rendering these areas back to what is supposedly called “national parks”, all we are doing is destroying the things that we inherited from our forebears. Members opposite, including the Minister who is making all the noise, and I used to call him a galah—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr KATTER: Sorry. I apologise. I will move on to say that the Minister and other honourable members opposite are skiting because their criteria for advancement is an increase in the amount of money spent on national parks and on the Department of Environment and Heritage. I took notes, and most of the speeches by Government members seemed to be about computer arrangements, talkfests, seminars, and study groups that are going to be wandering all over the countryside. It is a pity that some money was not spent on preserving the environment which, unfortunately, this State has placed in the hands of those sitting opposite. Mr Elder: We are just overawed by your twisted logic—that is what has got us. Mr KATTER: There is a list of speakers. My friend opposite has the opportunity to stand up in this Chamber and deny that the wildlife and flora of this country require water. The honourable member will have a chance to deny that, when an area is designated as a national park, the artificial watering points are removed because, by definition, that land is supposed to be a wilderness area. The honourable member has an opportunity to answer, and if he does I hope his answer has a scientific basis instead of the large amount of noise Legislative Assembly 2363 30 October 1991 and the very small amount of intelligence that is coming from him at present. I will move on. That $40m—— Mr Elder: When it comes to intelligence, they can make a judgment when they read your speech. Government members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Could we just all settle down a bit? Mr KATTER: I am pleased that the honourable member opened his mouth, because one of my close relatives who lives in his area was out demonstrating against a proposed road. Believe me, my family members are not demonstrators, yet she was out there. She said, “Bob, you do not know what these people are doing. They are tearing a corridor through an area which has two-thirds of the koala habitat in the State of Queensland. They promised us that they would remove”—— Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: Well may Government members laugh! All I can say is that the conservation people that I spoke to must be terrible liars. I would not know. I defer to the Minister’s statements—— Government members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There are too many interjections. I ask the member for Flinders to continue. Mr KATTER: One of the strongest platforms on which the Labor Party came into power in Queensland was its policy on the environment. It now forms the Government that is associated with the Rochedale dump, Gurulmundi, and the Esk radioactive dump. This is the Government whose very name epitomises all of the things in the field of the environment that we loathe, detest and hate. One of the things on which I have spent a large amount of my time in this place is the field of solar energy. I would like to think that my party did some very interesting initial work on it. The National Party Government had two very expensive assessments in the Torres Strait carried out by the world’s leading engineering firms. One report stated that it would be $5m more expensive to instal a diesel system to deliver power in the Torres Strait than it was to instal a solar energy system. The other report said it would be $8m more expensive. Yet this environmentally conscious Government proceeded to impose upon those islands the most primitive form of generating electricity left on this planet—diesel generation, which is dirty, smelly and noisy. To place those generators on some of the most beautiful places on earth seems to me to be nothing more than a desecration of paradise. That may be just my opinion. The last Labor administration in Brisbane removed all the electric trams and electric buses, and installed diesel buses. The Labor Government has a marvellous record in the field of the environment! All I can say to members opposite is that if any of them cares about the environment, for heaven’s sake, they should make some changes on their front bench. I can see some smiles of enthusiasm. If by some miracle those members survive, I am certain that there will be one change on the front bench, and that will involve the Minister now sitting opposite me. Let me move on and say: this person who is now holding this Ministry is going to introduce into this State an environmental protection agency. This will be a wonderful thing for us. It has been one of the many landmark legislative pieces of action we have seen from the Victorian Government. It clearly demonstrates why Victoria is in the state it is, and so clearly demonstrates what will happen to the State if this portfolio is left in the hands of the person whose hands it is in at the present moment. I do not wish to be—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Stephan): Order! Please do not make personal attacks. Please come back to the topic. Legislative Assembly 2364 30 October 1991

Mr KATTER: Mr Temporary Chairman, it behoves me to say nice things about people, and I think if you heard my speeches when some of the other Ministers have been speaking, you would know that I have pointed out to them that (a) they are doing a good job, and (b) if they could help in these areas, they would be doing a far greater job. However, when people ring up in terror—and I use the word “terror”—if through four generations people have stood up to the sorts of things these people have stood up to, and then they see someone come along and take it all from them, those people react with great fear. These figures were given to me by our shadow Minister, our very gifted spokesman: in 1972 ,when the Environmental Protection Agency was introduced in Victoria, $191,000 was spent on that agency. In 1991, $17m was spent on the Environmental Protection Agency. I wonder how many projects in Victoria were stopped by them? We have the Stradbroke Island project and the Noosa project at the present moment, to name two in this State. Time expired. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (5.33 p.m.): I rise to support the best Environment Minister in Australia today, and the most effective Environment Minister that we are likely to see in a very long time. He follows on from the most disastrous Environment Minister in the history of Australia, and probably of any country in the world. That was the National Party Minister who led the delegations to Brazil, to Belgium, to wherever—anywhere in the world—to fritter away the funds of the Queensland population on abortive trips around the world, instead of providing national parks and environmental protection for this State of Queensland. He was supported by the present member for Flinders in all his ridiculous perambulatings around the world making a fool of himself and the State of Queensland. Today we have, as I said, the best Environment Minister in Australia who is doing something about this State of Queensland—providing double—— Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. I have been accused of supporting the last Minister in the National Party Government. I did not. I supported the black people who lost half of their area at Yarrabah through the World Heritage area listing. Mr ARDILL: The present Minister has doubled the area of national park in Queensland from the disastrous 2 per cent that we suffered for very many years to—— Mr Katter: Why don’t you give them your backyard? Mr ARDILL: —to a much more realistic 4 per cent. The National Party would love to see—now it is no longer in Government—5 per cent of Queensland in national parks, or any percentage it likes to pluck out of the air. In fact, Minister Comben has done something about the disastrous situation which made us a laughing-stock in the civilised world. People all around the world laughed at the situation in Queensland prior to Pat Comben becoming Minister. I would like to talk specifically about the Moreton Bay Strategic Plan. On 17 May 1770, Lieutenant James Cook recorded that pale-coloured water in what he named Morton Bay indicated that “a river of size must flow into it”. Over 200 years later, the quality of water in Moreton Bay is one of the prime concerns of the Department of Environment and Heritage. But it is not soil discolouration which is the problem today; it is all the waste products of industry and civilisation. The Moreton Bay Strategic Plan, under consideration by this new and vital department, seeks to improve the quality of water entering the bay, in particular in relation to the treatment of waste water and the reduction of pollutants entering streams which empty into Moreton Bay. There are many of them—the Nerang River, the Coomera River, the Logan River, the Brisbane River, which is the major entry point for pollutants into Moreton Bay, and all the streams up through Pumicestone Passage and Deception Bay. Legislative Assembly 2365 30 October 1991

They all have an effect on water quality. Moreton Bay is one of Queensland’s and Australia’s greatest assets, both visually and economically. Servicing the bay employs 9 400 people directly, with a further 8 000 indirectly employed. It provides $542m in the economy of Queensland through various industries and services. The bay provides the first stage of the food chain which comes from the marine environment and which provides recreation facilities from fishing to watching marine animals. The investigations for the Moreton Bay Strategic Plan have identified biological habitats which range from lesser important through to very important, such as Pumicestone Passage, Deception Bay, Hayes Inlet, Nudgee wetlands, Waterloo Bay, the eastern banks and seagrass areas, to the entire southern bay beyond Peel Island. Further areas of outstanding importance are salt-water lagoons such as Coombabah Lake and Eprapah Creek estuary, and many of the islands including the brightest jewel of the Moreton region, Moreton Island. Despite millennia of human use and some recent misuse, it still retains its wilderness mantle. Within Moreton Bay are still to be found seven species of mangroves, despite 10 per cent of the mangrove and salt-marsh areas being destroyed by development in less than two decades of the National Party Government. Mangroves, which were treated with contempt from the time of European settlement, have now been clearly established as the commencement point of the marine and estuarine life-cycle, and as the best possible buffer against erosion. There are an amazing 25 000 hectares of seagrass beds in Moreton Bay which sustain an estimated population of 600 dugong and one species of turtle. The dugong herd is probably the largest in Australia. Unfortunately, they are subjected to considerable disturbance from industry, such as sand extraction and marine craft, as well as from recreational activities of humans. Dolphins also use Moreton Bay and have to be considered. I could not mention the fauna of Moreton Bay without reference to the prolific birdlife, both resident and migratory. Some 254 species of birds use Moreton Bay, including the Goulds petrel, the Arctic tern and the long-tailed Jaeger, according to information supplied by the Minister, who, we all know, is an expert on Australian birds. As fishing is the main attraction that brings many visitors to our bay, the extent of fishing and prawning has to be taken into account. Coral is also evident but is subject to pressure from pollution of land-based substances and the freshwater intrusion during periods of heavy run-off. Activities which disturb the floor of the bay, such as dredging the shipping channel and, more importantly, dredging for semifossilised coral used in the manufacture of cement, cause turbidity, resulting in damage to live coral. Those matters must be considered and ways found to protect live coral. The construction of a sand-loading jetty at Myora is also likely to create turbidity problems. If that is so, the construction agency should be required to carry out cleaning and restoration work. No marine park would be complete without the inclusion of Flinders Reef, which is one of Queensland’s prime diving locations on a coral reef which is so far south of the tropics. The department is recommending that the coral of Flinders Reef and the other rocky outcrops to the east of the great sand islands of Moreton and North and South Stradbroke, together with the magnificent ocean beaches of those islands, be included. Future generations will applaud their foresight. The Department of Environment and Heritage also recommends that considerable investigation be carried out before any further sand- dredging or mineral sand mining is attempted in Moreton Bay. Certainly, the shipping channels have to be kept open, and a new channel may need to be established past Comboyuro Point, but large-scale removal of sand may cause erosion on Sunshine Coast beaches similar to the effect of the Tweed retaining walls on southern Gold Coast beaches. The northerly drift has a two-edged cut-and-fill action which, in the northern areas of the bay, may need the use of that sand. Considerable investigation is needed. Legislative Assembly 2366 30 October 1991

One aspect of Moreton Bay that is probably not well known is the amount of research and education use which is made of the bay. Queensland University has a research station at Dunwich. Griffith University uses the bay extensively for environmental research. The CSIRO has facilities at Cleveland. The Department of Primary Industries has facilities at Bribie Island and Deception Bay. The Education Department has field study centres at Nudgee Beach and Jacobs Well, and the Department of Environment and Heritage has facilities at Lytton, St Helena, Moreton and Stradbroke Islands. However, it is as a residential or recreational area that most people know the bay. It is of great significance to the City of Brisbane and surrounding urban areas. It is Brisbane’s greatest visual asset, with only the beautiful dress circle of hills such as Toohey Forest, Mount Coot-tha, Mount Petrie, Whites Hill and the backdrop of the D’Aguilar Range to enhance it. As the population increases, Moreton Bay will be under pressure as a recreational area. Already, some of our local mountain areas are getting to the point of overuse, and increasing leisure-time will have a multiplier effect as the retired sector of our population has a much longer life-span than it did not very long ago. Not only are we living longer, we are retiring earlier, and also spending time between jobs, unemployed or underemployed. Low-cost recreation will be a very real need of the future. Wise use of recreational facilities is an important planning consideration. Boating and fishing on Moreton Bay is an option for tourists coming from polluted waters and polluted atmospheres in other countries and other cities. The challenge must be taken up in Queensland to protect and wisely manage what we have. The soil pollution in the bay noted by Captain Cook and, later, by Flinders and other navigators searching for Cook’s “river of size” is not the main cause of concern to us today, although it is a problem to coral growth and fisheries. We have a very serious problem with industrial pollution and the pollution from motor vehicles, both in the water and in the air. The Environment Division of the department tells me that a cloud of air pollution, mainly from motor vehicles but also from industry such as the ore refineries, shuttles up and down the air corridor over Brisbane, moves over the bay on spring nights and returns on the north-east breeze the next day. It travels up to 30 or 40 kilometres over the city and the bay. The same problem occurs in our waterways. Although Brisbane is totally sewered and human waste is rendered inert before the carrying medium—water—is discharged, chemical wastes are not so easily separated. In fact, tertiary treatment will have to be considered in the future, and I am pleased to see that expert opinion is now coming around to this view. It comes at a financial cost that must be balanced against the damage that is being done to the bay waters and the life-chain that they support. A positive improvement would be recycled water available solely in the river mouth industries. This would reduce Brisbane’s water consumption by 30 per cent. Of even greater concern is the run-off of pollutants into our creeks. Of greatest concern is not the amount wilfully placed in drains by industry but that which is flushed off our roads and concrete and pavements every day, particularly by rainfall. During heavy rainfall, erosion of soil into creeks and rivers is inevitable, but we have increased erosion because of bad land management and clearing of trees and ground cover. In the future, the effect of this on Moreton Bay must be considered. The Moreton Bay Strategic Plan will provide greater protection of foreshores. Development will be restricted to what is essential to the littoral environment and is compatible with it. Visual pollution must not be allowed to destroy the beauty of the magnificent asset, and residential development must be properly planned to reduce pollution of the waters, which has not been a consideration in the past. Island communities must be kept to a manageable size and canal estates discouraged where they have a detrimental effect. Moreton Island must continue to be managed as a wilderness area, and feral goats, pigs and cats eliminated. Better supervision of campers may assist in reducing fire, and heavy penalties should be exacted on anyone wilfully Legislative Assembly 2367 30 October 1991 lighting fires. Aboriginal heritage sites must be clearly identified and protected and sites of importance to European heritage also protected and displayed where appropriate. Tourists are attracted to these things as well as to the pristine beauty of the bay and islands. I believe that all of these things have been considered in the investigation and the discussions on the strategic plan. Considerable public input has been forthcoming. The strategic plan has 10 aims and objectives which are set out in the document that most members probably now have. I would like to congratulate the Minister and his departmental officers on the project and the way in which it has been carried out. The backbench members of this Chamber whose electorates are contiguous with Moreton Bay—John Szczerbanik, Darryl Briskey, Jim Elder, Ray Hollis, Ken Hayward and Jon Sullivan—deserve the thanks of all of us for the efforts that they also have put into the project which will be of great benefit to the one and a half million people of this region and to the State of Queensland. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (5.48 p.m.): This Labor Government has become a great patron of the resort industry. It has an addiction to taxpayer-funded holidays for large groups of Ministers and public servants to sit around and talk about policy. Without condoning that sort of self-indulgence, I suggest it is time for another exercise in navel-gazing. The Government has to work out what to do with the Minister for Environment and Heritage. More particularly, it has to figure out how to reconcile his policies with those that the Premier has been promoting lately. Only one of them represents the mainstream of Government thinking. Only one of them can be right, because they are poles apart in their publicly stated attitudes to development and jobs. We all know that the Premier’s most deep-seated convictions are firmly rooted in the popularity polls. He has an abiding belief that he must change policy positions—— Mr Beattie: And yours aren’t? Mr PERRETT: If we listened to the Sunday program, it is obvious that the honourable member’s are. The Premier has an abiding belief that he must change policy positions to match what the Labor Party’s expensive and extensive polling reveals. Lately, that has been telling him that the people want jobs, they want development and they want resource security. It has been telling the Premier that green madness has indeed become madness. Suddenly, this do-nothing, decide-nothing Premier says that he wants things to move. He does not want to do anything himself. Like all State Premiers on the skids, he wants Canberra to do it. He has found the Labor leaders’ litany, courtesy of Kirner, Bannon, Lawrence and Field. “It is all Canberra’s fault. Tax is too high. Interest rates are too high. There is no incentive. It is a disgrace that unemployment is so high. We need big projects. Canberra must do something.” The Premier is starting to learn a few home truths from his party’s polling. He has yet to absorb the biggest truth of all: nothing will happen to boost development and jobs while the greenies continue to run amok. Nothing will happen until Mr Goss has the courage to bring his “Minister for disincentive” under control. He has a problem there because the Minister sincerely believes in everything he does. He is that most rare of all animals in the Australian Labor Party—the true believer. He really does believe that every tree, every blade of grass, every bird or native animal is more important than human beings. He is the ultimate preservationist. He would see us all naked and shivering in the dark in a muesli mine before he would cut down a tree. For the sake of Queensland, the ALP must resolve the differences. It must decide between the Premier’s deep belief in the polls and the Minister’s determination to preserve everything at any cost. If it takes a publicly funded weekend away, then so be it. For goodness’ sake, do it fast and, in the interest of Queensland, resolve it in favour of development. Legislative Assembly 2368 30 October 1991

Mr Comben: If there is any conflict between the Premier and me, I can assure you which one will win. Mr Beattie: And it won’t be the Minister. Mr PERRETT: Obviously the greenies are winning in Queensland; there is no doubt about that. That is why the unemployment queues are getting longer and longer by the day. Mr Schwarten interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Stephan): Order! The honourable member will not interject from other than his correct seat. Mr PERRETT: For goodness’ sake, in the interest of Queensland, decisions have to be made. The matter should be resolved in favour of development. The Government should resolve it in favour of jobs and in favour of making Queensland once again the development State, the State in which people can work hard and be rewarded with a good living. For almost two years now, we have had absolute stagnation, and much of that can be sheeted home to the antics of the Minister for Environment and Heritage. It was he who slapped preservation orders on a huge list of buildings. It was he who threatened million-dollar fines on anyone who tried to realise the value of an asset. People are going broke sitting on expensive real estate to satisfy the whim of a man who wants public acclaim at the expense of someone else’s asset and income. Who in his right mind would invest in anything more than a few years old and risk having everything tied up for the benefit of a few? Not many people! That is why so little is happening. The same thing applies to development on the green field sites. Nothing is happening at all because so many obstacles are placed in the way of development. Those obstacles are a direct result of deliberate Government policy. Look at the Noosa north shore proposal. That had the support of the local authority. It was a good project that would have provided employment for a long time to come. The Premier dragged half the media up there for some pretty pictures in the right light while he knocked all those jobs on the head. Because of the way in which those pictures were shot, one could be excused for thinking that the Premier was saving the most precious spot on earth. Observation of that spot in full daylight shows an entirely different picture of an area that is best put to productive use. Of course, in those days, the polls were telling the Premier that green was No. 1. But in those days, the awful reality of our economic situation was only just starting to sink in. Would the Premier make the very same decision again on today’s polls? I think not. The greenies in this Government have managed to stop many more projects along the coast. Developers when faced with the prospect of waiting years for, and spending millions of dollars on, environmental impact studies have simply decided that it is not worth the hassle. They have walked away, and spent their money elsewhere. I am not talking only about the big-ticket, billion-dollar projects that this Government has let slip through its fingers. Hundreds and hundreds of smaller developments have been lost because there is just too much hassle. There is even a new word in Australia’s political dictionary to describe the sort of thing that the Minister has been getting away with. People are calling it green tape, and it is choking the life out of Queensland. The situation is getting so serious that even the ACTU has started calling on the Canberra cousins to start slashing it away. Mr Katter: There might be a bit of a change over there shortly. Mr PERRETT: It takes a long time for the message to get through to Queensland, does it not? The ACTU is right this time. It is time to get a few things moving again. If the green tape comes off, that will happen. But if it stays, we will sink further into the mire. If this Minister for Environment and Heritage continues to have his way, that green tape will continue to build up even faster than it did before. I ask members of this Committee to Legislative Assembly 2369 30 October 1991 consider the proposals on nature conservation that the Minister has published. Those proposals will soon be coming into this Chamber, where the Minister proposes to bludgeon them through into law. It is appropriate to consider some of those proposals while there is still time for the Minister’s colleagues to force some rational thought to be applied to this matter. If the Minister is allowed to get away with it, he will soon have an army of professional greenies wandering around the State looking for spots that they can grab for preservation purposes. I quite deliberately say “preservation” rather than “conservation”. This crowd has left conservation well behind. Only total preservation will do. They will wander around, pick their spots, and kick-start the nightmare for the unfortunate person who owns the land. He will have to prepare a preservation plan at his own expense. He will then have to lodge that with the Minister’s department, which might also require an environmental impact statement, which will also be prepared at the owner’s expense. If his plan is approved, it will be gazetted. The land-owner will have to follow it to the letter. Heaven help him if he does not, because he will then fall into the hands of the green police, who might even arrest him. If he does follow the plan—his own, or one imposed upon him—he will likely go broke anyway, because he will be denied the full economic potential of his investment in the land. There will be parts of his property that he cannot use for stock-raising or agriculture. However, he will still have to devote manpower to that useless land, because the department will require that it be managed to national parks standards. He will also be forced to spend money, but will be denied a return on that money. To anybody who doubts what I am saying, I point out that the nature conservation paper that is circulating at present certainly contains many horrific things for the land-holders of Queensland. It will certainly force agriculture to do things hard in the future. For the life of me, I cannot see how that makes sense at any time, let alone now. The Minister is seeking to tie up good productive land all over the State. He will take out of production land that is vitally needed for the survival of the State’s economy. We cannot go around imposing falls in productivity at a time when the nation needs productivity more than anything else. We cannot go around ensuring that food and fibre production will fall, along with returns to the people involved in that production. Instead, we should be looking at ways to boost production levels and incomes, not just for the sake of people who are directly involved but also for the sake of the rest of the State. A great part of our economy depends indirectly on primary production, which must also be looked after. The ALP is in office in Canberra and in George Street. Right now, it has the direct responsibility for finding the proper balance between legitimate conservation of our natural resources and sustainable economic development. Until it works out the policy contradictions, there is no hope of that, and no hope of survival for Labor. It will become the most endangered species of all. Let us hope that it can find a suitable resort. Before I conclude my remarks, I make mention of the use of agricultural chemicals in primary industry. As one vitally interested in primary production, I know full well how all farmers and primary producers in this State have a vested interest in producing chemical-free produce. We do not like using chemicals. We know that they are dangerous and expensive. Therefore, we must consider ways and means of developing new varieties that are pest resistant. I applaud the tremendous work done by the CSIRO in relation to the development of biological pest control and the development of new crop varieties that are disease free and virtually pest free. Shortly, the National Party’s environmental spokesman, Mr Elliott, and his sidekick, the member for Carnarvon, Lawrence Springborg, are going to Canberra to talk with the CSIRO in an endeavour to encourage it to develop new varieties that will be of benefit not only to Queensland farmers and producers but to all Queenslanders. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Legislative Assembly 2370 30 October 1991

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (7.30 p.m.): I rise to address the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Heritage. In the process, I will take the opportunity to discuss a couple of issues about the operations of the department that have been contentious in my electorate. Firstly, I would like to say that I am enormously proud of the achievements of the Goss Government, and particularly of the Minister, in bringing about urgently needed reforms to preserve and protect Queensland’s natural and built environment. It has already been mentioned that this year’s budget for the department has seen a 24 per cent increase on last year’s budget and a doubling of the last budget of the former National Party Government. It is a great achievement that, in just two Budgets, the Labor Government was able to increase funding for the environment by such a dramatic amount. That is a clear statement of the commitment of the Government to Queensland’s environment—a commitment which, unfortunately, is not shared by either the National or the Liberal Parties. It is ironic that the member for Sherwood should stand in this place and tell members all the aspects of Liberal Party policy that the Labor Party has implemented since it came to Government. It is ironic because, when the Liberal Party was in coalition, it had the opportunity to implement as many policies as it liked, but it did not; the Liberal Party supported the National Party Government when it was responsible for environment pillage in this State. It is the height of audacity for that member to try to claim any of the credit for the achievements of the Minister and the Government in its first two years in office. This year’s Budget sees the allocation of another $11.5m for the acquisition of new national parks—an increase of 15 per cent. I wish to dwell on that matter for a few minutes because, undoubtedly, it is of interest to a significant cross-section of my electorate. Much has been made by the Opposition of the money that the Government has spent on acquiring land for new national parks. As the Minister said earlier, I find it the ultimate irony that the Government can be criticised for the process that it has undertaken of doubling the national park estate. In answer to an interjection during his speech, the Minister said that, prior to the election in 1989, the Labor Party pledged that it would double the national park estate from 2 per cent to 4 per cent. Labor Party members were probably as surprised as the rest of Queensland when the National Party upped the ante from 4 per cent to 5 per cent. It is hypocrisy for members of the National Party to stand in this place and criticise the Government for pursuing that objective when they themselves, ostensibly at least, would have gone even further. Much debate is going on among graziers about two specific park proposals that affect my electorate, those being Undarra and Riversleigh. Significant sections of the Undarra lava tubes proposed national park are in the Cook electorate. Although Riversleigh station itself is not in my electorate, it will be part of an expanded national park in that area incorporating the Lawn Hill national park, which at this stage is in my electorate. Whilst I respect the concerns of property-owners about negotiations that have been taking place over the purchase of all or part of their properties for inclusion in those national parks, it is important for members to understand that no-one to whom I have spoken has opposed the declarations of those parks per se. Indeed, it is clear to all—with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition, and I must include here the member for Cunningham—that the Undarra lava tubes and the Riversleigh fossil fields are not only of Queensland and national interest but also of international interest and importance. Mr Elliott: I agree with you as far as the Undarra lava tubes are concerned. It is obviously of significance. I am suggesting that you have another look at Riversleigh. Mr Comben: You would be aware of the letter that I produced yesterday from the Honourable Geoff Muntz. Legislative Assembly 2371 30 October 1991

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the Minister. I also thank the member for Cunningham for his interjection because I want to take up that very issue. I mention firstly a foreword to a book written by Michael Archer, Susan Hand and Hank Godthelp, published recently by Reed Books and about to be released. The foreword is written by Sir David Attenborough. He states— “Only in one or two places on the surface of our planet, in the course of the last three thousand million years, have conditions been just right to preserve anything like a representative sample of the species living at any particular time. Those places are the rare treasure houses of palaeontology. Riversleigh is one of them.” Further, I have the letter to which the Minister referred. It is interesting to note that the letter was written by a previous Environment Minister, Geoff Muntz. The letter is dated 19 April 1988 and states— “It is correct that the ‘Riversleigh’ fossil field is of major national and international significance and a proposal for its protection as a reserve for scientific purposes is presently under consideration by the Queensland Government.” Further on in the letter, he states— “. . . there are over 25 species of fossil bats at ‘Riversleigh’. . . and are possibly the most spectacular in the world.” Those are the words of a former Environment Minister. For the further edification of the member for Cunningham, I point out that the book to which I referred contains 10 good reasons why Riversleigh is significant. I seek leave to table those 10 good reasons. The member might like to read them. Leave granted. Mr Pearce: You are like the Minister for Administrative Services. Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, that was another good stunt, but I would not aspire to those lofty heights. In the past, the economy of the gulf was largely reliant on mining, grazing and fishing. Historically, those industries opened up and sustained development in the region. However, recent low commodity prices have demonstrated how fickle those industries can be when, irrespective of our highly efficient domestic industries, we are at the mercy of international influences. Within that framework, the developing tourism industry has emerged as an important prospect for diversifying the economic base of the gulf. World-class national parks such as those that will evolve at Undarra and Riversleigh will play a critical role in the development of tourism throughout Queensland and Australia and will be vital to the regional economy. The negotiations over acquiring land for those parks have been lengthy and at times difficult. I have not walked away from that fact and, to his credit, neither has the Minister, who has travelled to remote parts of the State to meet personally with graziers and industry representatives to discuss their concerns. I will not demean this place by stooping to respond to the untruths that have been uttered repeatedly over the past 24 hours in this Chamber. Not only are those untruths offensive to the Minister and others involved but also they represent an unprecedented and unprincipled attack on the office of the Governor of Queensland. Suffice to say that I first encountered these myths on a visit to Burketown with the Deputy Premier on 4 April 1991. Whilst I clarified misconceptions at that time in Burketown, the fact that they have now re-emerged seven months after that occasion and more than 12 months after the fact indicates that they are nothing more than a beat-up. One of the genuine issues that has been raised particularly in relation to the Undarra national park is the need to involve the community in the forthcoming management plan for the park. I ask the Minister and his department to provide opportunities for such Legislative Assembly 2372 30 October 1991 participation. Another contentious issue in my electorate involves the management of national parks. Once again, I recognise that this is a heartfelt concern for many people. However, I believe that some people are fixated with the erroneous belief that national parks are the sole repositories and breeding grounds of feral animals and noxious weeds. Mr Comben: I give you that assurance, that local land-holders will be involved in the board of management of Undarra, and also you may be interested to hear today that the arrangements with Mr Collins over the Undarra 75-year lease are just being finalised. Mr BREDHAUER: I appreciate that information from the Minister. Mr Comben: A big difference from six months ago when we were being told by members opposite that this would never be national park. Mr BREDHAUER: I appreciate that information, and it is significant. I will be talking to the people in the area about it. The Budget has allocated $771,000 for the good neighbour policy, $2m for the specific management of new national parks and $300,000 in increased funding for preparing management plans for national parks. I could not leave my discussion of the acquisition and management of national parks without discussing the importance of establishing sound processes for consultation and negotiation with Aboriginal and Islander people over the declaration of parks, particularly on the Cape York Peninsula. Under the National Party Government, neither national parks officers nor Aboriginal people were accustomed to negotiating with each other over parks, and when the Labor Party came to Government an important and delicate task was undertaken. I recognise the efforts of both parties for their commitment to forging this relationship. The process is not always plain sailing, but progress has been made. The Budget allocates $248,000 to allow for the hiring of an additional eight Aboriginal officers Statewide. I commend the Minister and his department, and I urge them to continue their efforts in this regard. This will be critical to the success of the implementation of the Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act in conjunction with the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and the Department of Land Management. Because I represent an electorate which contains some of the world’s rarest and most beautiful birds, I welcome the announcement by the Minister last week that $160,000 would be made available for the Government and World Wide Fund for Nature project for research into the golden-shouldered parrot. The Budget also allocates significant funds for capital works in national parks in the Cook electorate, and I wish to mention some of these specifically. The capital works expenditure includes $40,000 for road subsidies in the Cook shire; $145,000 for Undarra base equipment; $40,000 for an electricity supply at Yarramulla; $69,000 for a residence at Iron Range; and substantial amounts of money for fencing at Lakefield, Bulleringa—the new national park announced by Sir David Attenborough not so long ago—Chillagoe and the 40 Mile Scrub. Those are significant items of expenditure in the Cook electorate and, in addition, an amount of approximately $200,000 will be spent in the Lawn Hill national park which, as I have already mentioned, is presently in the Cook electorate, but which will be in the electorate of Mount Isa after the redistribution. Mr Comben: And the Lawn Hill park would of course be extended by 10 times its present size. Mr BREDHAUER: That is right. Basically, in the past, the National Party declared national parks because of significant physical features, whereas this Government is looking at biodiversity in its national park declarations, which is why that extension is significant. I wish to briefly mention some of the other arguments mentioned by members opposite. I am always amused by the hoary old chestnut trotted out by the member for Cunningham and others about the control of World Heritage areas being handed over to Brazil. The only person who was handed over to Brazil in the last few years was Geoff Legislative Assembly 2373 30 October 1991

Muntz when he went on a trip over there at taxpayers’ expense to swan around the five-star hotels of Brazil and Paris, trying to talk people into the nonsensical position taken by the Queensland Government at that time. In fact, control of World Heritage areas never even looks like leaving the hands of Australians and Queenslanders. If people really want an effective example of that, all they need to do is look at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I was a little bemused once again by the member for Sherwood, who talked about the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area by the department. In fact, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has a lot of responsibility for that. I am not sure whether there are any Brazilians on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I suspect there are not, but I know that there are a significant number of Federal and State representatives on the authority. I know that the Wet Tropics Management Agency which has been established—and which I am confident will be successful—does not contain any Brazilians. The member for Sherwood would have us believe that the advisory committees that are to be established are not worth while. I beg to differ with him because in far-north Queensland in particular people are very appreciative of the opportunities provided by a community advisory committee. Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. I did not mention community advisory committees. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Order! There is no point of order. Mr BREDHAUER: In addition, the member for Sherwood made an erroneous statement about the lease over occupational licence No. 573 that has recently been granted to George Quaid. If the honourable member had done a bit of research he would know that the lease was offered and accepted in 1980. The conditions of the lease have been complied with and, according to advice that we have sought from Crown law, the Government had no option but to grant the lease. I could not reply to most of the remarks made by the member for Flinders. He made reference to the Government foisting the most primitive form of electricity generation on the Torres Strait Islands. I assure him that Torres Strait Islanders are pleased to be rid of primitive forms of government and primitive Ministers whom they have now expunged. I was disappointed with the speech by the honourable member for Barambah. I cannot point to anything in particular, but his speech appeared to me to be something of a Long John Silver impersonation. He did not get it quite right, because he had a patch over both eyes and a galah instead of a parrot on his shoulder. I wish to conclude by commending the Minister and his staff on the presentation of these Estimates. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (7.46 p.m.): In joining the debate on the Environment and Heritage Estimates, let me say that never before in the history of this planet has mankind had the ability to have so much impact on the environment. As our future needs for food, fibre and shelter are determined, management of our resources will become more critical, especially with the growth in population. In an era when many people around the world are having difficulty obtaining sufficient food to sustain themselves, quality of life is jealously nurtured in Australia. In many cases, the plight of people in other countries stems from the need to produce enough of the basic necessities of life, owing to shortages that have come about by poor management of resources—a lesson that Australians must take into consideration. Unfortunately, because of Australia’s wide variation of climatic conditions and an economy that is very dependent on natural resources, in the past we have virtually mined those resources to maintain a life-style that we have not been prepared to work to achieve. Legislative Assembly 2374 30 October 1991

City-based conservationists, who are often sponsored by the taxpayers’ purse, have been very successful in attracting media attention. Many of the claims made by conservation movements have validity. Undoubtedly, many decisions have been made in the past which, in hindsight, could have been better addressed. However, it is management—that is, the balance between expectation and reality—that Queenslanders will have to come to terms with in the future. In the final analysis, the major considerations must be sustainability and the consequences of progress, for without progress, Queensland would stagnate. In the equation, every measure that is adopted has an impact somewhere on the environment. Striking a balance between the values we have and our ability to at least maintain an acceptable quality of life is the challenge for all Governments. This Government is well on track with its promised 4 per cent of Queensland becoming national parkland within a three-year term. The growth of this area of national parks has necessitated an increase in expenditure of up to $8.2m, which represents a 14 per cent increase this year—much of which was due to complaints by land-holders whose properties are adjacent to national park areas. The additional areas acquired no longer have the full surveillance of the former property-holders. Next year, the sum of $11.5m will be flagged for acquisitions, and a further increase will be required to meet management cost expenditure. Problems associated with the control of noxious weeds and feral animals will need close attention. Many of the national parks will harbour pests if they are not monitored closely. The pests could become a problem for surrounding land-holders if they are not adequately controlled. For example, pigs, feral cats and wallabies that sometimes inhabit these park areas could become a major problem if they are not kept in check. Fires will continue to be a major concern in national parks areas. The dry season that we are now experiencing necessitates a sound knowledge of fire and fuel management. It is quite apparent that a great deal can be learnt by national parks officers who will be carrying out controlled burning. The fiasco that occurred on Cape York, where many animals and birds were killed, must not be repeated. Forestry personnel have a good understanding of the appropriate time to conduct controlled burning. Perhaps a liaison network should be set up to take advantage of the skills acquired by forestry personnel who have conducted controlled burning programs in forest areas. Resumption of land for national park areas should be confined specifically to particular values and should not absorb useful agricultural land. The Undarra lava tubes could have been restricted to a much smaller area than was negotiated. If valuable agricultural land that has no prime environmental value is taken up, this will reduce the State’s ability to earn much-needed income. Primary Industries officers have indicated that the acquisition was lavish. In the event of drought, fodder that could be of value to starving stock should at least be harvested for drought-stricken animals if, by doing so, the values of a national park area are not impaired. Mr Comben: You mean the harvesting of grass in national parks? Mr ROWELL: If it does not impair the values of national parks. I do not think that that is an unreasonable suggestion. It will be a challenge to combine the tourism potential in national parks with sustainable management. With the natural attributes of the Hinchinbrook electorate, the potential for recreational activities is enormous. White-water rafting on the Tully River is carried out on nearly every day of the year and attracts thousands of people. The east coast walking tracks on Hinchinbrook Island have been acclaimed by Europeans as one of the best walking tracks in the world. Thousands of people walk along that track each year. The beauty of the area is very much appreciated by them. Legislative Assembly 2375 30 October 1991

As a consequence of World Heritage listing, Ingham and Tully lost a substantial proportion of their timber industries. Minimal compensation was paid to the communities and, as yet, nothing has been given to them to offset the major effects of the loss of the timber industry. Mr Schwarten: The money was paid over, though, wasn’t it? Mr ROWELL: Peanuts! The Wallaman Falls road and the Kirrama Range road have not received sufficient funding to keep them in a trafficable condition. During one period this year, access to Wallaman Falls was not achievable for four months. The funding allocated for these roads falls far short of the election promises. The Ingham community made representations to the Wet Tropics Management Authority in August to organise activities in the Wallaman Falls area. The basic concept is to provide walking tracks through various types of forest, thereby offering tourists a wonderful experience in a unique part of Australia. I am sure that the Minister appreciates what I am talking about. The diversity of bird life is enormous, with over 350 species inhabiting the various forest species. Although the Wallaman Falls are the longest single-drop falls in Australia, there are many other falls in the region with different characteristics. Garrawalt, Sword Creek, Blencoe and Yamine are but a few magnificent waterfalls that run the year round and have the potential for a low-impact form of tourism. The concept provides for accommodation that blends in with the environment, such as log-cabin-type units, with consideration to be given to a mix of affordable family units and backpacker-style accommodation. Hopefully, the Wet Tropics Management Authority and other relevant Government agencies will give approval in principle to the proposal, as it has the potential to provide not only major economic benefits for the Ingham district but also an excellent opportunity for people to view a diversity of nature in the tropics. It is proposed that once the necessary approvals are received, planning in consultation with the various authorities will commence to determine the nature and location of the development. This strongly backed community project is waiting to hear from the management authority to enable the process to continue. I would also like to mention the SAP program, which helps out displaced timber workers who have been working in the region for some 18 months or so. Unfortunately, this program could finish in June 1992. This initiative has employed approximately 10 workers in Ingham and many others in the northern centres that were affected by job losses due to the World Heritage listing. Tree planting of many rainforest species has been extremely successful. I would like to commend that project to the Minister. I turn now to waste management. The National Party has taken a serious view on waste management and has transferred that responsibility over to the Environment portfolio. This responsibility includes all aspects of waste management, except in emergency situations. In recent times, there have been major increases in the generation of a wide variety of waste products. It will be a major challenge for any Government to implement measures that will reduce and stabilise material that in the past has been disposed in an untreated state. It is somewhat surprising that this Government, which purports to be environmentally conscious, should now be considering landfill operations. The designs of those land operations have failed in other countries around the world. Both the Rochedale and Gurulmundi dumps have caused considerable controversy with their landfill operation with groundwater contamination—— Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr ROWELL: Well, I am telling the honourable member—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Order! If the member for Rockhampton North is going to interject, he should do so from his proper seat. Legislative Assembly 2376 30 October 1991

Mr ROWELL: Ground water is one of the world’s greatest assets. Should the Great Artesian Basin be polluted by the toxic-waste dump to be sited at Gurulmundi, much of inland Queensland would have to be abandoned. Over 20 towns depend on it—— Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. This speech is tedious and repetitious. I have heard it three times before and I ask that you, Mr Temporary Chairman, pull the honourable member with a short rope. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr ROWELL: The proposed site was flooded in 1932, 1942, 1954, 1970 and 1984. Although members of the Labor Party claim to be environmental visionaries, they have disappointed the community in both areas, and probably the electorate generally. The reduction from $150,000 to $120,000 for local authority recycling programs is surprising, as councils have the major responsibility of disposing of domestic waste. There are a few other things that I would like the Minister to sort out for me. The grants to organised recycling programs have been increased from $142,000 to $911,000. The Cardwell Shire Council, which has a large proportion of its shire under World Heritage listing, national parks and forestry, has difficulty in obtaining sites for the disposal of garbage. Previous efforts of recycling have proved to be too costly for the council to continue with them. The cost of transport and establishing outlets for small operations have made the recycling operation non-viable. Locating landfill operations in the wet tropics has significant problems during the wet period of the year. Of course, the contamination of the water table is of concern, and every endeavour is being made to reduce the effect to an absolute minimum. The technology that is now becoming available has the potential of stabilising waste to an acceptable form. I could go on and name many, such as plasma-arc bioremedial technology. I turn now to development. As 4 per cent of the State will be designated as national parks, that should have value not only for conservation, but it should be considered in conjunction with development. An area that has been designated because of its environmental value should not necessarily be locked up. Under the auspices of the Department of Environment and Heritage, the Wet Tropics Management Authority, or whatever body at the time may be administering these sensitive areas, development should be considered, provided that sensible proposals are put forward. In fact, in certain circumstances it might be better for some developments to be located in national parks rather than on the peripheral areas so that the appropriate bodies would be able to determine construction and management activities. Many countries around the world have development within their national parks without detracting from the value of those national parks. Projects such as the Tully/Millstream hydroelectricity scheme should be judged on their merits and not be condemned by misinformation from radical groups that are prepared to stop at nothing to impede development within conservation areas. Thirty-five years ago, the Koombooloomba Dam was constructed, but that did not affect the World Heritage listing of the area. Time expired. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (8 p.m.): In speaking tonight on the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Heritage, I want to draw attention to how the Estimates are able to restrict and restrain the damages of past National Party decisions in relation to the electorate of Whitsunday. In the years up to the election of the Labor Government, the tendency, at least in the northern part of my electorate, was to applaud, accept, and indeed grab, every proposal for tourist expansion and development that was suggested, irrespective of its suitability, quality and viability. It has been suggested that the need to draw some benefit from far-north Queensland’s flourishing tourist industry overtook any serious attempt at planning of any description, and that the previous National Party Legislative Assembly 2377 30 October 1991 member, Geoff Muntz, was totally obsessed with rubbing elbows with, and wooing, the high-flying white- shoe brigade, of which he considered himself an equal. Being of a charitable nature, I prefer to believe that the early investors in Airlie Beach were not trying to rip the place off, as has been suggested; they simply saw the beautiful environment, experienced the climate, and wanted to share it with others. They treated the natural environment indeed as a free commodity. Uncontrolled economic development was taking place at the expense of a finite natural environment. Part of the fault was that of the local authority and its lack of vision in relation to quality of construction and protection of the environment. Buildings were constructed in a disjointed plan, sometimes too close to the water’s edge. There was lack of planning for sewerage, drainage, roadways and dumps. The Proserpine Shire took little responsibility for quality construction and environmental damage. Last week, I heard a tourism leader within the Airlie Beach area refer to that time as “the time we almost sold the family silver”. In the last two years, though, attitudinal changes have taken place. Only last week, the Chairman of the now Whitsunday Shire, Glen Patullo, who was one of the outspoken local authority chairmen against World Heritage listing of the rainforests of north Queensland, requested of this State Minister that we seek World Heritage listing for the islands of the Whitsunday. He was somewhat disappointed to find out from the Minister that for some time the islands have been part of World Heritage listing. However, the intention was there. During the 1989 election campaign, the ALP gave a commitment to the people of Whitsunday that a coastal management strategy would be implemented and, as members well know, we have fulfilled this promise. We have also kept our commitment to expand national parks. Honourable members would remember the historical 1990-91 Budget in which we allocated $79.3m to the department, a 58 per cent increase on the previous year. This included, of course, $10m for national park expansion. The Minister has outlined the very substantial Budget allocations for this year. I congratulate the Minister, and ask that members recognise the substantial growth in the Budget allocation. Those honourable members who were involved in campaigning for the World Heritage listing of the tropical rainforests found benefit in comparing all the elements of negotiation or lack of negotiation between the then Minister Geoff Muntz and the old National Party Government, and the Federal Government and the World Heritage Listing Committee. That can be compared with the consultation and efficient negotiations of this Government during the Fraser Island issue. Can honourable members forget the appalling performances, and quotes to the effect that the members of the committee were “a bunch of communists”, and that Dr Aila Keto was “a political extension of the Federal Government Minister, Graham Richardson”? And what about “the drink at the bar” offered to one of the guests who, it was suspected, was a Moslem leader? Honourable members would remember the squandering of close to half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on full-page advertisements and on biased reports, and then, of course, the five-star travel costs for relatives, advisers and journalists to hound the members of the listing committee in Paris, and again in Rio. Members of the Opposition then have the hypocritical gall to stand up in this place and misrepresent the facts against this Minister, with not one ounce of truth. Mr Schwarten: Whatever became of him? Mrs BIRD: He has had a long, well-earned rest. Australia’s record for losing its native species is hard to beat, with half the mammals that have become extinct worldwide in recent years being our own. Queensland has been no exception. During the last year, an important scientific project was completed to draft stage. This focused on a review of the needs of the conservation reserve system, and the conservation of rare or threatened species of fauna and flora. A total of 16 species of rare and endangered plants have been identified within the Whitsunday Islands and adjacent mainland. Of these, only two are Legislative Assembly 2378 30 October 1991 listed as “vulnerable” and none as “endangered”. The vulnerable species are from the Mount Dryander area and from Conway. As well as these, there have been recorded losses from South Molle Island, and there is one plant that is poorly known and could prove to be threatened. The name of that plant is grewia australis. Mr Comben: Well done! Mrs BIRD: I thank the Minister. The other species are listed in Rare and Threatened Plants of Queensland as being either category 2 or category 3. Category 3 includes species with a range greater than 100 kilometres but occurring in small populations which are mainly restricted to highly specific habitats. Another five of the species listed are known to occur on the islands. The remainder are from the Dryander and Conway areas. Both these areas have a relatively high number of rare and threatened species and should be considered important for this reason. Most are rainforest plants. The relatively low numbers on the islands probably reflect past collecting methods where collectors have not usually penetrated far from the boat on which they came. Intensive surveys on Whitsunday Island and Hook Island, particularly in the rainforest areas, would be likely to turn up many of the mainland plants. Other areas of possible interest would be the rainforests and scrubs on Armit Island and the heaths on Shaw Island. I will refer to the various threats to the Whitsundays. Firstly, there is recreational use. The island habitats which receive most use are the beaches and the area behind the beaches. In several years of field work in the area, no rare or threatened species were encountered in those habitats, which tend to feature a fairly small group of species which have a wide distribution throughout the Pacific. No species are likely to be threatened by recreational use of national parks. The second threat relates to the changing fire regimes. The department is actively trying to counter that by means of a controlled burning program which seeks to maintain the vegetation patterns present 40 years ago. The third threat comes from feral animals. It is likely that the heavy infestations of goats on some islands could have had an effect on some plants. Any such effect has doubtless occurred by now. An example is the lack of golden orchids growing on rocks on islands with goats, while they are abundant on other islands without goats. Again, the department is doing all possible to remove the goats, and they are now gone from several of the islands. Those are the reasons why the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service Cumberland management area has its share of rare and threatened vertebrates. Members will be fascinated to know of two frogs in the Cumberland region that have baffled the department for many years—frogs that are listed in the endangered category. Mr Comben: What were their names? Mrs BIRD: I am coming to that. There have been only two reports in the world of frogs using body language to communicate. One is the Australian Eungella torrent frog. The torrent frog is only recorded at Eungella and in the Finch Hatton Gorge west of Mackay, and that limited range places the frog at risk. The other frog from the Eungella region was discovered in 1984 and is simply referred to as a species of the gastric brooding frog. Keith MacDonald, from Townsville, has been studying this frog for 20 years and has become concerned about its disappearance. This dull brown frog, which is golden on the underside of its legs and lower abdomen, broods its young in its stomach and gives birth through its mouth. Scientists from many parts of the world have tried unsuccessfully to rediscover the frog in the gorge, but so far the frog appears to have temporarily disappeared. The Proserpine rock wallaby was only discovered in 1976 and was first named in the scientific literature in 1982. Mr Littleproud: Fair dinkum! Legislative Assembly 2379 30 October 1991

Mrs BIRD: It is stimulating. Very little is known of its biology, status and distribution. When the species was first described, the author of a study into the wallaby, Gerry Maynes, expressed amazement that a species of kangaroo could be discovered in Australia in the 1970s. He said that it was “remarkable that such a large species of mammal could remain unknown to science until now, especially as the Proserpine district is not a remote unsettled region”. Indeed, local people and members of the Proserpine branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland were aware of the large wallaby, but no scientific description had ever been made. The greatest threat to the survival of the Proserpine rock wallaby appears to be another species of rock wallaby, the unadorned rock wallaby. Rarely does more than one species of rock wallaby occupy the same habitat, and the Proserpine rock wallaby is surrounded by the successful and adaptable unadorned rock wallaby. The Queensland Division of Environment has established a Proserpine rock wallaby captive colony to study its reproductive biology. Calamitous events, hunting, illegal clearing and disease are possible threats to the species. The species is endangered, very rare and isolated, and its only habitat is in close proximity to the Laguna Keys development of Aqua del Rey. I would like to dwell on the island of St Bees, which has probably one of Queensland’s best kept secrets. It is that of the very healthy koala strain that lives on the island. The koalas were brought to the island by the Busuttin family in the 1920s. The mainland source was unknown, although verbal reports seem to indicate koala populations in the Mackay region as high at that time. That family later developed Brampton Island as an early tourist resort. It is said that the koalas were in good numbers, at least a couple of hundred strong; although Dr Steve Brown, from the Queensland University, visited St Bees recently and estimated a population of 500 animals. The koalas are in about 15 different groups around the island and are most healthy. Dr Brown indicated that they were chlamydia free. In the early 1970s, koalas were stolen and relocated to Middle Percy, where they died out, and Brampton Island, where they were mildly successful. Some animals from the Brampton Island relocation were then taken to the Newry Islands group. It is significant that on St Bees Island the forest red gum and the ironbark proliferate, which is probably one of the reasons why the koalas are so healthy. The Mackay Conservation Group and the Proserpine Wildlife Preservation Society have expressed concern for the St Bees koalas. The area is not a national park. The area and the koalas need protection. I appeal to the Minister for an assurance that there will be some protection forthcoming for the animals in lieu of recent intended developments on the island. One other recently identified but highly irregular species is showing its presence on the island—a large uncomplicated species which can be found in one location in the Whitsunday Islands, camouflaged by the shadows of Whitehaven Beach. It is called the clivus multrum. It is not an animal, but it is sometimes referred to as a tree—a lavatory. Clivus multrum is the latest in environmentally friendly toilets. The department has installed the first at Whitehaven. Clivus multrum does a complete job of waste treatment without any of the complications of a flush system. Since there is no water, sewer or septic connection required, it is perfect for public facilities in national parks in remote areas far from supervision. Waterless composting toilets provide an excellent solution in areas that have drainage problems or may be subject to leaching. Servicing is limited, with only the occasional addition of leaves, sawdust, clippings and other biodegradables to the fibreglass composting tanks. The clivus multrum is made odour free at all times by a small fan and a forced draught ventilation system. No chemicals are involved. Time expired. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (8.17 p.m.): In this contribution, I wish to generally talk about the performance of the Government and the Minister in the all-important areas of the Legislative Assembly 2380 30 October 1991 environment and heritage. However, before doing so, I wish to briefly discuss a parochial issue with which the Minister has some familiarity. I am referring to the historic Palma Rosa, that magnificent, turn- of-the-century, stately home which is located in the heart of the electorate of Merthyr in Queens Road, Hamilton. I wish to place on the parliamentary record some basic detail about Palma Rosa. I believe that I can really do no better than to briefly quote from Ray Sumner’s book titled More Historic Homes of Brisbane, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. Members will be interested to know that it was Andrea Giovanni Stombuco who was in fact responsible for the design and the building of Palma Rosa. Stombuco was born in Florence in about 1820, and after travels in Europe he worked in Cape Town for some years before the discovery of the rich Victorian gold fields attracted him there in 1851. He worked as a stonemason, sculptor and builder and designed a number of houses and churches mainly in Kyneton. As members opposite would agree, he was another Italian of enormous talent. In 1869, Stombuco was appointed diocesan architect in Goulburn, where he designed several residences, shops, a college and a cathedral. Perhaps he is best known in Brisbane, where he produced his main body of work. This included such notable buildings as St Andrews in East Brisbane in 1883; the Synagogue in 1886; All Hallows’ Convent in 1881; Her Majesty’s Theatre in 1888; St Joseph’s College at Nudgee in 1890; and a large number of residences, including, of course, his own, Palma Rosa. It is built of Helidon sandstone. The walls of Palma Rosa are about 25 inches thick. The three floors are almost identical in plan, but the middle floor is distinguished by lavish use of decorative features, especially the very ornate plasterwork cornices and ceiling roses, thus the name Palma Rosa. Originally, Palma Rosa stood on three acres of land, but it is now much reduced in ground area. Those members opposite and on this side who have been able to go to that place will know that, from the upper verandahs, an excellent view may still be obtained of the river and Albion Park racecourse. Palma Rosa is acknowledged as one of the largest private residences ever built in Brisbane. It had been considerably altered, much to its detriment, most would agree, before it was purchased in 1971 by the Queensland branch of the English Speaking Union. Palma Rosa was officially opened as the union’s headquarters by the then Governor, Sir Alan Mansfield, in March 1972, and, as this book records, is still currently undergoing extensive renovations. Very recently, and at my invitation, the Minister visited this beautiful building to personally inspect the state it is in. I certainly appreciate very much the Minister and his senior staff making time available in order to acquaint themselves with the effects that the passage of time, the weather and the wear and tear have had, and still continue to have, on this National Trust listed building. The Minister will recall the corrosive impact that damp, mildew and pollution from traffic on nearby Kingsford-Smith Drive and the Brisbane River is having on the interior and exterior of the building. Parts of the external sandstone walls are literally falling off as a result of external corrosion, and the effects of damp are certainly spoiling parts of the interior. Of course, during his visit, the Minister would also have noticed certain additions, to which I have just alluded, to the original structure which contribute considerably to diluting the architectural and structural integrity of the original plan and building. The purpose for inviting the Minister, he will undoubtedly recall, to visit Palma Rosa was twofold. Firstly, the committee and members of the English Speaking Union, the organisation responsible today for the running of Palma Rosa, wanted to acquaint first-hand the Minister and his advisers with the beauty and the historic and architectural significance of Palma Rosa. I am sure that the Minister would have been impressed with what he saw. He said so at the afternoon tea that was hosted by the English Speaking Union for the occasion, and he has said so to me on other occasions both within and Legislative Assembly 2381 30 October 1991 outside this place. Secondly, it was the desire of the executive of the English Speaking Union to impress on the Minister the need for State funding to reverse the deterioration that I have just described. To be honest, the Minister was sympathetic but unfortunately, because of what he claims to be a shortage of funds and other priorities, no funds will be forthcoming this year for the urgently needed renovations. However, I sincerely hope—and I again place the plea before the Minister and the Government in this place—that they will be able to see their way clear to assisting the hard-working executive and members of the English Speaking Union in the very near future with some direct grants which in turn will supplement the financial, reconstructive and renovation results of the voluntary efforts of the English Speaking Union. Mr Comben: It is a good cause. We will do our best. Mr SANTORO: I thank the Minister very much. I will take his interjection so that his assurance can again be recorded in Hansard. I am pleased to report that, at the Minister’s suggestion, the members of the executive of the English Speaking Union have stepped up their own promotional fund- raising activities with a view to, if I can use the words, “helping themselves”. They have never sought to exclude any particular group that has wanted to use that building but, through more promotions, they are seeking to make Palma Rosa available to charitable and other worthy causes, with the opportunity to host functions and other activities which, apart from the very valuable fund-raising aspect, will also encourage the enjoyment of this fine historic building by the general public. Tonight, I wish to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of the longstanding president of the English Speaking Union, Mrs Mary Holden and her ever-loyal and hard-working committee. Mrs Holden’s efforts are appreciated by all who have come to regard her name as synonymous with that of Palma Rosa. I could go on to describe in great detail much of the fine restoration and renovation work that has been conducted on many of the fine historical homes and buildings within the Merthyr electorate, but because time is short, and because I wish to make some other comments that I believe are pertinent to a consideration of the Minister’s departmental Estimates, I will leave those specific comments to some other time. Anything that I am about to say should not be taken in any way as personal reflections on the Minister. As I have just sought to suggest, I find the Minister to be a receptive and affable character who makes himself available to listen to representations on behalf of the people whom I seek to represent. However, I suggest that analysis of the Minister’s performance as Minister for Environment and Heritage reveals cronyism, jobs for the boys, abuse of position, breathtaking arrogance and a selective interest only in environmental problems that are fashionable and lend themselves to photo opportunities or 15-second grabs for TV and radio. In my view, the Minister is not addressing some of the major environmental issues in the State. A Government member: McCarthyism? Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection from a member opposite. I am certainly not accusing the Minister of McCarthyism. The charges of cronyism, jobs for the boys and abuse of position are borne out by a perusal of the annual report of the Department of Environment and Heritage, and that department’s submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Management and Use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region—commonly known as the Fraser Island Fitzgerald inquiry. The Minister has had to borrow chunks of his environment policy from Western Australia. He has done that in respect of his proposal for a coastal protection authority for Queensland, which has been heavily criticised by leading environmental lawyers and academics as creating another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. The Minister has also done that in respect of his proposals for an environmental protection Act for Queensland. Legislative Assembly 2382 30 October 1991

On 24 July 1986, the Bill for the Western Australian Environment Protection Act was introduced to the Western Australian Parliament by the then Minister for the Environment in that State, Barry Hodge. That Act provides for ministerial appeals, which really means that it gives no effective appeal rights to an independent tribunal. That has seen the Western Australian Supreme Court having to intervene several times to curb irresponsible and unlawful abuses of power by Mr Hodge and others who have administered the Act. That is the same sort of power that the Minister wants. When Hodge was dumped from Parliament in Western Australia by the enlightened electors of Melville, he established a company Ospray Pty Ltd trading as Barry Hodge Consultants. Barry Hodge Consultants was engaged by the Minister to write the department’s environment and heritage submission to the Fraser Island Fitzgerald inquiry. I suggest that this was an unnecessary waste of public money, because the submission could have been—and should have been—done by the department, if the Minister had had enough confidence to ask it to do it. But the big risk for Pat Comben in that course was that the submission might have been impartial and unbiased—something which the Minister obviously did not want. Barry Hodge was neither impartial nor unbiased in his report. To his credit—and I always pay credit where credit is due—on page 2 of his introduction to his submission, he said just that. But that was not enough to stop Pat Comben trying to justify an Act of Parliament and a bureaucracy that will cost Queenslanders millions of dollars by using a report that was neither impartial nor unbiased. I suggest respectfully that Queenslanders do not need a Minister who is so eccentric, one-eyed and arrogantly dogmatic as to refuse to consider an objective analysis of his legislative proposals. I believe that Pat Comben has squandered public money on that report. On behalf of all Queenslanders, I ask the Minister: exactly how much? It is unfortunate that the Minister has determined to intervene in the operation of the public service; that he has leaned on his department to recommend that Barry Hodge be retained as a consultant if the environmental protection Act and authority go ahead. It seems to me that Minister Comben is determined to give Mr Hodge a long-term ticket for the gravy train courtesy of Queensland taxpayers, incurring unnecessary expenditures on something that his department could and should handle within its own ranks. Pat Comben’s breathtaking contempt for the taxpayers of Queensland echoes the wanton disregard that he has shown repeatedly for private property owners, about which much has already been said today and yesterday during the Estimates debate in this place, and which I will certainly not seek to repeat tonight. On 31 May 1991, in a speech to the Queensland University Law School symposium on coastal management and law, the Minister admitted plagiarising Western Australia guidelines for a coastal protection Act. Not having the power of original thought in that instance, it did not occur to the Minister that what was apt for Western Australia might be totally inadequate for Queensland. In Western Australia, 90 per cent of the coastline is in public ownership, whereas much of the coastline of Queensland is in private ownership and has development rights attached to it. The Minister’s Green Paper on coastal protection proposes to select particular parcels of land and strip them of development rights without compensation to owners. I believe that the Minister is so naive that he does not realise the massive depreciation in property values that such moves will cause, and the financially disastrous consequences that will flow on to small investors, many of whom have their life-savings invested in companies and financial institutions that lend to the companies that own such properties. Under the Minister’s proposals, at his whim many valuable properties will have their value slashed. I suggest that no fair-minded individual could support the stripping of rights of ownership without fair compensation. That is what the Minister has already done with some coastal properties. He has also done it in relation to heritage properties. Legislative Assembly 2383 30 October 1991

As a Minister in a Government that is forever bleating about rights, one might expect the Minister to recognise individual rights in his legislative proposals, but not so. Almost invariably, his proposals involve no rights of objection, no rights of appeal and no rights of compensation. At a time when Gorbachev and Yeltsin are restoring individual property rights, this Minister pursues the outdated Marxist/Leninist line of confiscating them. His belated announcement of appeal rights for people whose properties are listed as heritage properties is a complete sham, and really is a little too late, because the appeal is after the event of listing. Property-owners should not be put to exorbitant expense to retain their rights, and no property should be listed without the owner’s freely given consent. So fanatical and self-righteous is the Minister that he is engaging in ego trips at the expense of the Queensland taxpayer. At the moment, the Federal Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, is bringing forward proposals for an environment protection agency that will administer the proposed Commonwealth coastal zone management legislation and make large grants to the States for coastal management purposes. Instead of doing the intelligent thing and waiting for those particular proposals, the Minister is forging ahead with his own. Queensland needs someone who is not as fanatical as the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Time expired. Mr PEARCE (Broadsound) (8.32 p.m.): After listening to the contributions made in the Chamber this afternoon, no-one could really take National Party members seriously on any environmental issue, as their impossible record of destruction and neglect proves their inability to grasp the concept of conservation. Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member just referred to me as a member of the National Party. I remind him that I am a member of the Liberal Party. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. Mr PEARCE: I am sure that the National Party really does not want the honourable member, and I did not at any time try to tie him in with National Party members. Comments made earlier this afternoon by the member for Barambah let the conservationists in this State know that nothing has changed from the day when the present Leader of the Opposition said in this Chamber that conservationists were misguided and selfish. This year, the Department of Environment and Heritage was allocated $98.257m—an increase of 24 per cent on last year’s allocation and a rise of 103 per cent since December 1989. Clearly, the Government is on track in meeting its election commitment of doubling the State’s national park estate to reach 4 per cent of the State’s land area within three years. There is some confusion that that target has already been reached, but I am assured by the Minister that, whilst he is well on track, 4 per cent has certainly not been reached at this stage. The real challenge for the Government is to continue to protect Queensland’s flora and fauna and native habitat wherever it exists. That must be done to ensure the survival of species and to redress the problems left behind by 32 years of National Party and coalition Governments in this State. Unfortunately, the President of the United Graziers Association, Mr Bill Bonthrone, said that he was disappointed about the Government’s continuing push for additional national park areas. Obviously, Mr Bonthrone does not understand the need for areas to be set aside to enable individual species of flora and fauna to continue their very existence. Mr Bonthrone said also that many rural producers would undoubtedly agree that the additional funding being pumped into national parks could at this time be spent much more productively in other areas. I object to Mr Bonthrone making comments of that nature on behalf of such a large group of rural Legislative Assembly 2384 30 October 1991 producers. I do not believe for one minute that a majority of people working the land in this State would share his opinion. Queenslanders acknowledge that human behaviour is progressively reducing the earth’s capacity to support life. Clearly, our attitudes and behaviour must change and we must accept responsibility for ensuring our future. Mr Bonthrone may not agree with the direction of the Government, but I know that a great majority of rural producers, their wives and their families accept that, as a society, we must develop strategies to ensure our long-term survival. Mr Johnson interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr PEARCE: If the honourable member would listen, he would understand what I am trying to say. I will give him the reason why Queensland needs national parks. In common with other Australians, Queenslanders contribute to the global problems that now threaten the integrity of the biosphere. Mr Johnson interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr PEARCE: Thank you for your protection, Madam Temporary Chair. Accordingly, Queenslanders must accept responsibility for such problems and play a part in finding solutions to them. It should be remembered by us all that humans are only one of the many forms of life inhabiting earth and we have a moral obligation to protect and support other life forms. When we can, we must ensure the means of survival of all other life forms and should not knowingly cause the extinction of another species. Mr Schwarten: Even the Liberal Party. Mr PEARCE: There is an exception to every rule. Responsible management of Queensland’s environment and resources to ensure continued productivity is fundamental to the continued well-being of all Queenslanders. The economy of Queensland is highly reliant on natural resources. Their wise use is integral to maintaining Queensland’s way of life. It is therefore important that, as a Government, we provide a framework for decision-making and policy development based on a balance between conservation and development to facilitate integration of the two and to advance the goal of ecologically sustainable development. Many of the environmental problems that we now face are the result of our failure to recognise the potential damage at the time. For example, the pastoral industry is adversely affected by soil erosion, pasture degradation and woody shrub invasion, and agricultural lands are threatened by soil erosion, salinity, decline in soil structure and induced soil acidity. Feral animals, introduced plants and the misuse of agricultural chemicals and irrigation water are also of concern. The continued farming of those lands is dependent upon sensitive management in accordance with the capacity of the land. The expansion of the rural industry in turn poses a threat to remnant areas of natural vegetation and the habitats of native animals. I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the threat to remnant areas of natural vegetation and the habitats of native animals. Under existing legislation, animals are protected, but very little protection is offered for their habitat. Such reasoning lacks common sense because, without a natural habitat, an animal cannot survive. The protection of habitats can be achieved by providing protected areas under an Act of Parliament or by developing protection agreements with land- holders. Many of the plant and animal species found in Queensland are unique to this State, and Queenslanders have a special responsibility to conserve them. Although a single-species approach is necessary in critical cases, species are best protected by Legislative Assembly 2385 30 October 1991 protecting their habitat. The near extinction of the beautifully marked bridled nailtail wallaby can be directly attributed to the loss of its natural habitat. Mr Briskey: Why is it called the nailtail wallaby? Mr PEARCE: I will take the honourable member’s interjection, because the bridled nailtail wallaby is actually situated in central Queensland. It was given the name because of a spur at the end of its tail which it uses as a stabiliser when turning at high speeds. I hope that answers the honourable member’s question. This wallaby faced extinction at one stage but has now been saved and its numbers are steadily growing again. Alteration of habitat for farming and grazing, together with competition for food and shelter from introduced sheep, cattle and rabbits were the major factors contributing to the rapid decline of this wallaby, whilst at the same time the increase in predators, such as the fox, added to that decline. It was once considered to be a species that was common or abundant wherever it was encountered, but the wallaby continued to decline in numbers until the last official sighting in the early 1930s, after which time it was considered to be extinct. The honourable member for Redlands must take note of this, because 40 years later a fencer working on a grazing property near Dingo, west of Rockhampton in central Queensland, and an area I hope to represent after the next election—— Mr Briskey: You will be. Mr PEARCE: I will be the member, and I thank honourable members for their support. This fencer noticed a wallaby in the nearby scrub. He took a close look at it and he recognised it from an illustration in Woman’s Day. I am pleased that such a magazine was promoting the flora and fauna of this country instead of the other birds one is used to seeing in those magazines. The sighting was confirmed by a Department of Primary Industries zoologist who was working in the area at the time and a further survey revealed that most of the population was spread over a 100 square kilometre area encompassing two grazing properties, Taunton and Red Hill. The Queensland and Commonwealth Governments purchased Taunton in 1979 and Red Hill in 1986, and these two properties now form the Taunton Scientific Reserve which takes in 11 626 square hectares. This initiative in providing a protected natural habitat for a threatened species has resulted in the survival of the bridled nailtail wallaby, and I believe that the growth rate of the population now allows for the consideration of the relocation of the species to areas with similar habitats. Central Queensland is proud of its commitment to the endangered species of this State and the good work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has spent years researching the wallaby. For the benefit of my colleague, the member for Bowen, Mr Smyth, and the future member for Charters Towers, I also mention the—— Mr Schwarten: Northern hairy-nosed wombat. Mr PEARCE: Yes, it is the northern hairy-nosed wombat which is now protected in the Epping Forest national park near Clermont, west of Mackay. I am thinking about the member from that electorate at the moment. A population of about 60 animals exists in the area and it is the last known habitat of the northern hairy-nosed wombat. It is a tribute to this Government that it is able to preserve a species that is almost extinct. I congratulate the Minister for what he is doing for the protection of the environment in this State. This Minister is concerned and is fair dinkum about what he is trying to do. I am pleased to be a member of a Government that is concerned about the environment. The doubling of national parks in Queensland by the Minister in his first term is well on track with the allocation of $11.5m for new national parks. The rural sector is pleased that the Minister has allocated $8m—which represents a 14 per cent increase—for the management of national parks. I travelled around Queensland quite extensively as a member of the Premier’s northern and rural task force, and many of the arguments were that it was fair enough for us to increase national parks but we must do something about Legislative Assembly 2386 30 October 1991 managing them. The Minister has recognised that and has allocated extra funds. The Minister and the Government recognise that the Government has a responsibility, particularly to other land-owners, to properly manage the expanded national park estate. Land-owners will be encouraged to maintain their properties free of noxious weeds and feral animals and, by working together, we can develop a balance of land for production and land for the support of other life. In the few moments I have left to me, I wish to touch on the issue of mine site rehabilitation. Many people believe that it is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Heritage, but the responsibility for reclamation of mined areas actually resides with the ministerial portfolio of Resource Industries. Many people in the mining industry are concerned about who has the responsibility for rehabilitation. The Minister for Environment and Heritage does have responsibility for proper environmental management within the State, including the potential for air and water pollution from mining operations. The Minister would agree that mining companies do have a duty to the community to restore mined land to an environmentally stable and productive state and that such work should be considered to be part of the normal mining cycle. Most importantly, mining companies that are not environmentally responsible create legitimate ammunition for those who oppose mining on environmental grounds. Miners and explorers who do not play by the rules are therefore creating a rod for the back of the industry. I am therefore pleased that a code of practice for the rehabilitation of Queensland coal mines has now been established by the Department of Resource Industries. I support the Minister in encouraging the participation of conservation groups and other community groups in environmental planning and decision-making through the distribution of Green Papers and the holding of workshops and conferences. The Government shows that it is open by getting these people involved. We want them to understand what we are about. This certainly creates a much better working relationship. I support the Minister and his Estimates. Hon. P. COMBEN (Windsor—Minister for Environment and Heritage) (8.46 p.m.), in reply: The debate that has taken place over the last few hours has been interesting. There has been much agreement although, as predicted, there was also a good deal of dissent voiced by members of the Opposition against national parks acquisitions, coastal protection strategies, endangered species, and rehabilitation. However, on an occasion such as this, I think it is important to remember that, as Queenslanders, we need to care for our environment. On all sides of the political debate these days, I believe that there is a genuine appreciation of the importance of the environment and the need for more protection in a range of areas, as well as recognition of the need for the rules to change. I hope that, under my stewardship, the Department of Environment and Heritage is an open department. I make the offer to each member of this Parliament, irrespective of which side of politics he or should may be on, to consult the department at any time there is a question that must be answered or if a member is not sure of what the department is doing. I make that offer subject to the usual political niceties in relation to matters that are confidential or are before Cabinet. The department is open, ready and willing to give assistance to anyone in Queensland, particularly to all members of this Parliament. I am conscious of the fact that the Opposition spokesman is a former Minister who had responsibility for the areas covered by my portfolio. I give him credit for the achievements for which he was responsible while he was Minister. He has not taken up the offer that I have made on two occasions, but I again extend the invitation to the member for Cunningham, Mr Elliott, and to the member for Sherwood, Mr Dunworth. If at any time they want briefings on any matters, subject to the matter not being a sensitive matter that is before Cabinet, the department is ready, open and willing to assist. I am sure that the Premier supports me in making that offer. Legislative Assembly 2387 30 October 1991

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! There are too many audible conversations taking place in the Chamber. Mr COMBEN: I will quickly run through the matters raised by speakers during the debate. The member for Cunningham, Mr Elliott, began with an interesting historical dissertation about President Roosevelt and the conservation corps. This is a concept with which I agree, but the matter still comes down to a question of how much money is available and how many people can be employed. The department uses the Australian Trust for Volunteers, which is known as the ATV, which provides a great deal of assistance in terms of manpower, but success is still a matter of having sufficient funds. The arguments in relation to Riversleigh have already been canvassed. A world-class fossil field is located there and it will one day become part of the Lawn Hill/Riversleigh national park complex, which will be as great as Kakadu or any other famous Australian national park. It will not matter which Government takes the steps towards acquiring the land on the basis of normal commercial dealings because the step must be taken. A predecessor of the member for Cunningham and me stated in a letter that it has world-class values, and the documentation is available for people to see. I do not deign to reply to any of the scurrilous comments that have been made about a trip that was undertaken to that area. The concept of a Great Dividing Range national park is certainly one that is close to the hearts of most of my advisers, personal staff and officers of my department. Some matters will have to be sorted out between the Queensland Forest Service and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, but one day the Great Dividing Range national park will be magnificent. I hope the time arrives sooner rather than later for its proclamation, but I recognise that there are conflicting interests. I recognise also the need for timber, and I think the Opposition spokesman is conscious of the issues involved, also. He raised the concept of having a national park within an hour or two hours’ drive from each major centre in Queensland. I remind him that that was the environmental policy of the National Party Government in 1972 which was repeated in 1974. Page one of the Courier-Mail in December 1974 carried an article about the Government of the day, which was led by the former Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, announcing that the proposed national park would comprise 2 million hectares that would be acquired on Cape York. None of that was done. This Government is still moving towards achieving that objective. The Kinkuma national park, near Bundaberg, is an example of the steps being taken. The Mount Archer complex near Rockhampton is another, which indicates that I am certainly in agreement with the comments expressed by the Opposition spokesman. The idea of providing tax incentives was also discussed during the debate. I agree with the views expressed by the Opposition spokesman on crocodiles and, in general, I agree with the thrust of his comments. I also appreciate the courtesies which he extended to me during the debate. I believe that that is the way in which all debates that take place in this Parliament should be conducted, and I thank the honourable member for his courtesy. The member for Pine Rivers, Margaret Woodgate, spoke on her often-repeated theme of recycling. She has done a magnificent job in her electorate and is still chasing me for extra funds for recycling materials in the Pine Rivers area. I hope that I will be in a position to provide funds for the promotion of recycling schemes this year. I thank the member for the excellent contribution she made to the debate. The member for Sherwood, David Dunworth, referred to the CHEM Unit and the failures of the Aboriginal Land Act, etc. He inquired about the additional $4m in salary and wages expended on the Conservation Management program, and I point out that there are four main reasons for that increase. One reason is that the 1991-92 Estimates reflect the full-year costs of staff who were employed late in the previous year. Secondly, the actual expenditure figures for 1991 reflect a higher than usual vacancy rate, which means that the member has not been Legislative Assembly 2388 30 October 1991 comparing apples with apples. He has misunderstood the budget. Thirdly, the 1991-92 Estimates include the cost of award increases. Fourthly, the 1991-92 Estimates include the full-year costs of the previous year’s costs in relation to award increases. The member also asked about the $6.2m increase in administrative costs, and I have some briefing notes from the department containing four reasons which I will make available to him. The member mentioned the matter of Mr Quaid and said that in recent times the Government had given land to Mr Quaid. This afternoon, in a media statement, my colleague the Minister for Land Management said that the decision to include occupational licence 573 in Mr George Quaid’s property had been made by the former Government. The Department of Lands made a written offer to Mr Quaid to include the area of Starcke Holdings on 29 October 1979. He accepted and lodged the surrender documents on 18 January 1980. It had not previously been included in Starcke Holdings because of a series of adjustments that had to be made. For the information of honourable members, I table the full media statement. I accept some of the criticism made by the honourable member. I have certainly asked the Wet Tropics Management Authority and the agency to speed up certain matters. A draft strategic plan will now be in place by mid-year 1992. Extra staff are being allocated to that area. The database presently exists, and it will be used. The basic thrust of the member’s comments is correct. The Richter Creek is still a matter that is before the council, although it is informally before the department at the present time. I will certainly be circulating the honourable member’s comments on Richter Creek to a number of areas. The member for Barron River, Dr Lesley Clark, spoke about the World Heritage areas and made a speech that any good Queenslander should have made—unlike the contribution made by Mr Dunworth. Her comments reflected an attitude of, “Let’s get on with the job. Let’s grasp with two hands this world-class asset, this World Heritage area.” When people go to north Queensland, they say that they are going to see the Barrier Reef. The reality is that people who visit north Queensland go to the Barrier Reef for one day. People generally go for a six-day holiday, but one day is spent visiting the Barrier Reef and several days are spent either on the Atherton Tablelands or visiting the rainforests. This Government needs to develop the area. There are a range of things that the Government could be doing. I take on board the comments by Dr Clark, and I appreciate her positive contribution to the debate. Mr Katter’s contribution is not worth commenting on, even if he was in the Chamber. Mr Ardill, the member for Salisbury, has made a careful assessment of the Moreton Bay Strategic Plan. The honourable member is well aware of the Moreton Bay marine park concept. He is fully supportive of the concept and can make positive contributions as to aspects in which the plan can be improved. The Government will look at those aspects and see whether the concept can be improved. Mr Ardill gave a solid contribution. He is always well briefed on matters affecting Brisbane and south-east Queensland. I am not sure what I should say about the contribution of Mr Perrett, the member for Barambah. The term “League of Rights” comes to mind, but if the honourable member would like to tell me about some of the developments in this State that are being held up at present by green tape, I will have a look at them. Mr Perrett: When you have a day sometime, I will. Mr COMBEN: I think the honourable member should either put up or shut up because I do not know of these developments and neither does the department. The member for Cook certainly went in to bat for his local constituency, a constituency which I admire and of which I am jealous. There are 15 endemic birds in that electorate that are found nowhere else. That says something about the size of the electorate. The honourable member’s contribution on national parks, his presentation of Wandarra and Riversleigh and their future—their place as major tourist destinations, their place as a part Legislative Assembly 2389 30 October 1991 of the growth and development strategy for the communities in those area—was an honest presentation, unlike some of the other comments that have been made about Wandarra and Riversleigh. Certainly, it was a contribution from a man who knows his own electorate. Mr Rowell, the member for Hinchinbrook, in his usual diligent and sincere way, gave an honest presentation. I appreciate that he would not be feeling too comfortable about national parks in recent times after he and I went walking in one recently, and overnighted in the park. We almost lost the honourable member over a precipice, and he was a bit upset that I did not arrive with a bottle of port. It was certainly an interesting visit. Time expired. At 8.55 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Environment and Heritage (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $98,257,000—Conservation, Recreation and Culture, Department of Environment and Heritage (Consolidated Fund). $16,557,000—Conservation, Recreation and Culture, Department of Environment and Heritage (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported.

LANDS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 October (see p. 2309). Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (8.58 p.m.): I rise to join in this debate because this Bill is a very far-reaching Bill and one that will affect most of the rural community in this State. This legislation is being introduced at a time when farm incomes are considerably down. Farm incomes in 1991-92 are expected to be the lowest on record. It is a very serious matter that the members of this House must bear in mind as they debate this Bill. This legislation is going to add additional costs to the rural community of this State. Overwhelmingly, the source of the current income downturn lies in the very weak prices of world markets. The wide range of farm products produced by the Australian farm sector as a whole, prices received by farmers and output are expected to fall by a further 5 per cent in 1991-92 following a 13 per cent decline in the 1990-91 year. That is on top of the drought that is being experienced on the downs, in the Burnett, and in south-east Queensland, and the recession that the farming community is currently going through. All in all, it is a very worrying time indeed for Queensland’s rural community. This legislation is going to be an added impost on our farming community at a time when they can least afford it. Therefore, I am sure that it is of grave concern not only to the rural community in this State but also to the people in the towns and cities in our rural areas. When people in the metropolitan areas become aware of what the Government is proposing in this legislation, I am sure that they will also be concerned for our farming community. I cite the example of the new rent system. This new system calculates rent at a prescribed rate of unimproved capital value of land. However, the Bill fails to document the Legislative Assembly 2390 30 October 1991 prescribed rate. The Minister offers only a statement in his second-reading speech, as best I can gather, to indicate that some consultation with industry groups may take place before the prescribed rate is struck. Of course, that is something that not only the farming community but also the industry groups themselves are very concerned about. What is happening is that this legislation is allowing for agreement to occur without knowing what that agreement will be. It is like signing a blank cheque. That is what this Government is putting before the farming community at the moment. An article that appeared in last week’s Queensland Country Life about the United Graziers Association highlighted this problem. The UGA annual council expressed its extreme disappointment with the recent decision handed down by the Land Court determining rental levels set by the Government. This week, the UGA will make a final decision on whether to appeal against the decision. It is encouraging its members to keep their own appeals alive. The reason for this is that the appeal to the Land Court has at least highlighted the inconsistent approach adopted by the department to determine rentals. Five of the properties used as test cases during the appeal have had their rentals substantially reduced as a direct result of the errors admitted by the Lands Department. UGA members can also argue their own economic circumstances. That article highlights some of the problems with which graziers are confronted currently and which are still unresolved. What we have here before us are some more problems which will be added to those already faced by the graziers and the rest of the rural community in this State. This Government’s attitude to Queensland’s rural community is fairly well known. During the current drought we have seen how little is being given to Queensland farmers at a time when the rural community is in real need of assistance. The Wolfe report recommended prescribed rates for the various categories of leases. The Minister should have brought those rates, or his own version of them, into this House so that the fairness of what he is proposing could be accurately assessed. What is being relied on is the unimproved capital value—a very risky proposition. This financial year, this Labor Government has manipulated the unimproved capital value for land tax purposes by dispensing with annual valuations for most of Queensland. No new valuations have been issued. Otherwise, of course, there would be a drop in valuations in places such as Brisbane, for example, where in the current recession property values are down. All of this has to be added up at this particular time when the Government is bringing in a new system. It has not in fact indicated clearly to the farming community and the rural towns exactly what is proposed and what is going to be the added burden to this sector which is struggling with its lowest ever incomes. I think that must be remembered when one is looking at this legislation. Another very important point is the Crown’s reservation of quarry material such as stone, gravel and sand found upon land being freeholded by application after 5 February 1990. That means there will be two types of freehold deeds. This provision does not apply to existing freehold leases, I understand, or where the application was received before 5 February 1990. It will discourage many people from applying to freehold because there will be two classes of freehold. It has not been spelt out, but suddenly the Government is taking this course of action to change the previous system to one under which no longer will quarrying material such as stone, gravel and sand found upon land be part of that land when it is freeholded. It will instead be reserved to the Crown. That is breaking new ground, and is something to which I think the Government needs to give more consideration. The Government is also going to break leases by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions. In that regard a contract between the Government and the lessee is going to be broken by the Government. That raises a number of very serious questions. Graziers, the pastoral community, and others who hold these leases will suddenly be confronted Legislative Assembly 2391 30 October 1991 with this situation at a time of drought and recession and also the lowest incomes for the rural community on record. I remind the Minister that the recession has been brought on by his party in power in another place; and it has admitted that. We have a situation in which in several areas the Government is advancing into new territory, and that will mean a considerable difference, a considerable increase in charges, as far as the rural community is concerned. This comes on top of the added taxes and charges of $10 per household in this year’s Budget. This legislation has far-reaching implications as far as the rural community is concerned, and I do not believe that, in the current situation, the Government has given it sufficient consideration to ensure that people will be able to afford what is proposed, to ensure that they are not going to be worse off at the end of the day, and to ensure that in fact more of them will not be chased off the land. That could be the ultimate result, that people are forced off the land through no fault of their own because of this legislation. I ask that the Government give further consideration to this legislation. It is not too late to withdraw the legislation or to reconsider it in the light of current circumstances. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (9.05 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure tonight to speak very briefly to this Bill. It has one or two very grave problems. It amends a great deal of basic legislation with respect to land administration. I pay a tribute to the Minister. I have known him for the many years I have been in this Parliament. I have always found him to be a straightshooter. He generally listens to people, and I believe he understands what is being spoken about, but there is no doubt at all that he is being snowed by the bureaucracy of the ALP. I generally think that he does not do what he believes should be done. I also believe that he wants a few Mackay footballers up in Cairns so that it might one day win the Foley Shield. The Minister still owes me after our last bet. This Bill was brought into the House after only minimal consultation with the people it most affects—the land-holders of Queensland. Mr McGrady: Oh, rubbish! They travelled all around Queensland listening to what they had to say. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member has been all around Queensland, but he has done nothing. Where was the honourable member last Monday when the rally was held in Mackay? I will come to that in a minute. Mr McGrady: That was a political stunt. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Whitsunday was invited. Several Government members have waxed lyrical about consultation, but it did not occur on this occasion. Government members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! Members will cease interjecting. Mr RANDELL: One major producer group asked the Opposition for a copy of the Bill, but the Government refused to supply one to the Opposition. If that constitutes consultation, I must have the wrong dictionary. To compound matters, that group came to us a couple of days after the Bill was introduced into the House. That means that a major group of people with a vital interest in this legislation had less than two weeks to study the grave and long-term implications of this Bill. I hearken back to when the Sugar Bill was introduced into this place and we had to debate it within seven days. We were given no opportunity for consultation. The ordinary men and women of the State who are affected by these Bills are not allowed to make a contribution. How many times has that happened? Where is this new era of accountability and democracy? With the people of Queensland—particularly the rural people—it is looking very hollow. Mrs Bird: You are just worried about the candidate standing against you. Legislative Assembly 2392 30 October 1991

Mr RANDELL: I will deal shortly with the honourable member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting. Mr RANDELL: The Bill is based on the recommendations of the Wolfe report. Few practical people with any knowledge of the land have ever taken that document seriously. It is a poorly researched document prepared, for the most part, by people whose knowledge of rural land is confined to the suburbs of Brisbane. Most Government members—particularly the member for Manly—would get lost if they travelled north of Aspley. With the best of intentions, that group could not come up with a system that would work for one of the most vital productive sectors of our economy. With this Government’s social justice programs, someone has to produce the economic wealth for the State to fund that welfare. The land rental system which the Wolfe report recommended and which the Government is mostly adopting is nothing short of an ill-conceived revenue grab. I am aware that the member for Warrego and others have addressed this issue. Therefore, in the time available, I will deal with a couple of issues of great concern to the people in my part of the State. As some members would know, the bulk of caneland is held under freehold title. That is the form of title best suited to the cane-growing industry, which is based predominantly around the family farm—the family farm which this Government and the Federal ALP are doing their best to abolish. Initially, rural people were prepared to give the Goss Labor Government a go, but they are now totally disenchanted. On Monday, we witnessed a spontaneous rally by grassroots members of the sugar industry. Approximately 450 farmers gathered. They invited the Minister and the member for Whitsunday to attend that meeting. Mr Hobbs: They chickened out, didn’t they? Mr RANDELL: They chickened out. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to those farmers. However, I inform the Minister and the member for Whitsunday that, in future, those people intend to hold another rally at a time which suits the Labor Party people. I realise that, because he had to attend a Cabinet meeting, the Minister had an excuse. I understand that that was an important engagement. However, the member for Whitsunday, who was a member of the rural task force that travelled throughout the State in an endeavour to report the problems in the country to the Premier, did not even turn up, although she was five kilometres across the river from where the meeting was held. Her excuse was that she had to attend a school speech night. The funny thing is that the meeting was held at 9 o’clock in the morning. Every speech night that I have attended has been held later in the day. Recently, I visited Calen. The farmers there are totally disenchanted. Come the next election, the member for Whitsunday will have something to answer for. I advise the member for Whitsunday to get out quickly and talk to some of the farmers, because she is going down in their estimation. Mrs Bird: It’s your electorate, not mine. Can’t you look after it? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member should talk to some of the farmers in the Farleigh region. She is being paid to represent those people and she will not even attend a meeting to hear their problems. That is what all Government members are doing—ignoring the rural sector. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mirani is straying from the subject. I ask him to return to the Bill. Mr RANDELL: Thank you for your tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, they provoked me and I have to speak the truth. Freehold is a guarantee that the owner will take great care of the land, and ensure its ability to produce well into the future. It is a part of human nature that we take special care of that which we own. My father said to me, “Farm that land as though you would live forever.” If everyone adhered to that motto, we Legislative Assembly 2393 30 October 1991 would be better off in this country. My son is the third generation of my family on my farm, and that farm is as good as when we took it over many years ago. Mr McGrady: It should be better. Mr RANDELL: Well, it could be better, too. All we want is a bit of rain. Freehold is the most secure form of title, and the one most likely to encourage people to invest in improvements. That has happened in the sugar industry and I would hope that it would continue to do so. But I must say that I am pessimistic about the possibility of any more freeholding. We all know that the Primary Industries Minister is trying to convince cane-farmers to increase their plantings by about 2.5 per cent a year. That will rarely be possible without opening up new acreages. That new land should be freehold; but, with the ludicrous restrictions the Government is imposing, that is highly unlikely. Clause 23 of the Bill sets out the matters that the Minister is to consider in any freeholding application. The first three points mentioned are no problem—they have stood the test of time and are proper matters for consideration; it is the other eight considerations which practically rule out every piece of land in Queensland. For a start, the land has to pass the greenie test: is it wanted for environment or nature conservation? An awful lot of people around this State have paid dearly for a nice stand of native trees or a few parrots. Look at the problems facing the owners of Riversleigh. The member for Flinders could tell us about them. That well-publicised example of the ALP land grab should be a warning to many people. The Minister for Environment and Heritage and his ilk are in for their chop on another couple of points. Who is going to decide which land is degraded or even which land has the potential to be degraded? Will it be decided by a group of locals who understand the land in the area? Will it be decided by a bunch of Labor’s marauders? It will not be the Premier’s rural task force because its members do not get out of Brisbane. Will it be radical greenies, preservationists who will not allow a blade of grass to be disturbed without calling that degradation? I remember the member for Mount Isa saying to me after flying from Brisbane to Mount Isa, “I have looked at every road in Queensland.” He forgot to say that he looked at them from 45 000 feet above us. That is how he does it. It seems to me that this provision gives a lot of latitude for decisions which bear no relationship with reality. That is what we see coming from the other side of the House. The academic theorists have no relationship with reality. There is another consideration involving aesthetic appeal. Who will decide a question such as that? Mr Foley: The Minister. It’s in the Bill. Mr RANDELL: Don’t make me laugh! By the way, I accept the honourable member’s invitation to come up to Nebo and talk to the graziers. Mr Foley: Good. It was your invitation. Mr RANDELL: Well, the honourable member accepted. I agree with that. It is on the public record that he has accepted it. About February next year, we will accommodate him. I would say that, if he has the same impact on the graziers up there as he had with local government, it will not be very much of an impact. Will the Government send out a scenery expert? If the land has a nice view, is it lost as far as freeholding is concerned? What about the instruction that the Minister has to consider whether the land has a foreseeable potential use higher than for grazing or agriculture? Most caneland is near the coast. Because of where it is in the State, it often has magnificent views. A great deal of land that has potential for use as caneland will also have potential for the location of such things as tourist developments or shopping centres in new tourist communities. Will that spell doom for a farming family seeking the security of freehold tenure? I can see Labor getting ready to run off at the mouth about unearned profits from freehold land being sold on for a big profit. Let me ask this House: how many times does that happen? How many times has a family that has been there for generations Legislative Assembly 2394 30 October 1991 kept freehold land and looked after it? Cannot safeguards be built in so that genuine farmers can have their freehold? Again, as we know, the radicals will have the final say. How far do we have to go down the path of appeasing the radicals? Do we have to get to the stage at which they have control over every important decision? Will the State of Queensland be in the hands of committees, radicals, theorists and academics? Is that what is happening? They have put this State back 100 years. When the history of this State is written, this will be described as its most shameful period. I am also greatly concerned at the provisions in this legislation relating to quarrying rights. By these provisions, the Government removes a possible source of income from a land-holder and creates serious viability problems. It has been put to me that some of this legislation has been imported from the Mineral Resources Act. If that is the case, then much was left behind as well. Where are the protections that that Act contains for the land-owners? I certainly cannot find them. It is true that there are restrictions on how close operations can be to dwellings and improvements such as dams, bores and stockyards. Mr Foley: You’re asking rhetorical questions. Mr RANDELL: I will deal with the honourable member when I have a little bit more time. He is a laughing-stock in the north, a laughing-stock in local government and a laughing-stock in this area. He is a hypocrite who has used his position for personal advancement. Mr FOLEY: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr RANDELL: I withdraw those remarks, in deference to the Chair. Mr Prest interjected. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member had better not talk. He is in jeopardy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! I ask the member for Mirani to continue. Mr RANDELL: Well, I am being provoked. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease their interjections. Mr RANDELL: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that, for some of the things he has been saying, the honourable member should actually have been pulled up by the Chair. Honourable members opposite should consider the personal consequences that they might suffer if a quarry was located 100 metres from their home. Mr Prest interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis will cease interjecting. Mr RANDELL: They should consider the disastrous consequences on property management of heavy machinery running around important working areas. They should consider the detrimental effect some work practices could have on the viability of the property. They should give real rights to the property-owner, not the pretend rights built into this legislation. I am pleased to find that there is provision for appeals to the Land Court in cases in which a property-holder is aggrieved. However, I remind the Government that action through any court is a very expensive business, and because of the state that rural industry is in today, any sort of legal action is simply too expensive to contemplate. Many rural people—in particular, farmers in the Mirani and Whitsunday areas—are barely getting enough to live on. If that is a source of mirth for members on the other side of the House, I say shame on them. The cost of court action would be doubly expensive in cases in which the opponent was a large, well cashed-up corporation. Legislative Assembly 2395 30 October 1991

Of course, we on this side of the House would prefer a return to the old system, which worked very well. Under the old legislation, a significant quarry resource was identified before the land was leased or subsequently freeholded. The land containing that resource was then retained by the Crown; it was not put out to private ownership. We on this side believe in that. But where a quarry resource was not significant, that land was able to go out to private ownership and the quarry materials became part of the economic resources of the block. That is not to say that they became unavailable to other parties. They were generally available, but at a price which made the inconvenience worth while to the land- holder. I know that the member for Mount Isa would know that, in local authority areas, land-holders usually work in with their local authorities to do that sort of thing. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would overturn such a system. It can only be a reflection of Labor’s deep-seated opposition to the private ownership of anything. It is a deep-seated hatred of people who Labor consider are wealthy land-holders—men and women who are prepared to work and build up an asset free of union interference, to earn a decent living and to provide security which they can pass on to their families. Those hard-core socialists want rural people to work like peasants on the land to fund their social welfare jobs. But I have news for them. The rural people are fed up. Rural people want a fair deal, and they are not getting it from this Government. The Labor Party of 1991 has not progressed beyond the Labor Party of 30 or even 50 years ago. One only had only to hear the speech made last night by the member for Isis—— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mirani is again straying from the subject matter of the Bill. He will come back to the Bill. Mr RANDELL: Where did I stray, Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not believe that reference to the Labor Party has any relevance to this Bill. Mr RANDELL: I got a bit carried away, because the Labor Party has not done much that is good. There will obviously be plenty of things for the next conservative Government to undo. The more we see legislation such as this, the closer the day comes when a conservative Government will again take office and some sanity will return to this great State of Queensland. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (9.25 p.m.): Speaking briefly to this—— Mr Prest interjected. Mr RANDELL: I rise to a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis will withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary to call a member a dill. Mr Prest: I was not speaking to you, Madam Chair. I would not address you like that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to call anybody in the House a dill. Mr HOLLIS: It gives me great pleasure to speak briefly to this Lands Legislation Amendment Bill, because this is another far-reaching initiative of this progressive Lands Minister. It was gratifying to hear the previous speaker refer to the Minister as the salt of the earth and a good Minister. Government members already know that. This Bill allows the Minister to act compassionately when the need arises. Earlier in this debate, Mr Hobbs and Mr Randell stated that industry groups have had no real consultation with regard to the Bill. Mr Hobbs stated that the Opposition was not aware that the Bill was being introduced into this House. He said also that the Opposition was not aware of the short time available for it to have input into this legislation. I believe that the member for Mount Isa put it clearly when he stated that the length and breadth of Queensland had been well Legislative Assembly 2396 30 October 1991 canvassed on this subject. If the Opposition did not take the opportunity to engage in that consultation process, it is a very poor Opposition. This legislation has been pending for more than two years, and the Minister, Mr Eaton, has been consulting with all industry groups. Mr Hobbs stated also that he was concerned that the Minister could defer rent increases. The Minister has done just that at this time. That is a responsible action by Mr Eaton. Mr Hobbs is concerned that, under this legislation, the Minister has the power to freeze land rents. This will be done in times of hardship. The Minister does not want a system whereby rents will increase regardless of the economic plight of land-holders. Queenslanders know quite well why freeholding was frozen on 5 February 1990. Under the present legislation, land-holders could sell their properties after freeholding for a nominal price. Land that was good and fertile sold for an inflated price. We witnessed that recently in Cairns, where a sugarcane property was leased, but when freehold was obtained it was sold off for around $46m. That was one of the many issues that tipped the previous National Party Government out on its ear. The amendments to this legislation are the result of the first major review in 30 years of Queensland’s land policy and administration. This new legislation will mean that rents for all Crown leases will be based on a percentage of the unimproved capital value. That means that rents will more accurately reflect the state of the industry. Rental percentage levels, which will be determined closer to the introduction date of 1 July 1993, will take into account current industry conditions. The Wolfe report identified many problem areas with the net rate system, and determined that it was appropriate to move to unimproved capital value as a basis for Crown rentals. To most people, it will mean no change to the rental assessment method for their leases. Special leases, non-competitive leases, arable components of grazing homestead perpetual leases and pastoral holding rents are already based on a percentage of unimproved capital value. The annual adjustment means that rents will increase or fall depending on fluctuations in land values. This will give a more consistent approach to rents, which move with returns to the industry as reflected in land values. It will also overcome the past system whereby rents were not changed for 20 years, and became eroded by inflation. Rents will be determined as a percentage of the unimproved capital value in accordance with a category in which the lease will be placed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members will have their conversations outside the Chamber. Mr HOLLIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was having trouble hearing myself speak. Rental levels have not been finalised, and will be determined close to the date of introduction on 1 July 1993. This follows consultation with industry groups. The new rental system will reflect industry conditions. Rents will increase only if property values increase. The unimproved value of the land is based on sales evidence in the property market. Values—and, consequently, rents—will fall when returns or expectations are low, and will rise when they are high. During poor economic times, the Minister has the authority to defer rental repayments and lower the interest under hardship provisions. He can also make recommendations to the Governor in Council to give other added benefits, including remission of rent and interest or part of rent and interest under hardship considerations. These prerequisites must be met before the hardship provision will apply. For instance, a lessee may have to produce financial statements. During poor economic times, property values usually drop, as do rents. The new legislation has expanded the hardship provisions for lessees. In times of hardship, the Minister can defer rental payments and annual freehold instalments. Penalty interest does not apply for the period of deferral. The Minister for Land Management is now able to offer hardship provisions in the case of serious illness, accident to the lessee, drought, flood, fire, artificial and natural disasters, and economic recession or severe downturn to the Legislative Assembly 2397 30 October 1991 industry. The Minister will also be able to recommend further assistance to the Governor in Council to give other added benefits, including remission of rent and interest or part of rent and interest. The two-year moratorium for grazing homestead perpetual leases of pastoral holdings, which was announced at the Toowoomba Cabinet meeting in 1990, has been extended to two and a half years. The rents will now be phased in from 1 July 1993. An important part of the legislation is that, if property values increase extraordinarily, the Minister has the power to average valuations. This will reduce the impact of rent increases, because the rent will be based on the average of previous lower values and the increased values. In the case of property values being kept high in certain places because of speculation when large companies pay above-market prices, professional valuers will determine the market and identify those out-of-line sales, and those speculative sales would normally be identified and rejected on that basis. The land-holders have 28 days from the release of a valuation or after receipt of a rent notice to object to that valuation if dissatisfied with it. Land-holders can challenge the Valuer-General’s valuation and, once an objective decision has been issued, have 28 days to appeal to the Land Court against the decision. I repeat: this is a compassionate Bill, a Bill that will again highlight the present Minister for Land Management as an initiator of fairness and compassion in dealing with land matters. I support the Bill. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (9.32 p.m.): The first point that I would like to touch on is the freeholding provisions of the Bill. Regrettably, the Minister does not have the same concept of freeholding as do members of the Opposition. Unfortunately, he is rather akin to those gentlemen who live in the Maryborough region who seem to think that people who talk about freeholding and owning their own land should wash out their mouths. I remember the Minister saying that none of the air we breathe is free and therefore the land must not be free, either. This afternoon, honourable members debated the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Heritage. We are but custodians of the land, regardless of whether it is freehold or leasehold. The better we look after the land, the better it is when it is passed on to the next generation or sold to someone else who may utilise it or, if the tenure of the land-holding is changed, used for other purposes in the future. It is absolutely essential that the Minister understands the philosophy that runs through people’s minds regardless of their politics. They may start off on the Minister’s side of politics but, when people are involved with land, look after land and have any real love of it, in time they understand the philosophy that most people can be encouraged to look after land only if they are given secure tenure over it. Mr Dollin: You’re saying that lessees don’t look after their land, but 80 per cent of our land is under lease. Mr ELLIOTT: I will give the honourable member a very good analogy. I cite the example of what happened with the Vesteys in the Kimberleys. Let us consider what happened to all of that land. Many honourable members would have seen the documentary program on the ABC that detailed the whole sorry saga of the empire that held leasehold land in that region. Those people milked the land. If the Government continues down this road and tries to force people into leasing Government-owned land so that they do not have any proprietary rights over it and do not believe that they can pass on the land to their children to look after, the same thing will happen. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: So do I. I do not dispute that for a minute. Mr Dollin: You’re saying that they don’t. Mr ELLIOTT: No. I am saying that history proves that a great majority of lease-holders have not looked after their land, because they have been companies. They have a Legislative Assembly 2398 30 October 1991 structure. They have share-holders and pressure from those share-holders, as does any other company that is listed on the stock exchange. The share-holders say, “Give us a dividend. We want to see a dividend. Never mind about your excuses about the droughts, the floods, the fires or any other problems. Do not tell us about that. All we want to know is: where is our dividend?” That is what the share-holders say. Therefore, if the Government takes this road and gives over land throughout Queensland to leasehold tenure—both small and large areas of the State—the end result will be that Queensland will not have the stewardship of land that it has under freehold tenure. It is well documented. The honourable member for Manly shakes his head. I am amazed at him, because he is an intelligent man. I find it quite amazing that he cannot understand that concept. Did he see the documentary program about the land in the Kimberleys? The library would probably have the program on video. The honourable member should have a look at it and see for himself what that company did to the land. He will see the erosion and the other problems. That company raped the environment. That is the only way that I can describe it. Mr Elder: You made a sweeping statement and you haven’t got proof to back it up. Mr ELLIOTT: No. Mr Elder: A very marginal case. Mr ELLIOTT: Marginal! It was the greatest disaster in the history of this country. Unfortunately, other similar disasters have occurred. Mr Elder interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! The member for Manly will cease interjecting. Mr ELLIOTT: I am saying that we can make a comparison between that case and people who have owned freehold land for one, two, three, or four generations. Those people have an absolute abhorrence of those who degrade their land and do stupid things with it. It is absolutely essential that the Government understands that, because if it continues down this track, it is heading for a disaster of absolutely monumental proportions. National Party members have long been proud of the opportunity that was afforded to all of those lessees, regardless of whether they were the biggest and richest land-holders in the State or whether they were battlers who had worked in the woolsheds, shorn sheep, raised sufficient capital to acquire a small block and prospered. There are plenty of those people. R. M. Williams is a typical example of that sort of operation. If the Minister takes that example, he will find that those people who held leasehold land and were able to freehold that land under the provisions of the Land Act when the National Party was in Government were, in most cases, top citizens. They not only looked after their land but also involved themselves in their community. There were involved in the p. and c. associations at the local schools. They were involved in all of the community programs that constitute such communities. Mr Dollin: You’re saying the lessees don’t get involved in p. and c. associations. You’re saying that lessees are a bit of a second-rate lot. Mr ELLIOTT: I am saying that a lot of the lessees do not get involved; that is dead right. People who own freehold land make the best sorts of settlers. The honourable member cannot refute that fact. It absolutely amazes me when I read some of the provisions contained in clause 37, which inserts a new section 191. When one looks at proposed new section 191 (4) (a), one finds that the Minister has to consider whether the granting of the application is in the public interest. This is probably not a bad policy, provided it is administered by reasonable people. One could drive a 10-tonne truck Legislative Assembly 2399 30 October 1991 through the clause as regards who will decide what is in the public interest and what is not. Proposed new section 191 (4) (b) states— “whether any part is required for environmental or nature conservation purposes”. In some cases that might be a reasonable question to ask, but in others it would be an unreasonable question. It depends on the circumstances. Paragraph (c) states— “whether any substantial part is at serious risk from land degradation . . .” I come back to the example I gave in regard to the Kimberleys. No-one should have given those land- holders an extension of that lease. If the Government had a good look at what was going on and was conscious of its responsibilities, it would not have granted the lease. There is no way they would have got the lease if I had been the Minister. Proposed new section 191 (4) (f) states— “whether any part has a foreseeable potential use higher than permitted under the lease”. Who will make this God-like determination and say in the future what higher use might be made of a pastoral lease? I find that provision rather interesting. Paragraph (g) states— “whether any part is on an island or its location, topography, geology, accessibility, heritage importance, aesthetic appeal or like matters . . .” One could drive a 10-tonne truck through that provision, as well. Why does the legislation not simply say that the Minister will have an absolute discretion? Basically, that is what the whole clause is all about. The final paragraph of proposed new section 191 (4) states— “(h) any other matter the Minister considers appropriate.” Why go through all that paraphernalia beforehand, if in the end the Minister will have the right to decide whether he likes the colour of a person’s eyes or not? If a person is a member of the National Party and he does not like him, he will say, “No, I am sorry. We will not give you the lease.” Mr Foley: That would be taking into account an irrelevant consideration, and for the benefit of the new administrative law reforms, you would be able to seek swift and efficient judicial review. Mr ELLIOTT: I will refer to a gentleman who has contacted me in respect of a lease. He lives way out in the back of nowhere where there is no interest in national parks. He has been told that he will have to carry out an environmental impact study before he will get an extension of his lease. I will refer him to the honourable member and the honourable member can tell him all that. Mr Foley: If you feel unable to represent your constituents, the Labor Party would be happy to help you out. Mr ELLIOTT: He is not a constituent of mine. However, I will refer him to the honourable member and the honourable member can give him his learned opinion. I am sure he will find it very enlightening. Another area of great concern is clause 58, which inserts a new section 250 (1A). It basically states that a lessee will not be able to cut down a tree or do anything in that respect without a permit. How can a lessee who is 90 miles from anywhere and trying to manage his or her property in a reasonable fashion on a day-to-day basis, and who has every interest in the environment and no intention of clearing land for pasture or anything else, clear fence lines and firebreaks? Over the last month, honourable members have seen many examples of horrendous fires in this State, because in many cases people did not carry out that burning. The member for Maryborough probably understands that part of it because he knows the forestry system Legislative Assembly 2400 30 October 1991 but, unfortunately, many Government supporters tend to believe that conservation areas should be left alone, that they should never be burned or touched and must remain in a pristine state. That is a load of rubbish, because if those areas are to be looked after, in some instances controlled burning has to be carried out and some timber has to be cleared to make firebreaks. Certainly fence lines have to be cleared if they constitute a fire hazard or cause management problems. It just is not a practical proposition to say to people that they may be fined $24,000—or even $48,000 if one looks at the proposed penalty points in the clause—if they cut down a single tree. I find that obnoxious and absolutely impractical. I am absolutely staggered that someone such as this Minister who is supposed to be a practical person and who comes from the bush—which is what he keeps telling us—should come out with such garbage in this legislation. I find it abhorrent and I do not support the Bill in any way, shape or form. It is a retrograde step for Queensland and, as such, I certainly will not support it. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (9.46 p.m.): There have been many occasions, Madam Temporary Chairman, when I have seen bad Bills introduced in this House, but in the short 20 or 30 minutes that I have had to study the critical clauses of this Bill, I must say that I am really very worried about the provisions contained in it. Mrs Woodgate: Oh! Mr KATTER: I will get into Hansard the name of every member who interjects because this is very important. Mr Elder: I had better sit in my usual seat, then. Mr KATTER: When I came into this Chamber, I saw a lot of people who think this is a game. I also saw that when there were 60 or 70 coalition members of this Parliament. They also thought it was a game. As the years have gone by, the message that this Parliament is not a game has been brought home with terrible force. If it is a game, then we are playing with people’s lives. In my electorate, there are 700 families who derive their livelihoods from the land. They live on stations that are not cleared and, according to ABARE, the average income for those people is approximately $20,000. If my memory serves me correctly, this year it will be $24,000. As a result of the passing of this Bill, the rentals for pastoral leases will be rising from $1,000 to $11,000. Presently, most of the rentals are approximately $2,000, which means that the rentals that will be paid after the Bill is passed will be $20,000 a year. The members of this Parliament should understand this: these people have no money. They have been torn to pieces by the banks that operate in Australia and by interest rates, yet tonight members of this Parliament will be laughing while they sit in this place, thinking that it is funny and frivolous to remove every single cent from these people. Mr Hollis: Why did they borrow the money? Why did they borrow? Mr KATTER: I will take the interjection. They borrowed the money for two reasons. One reason is that very few people in my electorate have inherited wealth. At some stage they worked as ringers and shearers. Out of an area containing only 600 stations, I can name 23 people from my home town of Cloncurry and from the neighbouring town of Julia Creek who started life either as labourers, ringers or shearers. They now derive their living from the land, and they had to borrow money to go onto the land. That is why they are in debt, and that is why they borrowed the money. The member for Redcliffe has asked me the question, and I have answered it. Mr Hollis: They borrowed to buy a business, the same as any other businessman borrows to buy a business and has to pay for it. Mr KATTER: I fully agree with that, but I most certainly hope that the Government does not go into every business and change the rules with the result that when it once took $2,000, it now takes $20,000. If the Government does that, then God help any Legislative Assembly 2401 30 October 1991 businessman in this State. Let me say to the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, who sits on his backside with his lovely law degree to protect him for the rest of his life—— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! Mr KATTER: I withdraw the remarks unequivocally and apologise to the member opposite. Let him come out and explain to the people who have worked in the hot sun all their lives and who, in the main, started their lives as labourers of one type of another—probably cutting the wool off 100 or 150 sheep a day—that all their income should be removed, because that is the first thing that will happen when this legislation is passed. There has never been much of an issue about freeholding in Queensland because, if a person held a pastoral lease, it was virtually regarded as freehold property. This was a truism in the days of the former Labor Government, and it is a truism today. As I have done on many previous occasions, I pay a great tribute to the early pioneers of legislation in this State. In sharp contrast to those men, this Government is taking away the rights of Queenslanders. Those Government members who like to read books should obtain a book on Mr Theodore and Mr McCormack because most of the bases of the laws of the land enjoyed by the people of Queensland were enacted during the period when they were members of this Parliament. Those men had a concept; that is, it is every man’s right to become rich in the State of Queensland. It was the right of every person, not a privilege, and they set out to make laws that would enable every person to do that. However, tonight is the occasion of the great retreat. The members of the present Government are the people who will take away that right. Mr Dollin: We are not! Mr KATTER: Let me explain. This Government is not only increasing the rentals and ensuring that people can no longer hold a pastoral lease but also is changing the rules with respect to freeholding. Mr Hollis: You are not saying that anybody else should get rich; you are just saying that the land- holder should get rich, and he shouldn’t pay any increases in rent. That’s what you’re saying. That is exactly what you are saying. Mr KATTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the member would stop talking for a moment, I would answer the interjection. He is saying that the people to whom I have referred are going to be given the right to become rich. Mr Hollis: No; that is what you said. Mr KATTER: I say to the honourable member that if he comes into my electorate, he will find that out of the 600 stations located in my electorate there is not a single, solitary vehicle that could be considered to be a luxury vehicle of any type, with one exception. There is one Mercedes Benz, but there is no other car that even remotely resembles that type of car in the entire electorate. If the honourable member is saying that these people are rich—— Mr Hollis: You said that. Mr KATTER: They have no hope of ever being rich because their sort of game does not yield the type of profits that would ever allow them to become rich. However, they might have been able to stay alive, but this Government is removing that right. Mr Hollis: But why do they still buy properties? You tell me that. Mr KATTER: The honourable member should understand that when the previous National Party Government passed some of the industrial legislation that worried me greatly, I could see the hatred in the eyes of many workers in this State. It was no surprise to me that there was hatred in the eyes of the people affected. I saw the flash of hatred in Legislative Assembly 2402 30 October 1991 their eyes, but I would like to think that each of the laws passed was, in actual fact, all right. It may be that members of the Labor Party would argue that they were not all right, but I would argue that they were. However, I say to members of this Government that they do not understand what they are doing tonight in this Parliament. I urge members of the Government to read some books on the concepts that formed the basis of land legislation in this State and try to form an intelligent opinion on this matter. Queensland has already tried the experiment whereby nobody owned the land. What the Government members of this Parliament are saying is that a pastoral lease is not owned by anybody. The member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, the member for Cook, Mr Bredhauer, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister, actually used the expression, “You don’t own this land. It’s leasehold.” Mr Dollin: Eighty per cent is leasehold. Mr KATTER: That means that 80 per cent—— Mr Dollin interjected. Mr KATTER: The member should just listen for a moment. Eighty per cent of the surface area of Queensland is owned by the Government. If that is true, that makes Queensland the most socialist State on this planet outside the communist countries. I wish to inform the House of a marvellous book titled The Territorial Imperative. The Oxford don who did a critique on it said that he truly believed that book to be the most important work since Das Kapital. The author of The Territorial Imperative, Robert Ardrey, said that the year Das Kapital was published was the same year that the Lincoln homesteading legislation was passed by the United States Legislature. The net result was that Russia was turned into a great big social experiment wherein the Government owned the land. In the United States, it was the opposite. On the three bases that I mentioned before—occupation, cultivation and production—one is entitled to a mile by a mile. That was pretty much the same sort of legislation that Theodore put on the ground here in this State and that Queenslanders have lived under up until tonight. The United States was turned into a great big experiment in private ownership. The net result was that Russia—which at the time, in spite of its very poor Government, was the biggest grain-producer in the entire world—turned into a country that imported grain. Everyone knows what the circumstances are today in Russia. Russia is the country which has the greatest arable land mass on earth but is not able to feed its people, yet, year after year, the United States has to pay a fortune to its farmers not to grow wheat. They are the relative successes and merits of the two systems. Yet, in this Parliament tonight, the Government is introducing this system. The Government is saying that people do not own the land. Government members have said it here in their speeches tonight and the Government is implementing it in this legislation. The Government says that a lessee must not destroy a tree on land the subject of a lease, licence or permissible occupancy unless the lessee holds a permit to destroy the tree. This is a philosophy which is peculiar to Queensland. There is a $24,000 fine for cutting down a tree! Does the Government honestly realise what that entails? Almost everything that is built on a station is built with wood—ordinary timber. Most stations still do not have telephones. Station-owners do not have time to go into town to collect a permit or wait for the weekly mail truck carrying a permit for them to remove the tree. Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: Government members keep laughing. I am doing my best to explain to them that they are sowing the seeds of hatred. They do not know what they are doing here. They are sowing seeds of hatred which could result in the most terrible Legislative Assembly 2403 30 October 1991 consequences. I plead with them to reconsider what they are doing here tonight. If they do not believe me, all I can say is that I have done my very best to try to explain it to them. The reason why no lease-holder will apply for a permit to cut down a tree, as I explained in this House yesterday, is that when the people from Uanda, Bogunda and the Undarra lava tubes asked for permission to cut down a tree, it was not people from the Lands Department but people employed by my friend opposite with the beard who went out to the property, and those people almost lost their station. I might add that because the Minister retreated they did not lose their station—I hope, please God, with his tail between his legs—but everybody is now terrified to ask permission to cut down a tree because people from national parks go and look over their station. Let me explain further. I said to a member of one of these families, “How do you know that this is a good dam site?” He said, “This is a really terrible story, but I will tell it to you anyway. My great grandfather was on a mustering trip and he came back on horseback and he saw all these dead sheep hanging up in the trees. When he got to his homestead, there was no-one there and he went out to search for his family—his mother, his father, his three brothers and sisters—and he found out that the things that he thought were sheep hanging in the trees were his entire family. They were drowned because they did not know that when you have really big rain that this particular gap”—— Mr Dollin: Ripley’s Believe It or Not. Mr KATTER: It makes me sad that this story is a cause for fun. How would a land-holder feel about these laws that are being passed here tonight? Under the new terms and conditions, people have no hope of freeholding. The Government is going to drive people off the land with the enormous charges that it is imposing. ABARE says that the income for the average farm in Australia is $26,000. All of the rentals in my area are approximately $2,000. The cost of this legislation will be to increase rentals to approximately $20,000. People cannot afford that, but they cannot freehold. I will move on, because I cannot better explain the things that I am saying. In my youth, I was constantly asked by people who were far more knowledgeable about the land than I was what was the difference between agriculture in New South Wales and agriculture in Queensland. I can remember clearly the answer that I gave. I said that in Queensland people built properties as though they were going to pack up and leave the next day. In New South Wales people built beautiful homesteads that looked as though the builders intended to stay for two or three hundred years. People in New South Wales were planning to stay, whereas people in Queensland were going to move on. The person who asked me the question said, “Why? What was the difference?” I said that the difference was that people in Queensland could only leasehold land whereas people in New South Wales could freehold it. I question that difference. In fact, I have a lease about which I have always felt confident, because for the last 40 or 50 years leases have been very safe and secure. However, after reading what is contained in this Bill. I am quite terrified, because lessees are no longer safe. Anyone who owns land under a lease arrangement in Queensland is no longer safe. Mr Ardill: That is rubbish. What is the difference between resuming freehold land? Mr KATTER: I am trying desperately to explain to honourable members because they do not know what they are doing. Mr Ardill: Are you saying that it is impossible to resume freehold land? Is that what you are saying? Mr KATTER: I cannot understand the logic of the question. I have stopped to take the interjection, because I really want to explain to honourable members opposite what they are doing here tonight. Under the proposed leasehold terms and conditions, people will not be able to continue to hold their leasehold land. They will be at the whim of the Legislative Assembly 2404 30 October 1991

Government. The Bill provides for unmerciful punishments if one cuts down a tree. Heaven forbid, it is hard to imagine a land-holder not cutting down a tree for one reason or another. Trees grow at the side of the road and they grow across gateways. One has to cut them regularly to get through a gate just to drive around one’s station. People fire plough a track every year to protect the land against fire and to get rid of all the trees that are growing in the roadway surrounding the station. Do we have to get a permit every time we fire plough? People fire plough part of their property maybe once a month. They will do a little bit this month and a little bit next month. Timber has to be cut for every yard that is built, every track that is built, and every fence that is built. Are people going to be racing off for a permit every five minutes? People are not game to ask for permission. Look what happened to the people in the Bogunda and Uanda cases who asked for permission. Every single person in the electorate understands that clearly. What the Government is doing here today is creating in this State the same system that has operated in communist countries throughout the world—that the land is now owned by the state. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr KATTER: Tonight, I promise myself that I will give copies of this legislation to every single land-holder in my electorate and make sure that he sees what this Government has done to him. There is one very prominent fellow in my electorate who is a Labor supporter. I will be going along to the next meeting that he attends and present him with this legislation. I will leave it to those people to decide for themselves what honourable members are doing here tonight. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr KATTER: I tell the honourable member the philosophy behind the changes that are being made here tonight. As Mr Bredhauer, Mr Foley, and the Minister put it, people do not own this land. This is a lease. The Government owns this land. We are talking about the situation in which 80 per cent of the surface area of this State is now owned by the Government. That is the legal situation, and I would consider, as a person who has had a little bit to do with the land all my life, that this Bill most certainly delivers on those principles that have been espoused constantly by all the speakers on the other side of the House. For honourable members who are committed socialists, I congratulate them. They have achieved their objective. I repeat that 80 per cent of the surface area of this State is now owned by the Government. It will be interesting for the people of Queensland to reflect upon the fact that 80 per cent of the surface area of Queensland is now owned by the Government. Whilst many people consider Government members not to be socialists, all I can say is that in the field of land- ownership, they most certainly are. Mr Perrett interjected. Mr KATTER: One can pull up at a bowser, as Mr Perrett is saying to me, and fill up one’s motor car anywhere in this State, and it will not be very long before someone will begin a discussion by saying, “Whilst all the east European countries are running away from communism at 100 miles an hour, this State and nation are moving in that direction.” If honourable members think that the mild little movements in the polls, which now have both parties on 44 per cent, have just dropped out of the air from nowhere, they have another think coming. Believe me, I have seen it before. Once that old poll starts to roll in one direction, hold on to your hats, because it keeps rolling and picking up speed, and it is pretty damn terrifying. I can remember very graphically the member for Windsor in this place saying—and he was referring to a member on our side of the House; he was a Liberal member but he later became a National Party member—“Don’t laugh, because when that old wave starts rolling in, it will take you away.” Members of the Government can look, they can laugh, and they can continue on with this sort of legislation. It does not worry me a great deal. Legislative Assembly 2405 30 October 1991

Mr Ardill interjected. Mr KATTER: Mrs Lorraine Bird did not even attend a meeting of the major base industry in her electorate which was concerned with land matters. Whilst 400 cane-growers came to the meeting, she did not even bother to turn up, and, from some of the things that she has said in this place about cane- growers, I suppose I can understand why she did not attend that meeting. There is a beautiful triptych. I think that it is the most beautiful painting in Australia. It is very hard for any Australian to look at it without getting tears in his eyes. The first scene is a man with an axe with his wife and little kid in the bush; the second scene depicts them cutting down some trees and building a house; and the third scene shows a magnificent city in the background. These were the things that we were brought up to be proud of. Members opposite tonight spit upon those values. Time expired. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (10.07 p.m.): I must say I have listened very intently to that delivery tonight. One could hardly have avoided listening to it, given the volume at which it was delivered. There were a couple of curious stories involved in it. One was that one had to persistently cut down trees in one’s driveway in order to maintain one’s gate. Mr Katter: I was talking about station properties. Mr SCHWARTEN: I have lived on many station properties, and I have never noticed that problem before; but obviously I have not lived on properties where the trees grow as quickly as that. There would not be the problems that we have today with soil degradation and the loss of trees generally if they grew so quickly. The other curious story was the one about the family being up in the tree. I might have misunderstood it. The gentleman went out mustering, only to return home to find that the family had been washed up into a tree and drowned. I do not know how big the horse was that the bloke was mustering on, but it must have been a pretty tall horse—30 or 40 hands high—to avoid the ravages of the flood. Mr Katter: I will introduce the people to you. You know them. You taught their kids. Mr SCHWARTEN: No doubt the honourable member for Flinders will enlighten me and further elaborate on that story later. I have noted a couple of points that were made tonight by the member for Cunningham, and also by the member for Flinders. I have also read in the press that the member for Warrego has made similar claims concerning the lopping of trees and the fines that this Government is imposing for the cutting down of trees. A very interesting debate has ensued. I think the member for Warrego said something to the effect that this Bill, because of the provision for fines for the destruction of trees, intrudes on to private property rights. Other speakers have referred to the $48,000 fine for cutting down one tree. Let me remind honourable members opposite that section 250 of the Land Act specifies—— Mr Hobbs: Four hundred. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will come to that matter in a moment. The Land Act specifies “shall not destroy any tree”. The amendment proposed is to remove “any” and replace it with “a”. Let us not get carried away with people who are concerned with one tree being destroyed. Mr Hobbs: You are wrong. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member has said that it intrudes onto people’s private property. For a start, the Bill will provide for leasehold property—not private property. The other point related to the $48,000 fine. I point out that that amount relates to a corporation; it is $24,000 for individuals. One might ask: why do we need to have such excessive fines? Having lived on the land and having seen people who know how to look Legislative Assembly 2406 30 October 1991 after their land and who understand that they are mere custodians of that land for future generations, be they in their own family or others, I thought at the time that the provision was pretty harsh. However, I investigated the matter to discover why we had to amend that provision. Two cases spring to mind readily. One relates to a property outside Alpha where the land-holder applied for and was granted a permit to destroy trees on 4 000 hectares. But he was not satisfied with that and he went out and knocked down trees on an additional 4 000 hectares. That 4 000 hectares became 8 000 hectares. Why would he not knock down another 4 000 hectares? There are two reasons. One is that his chances of being caught were fairly slim. The other reason was that the fine was only $400. I do not know what the hire charge on a dozer is these days, but I believe that $400 would hardly pay the hourly rate. Would that be so? Mr Hobbs: Yes, but how many hectares did he have altogether? Mr SCHWARTEN: He applied for a permit to knock down 4 000 hectares, obtained the permit for 4 000 hectares and then knocked down an additional 4 000 hectares. Mr Hobbs: How many hectares in the whole place? Mr SCHWARTEN: That is treating the whole Act with absolute contempt. He treated the law with absolute disrespect. Honest and decent land-holders whom I know would treat his act with absolute contempt. I know people on the land who value the land and are prepared to do the right thing by it. Unfortunately, the law prevails for the minority who do the wrong thing. Mr Katter: You would know more about it than they would, would you? Mr SCHWARTEN: Actually, the honourable member for Flinders might be aware of the second case, because the property is in his electorate. The property-owner did not bother to apply for a permit but destroyed 3 000 hectares, and then he applied retrospectively for a permit to do it. I defy anybody sitting on the other side of the Chamber to defend the actions of those people. But why would they not do it? For the same reason as somebody would not worry about driving through a stop sign if the fine was $2. It would not matter a damn to them. Honourable members might have noticed that the number of speeding offences decrease as the fines are increased. When people driving four-wheel-drive vehicles on beaches are fined, they say, “Oh, it’s only a couple of hundred bucks. We can all chip in and pay it.” However, when the fine is $5,000 and the vehicle may be confiscated, they will not continue breaking the law. Fines do deter people. In this instance, the $400 fine is a paltry amount and will not concern people who want to do the wrong thing. The same applies with the environment. Because of insufficient penalties for breaches against the environment, disasters have been recorded. Fines are provided for the protection of the people. Honourable members should imagine the circumstance in which Lands Department officers would be crawling around in jungle greens, waiting for the property- owner to start up his trusty Stihl and cut down a gidgee tree. They should imagine those officers sneaking around and hiding behind the bore drains and waiting for the cocky to pull up with his four- wheel drive, get the plumb axe out of the back of the vehicle and chop down one of the acacia trees. Honourable members should not be so damned ridiculous as to suggest that this occurred before; therefore there is no reason to suggest that it will occur in the future. The fines are in place as deterrents for the sort of people about whom I am talking. I am surprised that anybody on the opposite side of the Chamber would want to leap to their defence. I am surprised and astounded to hear the member for Flinders, who I thought had a pretty good record on these matters, stand up and defend the actions of those sort of people who do the wrong thing. Certainly, the people on the land to whom I talk—people who are in land-care councils and so on—are concerned about it. They worry about what neighbours do on their properties which affect them and their salinity levels and so on. They are crying out Legislative Assembly 2407 30 October 1991 to Governments to put some teeth in legislation to stop people from doing the wrong thing. This Government has finally done something about it. It has taken a long time for any Government in this State to do anything about it. I applaud the Minister’s intestinal fortitude. Accordingly, I support the Bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (10.16 p.m.): After the tirade from the member for Rockhampton North, I wonder if he knows what is really going on in the bush. I wonder also whether Government members realise the quandary being faced by the people in the bush. People are just about to walk off their land, yet the Government is trying to subject them to an increase in rent that they cannot sustain. It is hypocritical. The Bill before the House is a very comprehensive update of the existing Act passed in 1962, but I can assure members opposite that it is very frightening—if they have read it, that is. I would be the first to agree that after a period of some 30 years there would obviously be some areas which require updating. As the Minister stated, the basis of many of the amendments has been the Wolfe report, resulting from inquiries by the land policy and administration review committee. However, I believe it is just another example of this Government’s harsh attitude towards the rural community, which is suffering its worst economic hardship and the worst recession in living memory. Today, this Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will—and I will put it quite simply—increase the cost of living and the working and production expenses of people in rural Queensland. Those people are the life-blood of this State and this nation. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves for once more driving the boot into the guts of those people. In many cases, the increases will be very substantial. This Bill involves Crown land, and, as this makes up some 90 per cent of the State’s land mass, it will have considerable impact on a wide range of people. I have no qualms about making that known. I will be telling the people in my electorate all about those members opposite who laugh about that. It will have considerable impact on a wide range of people both on the land and in businesses directly supportive of rural production. Members opposite forget that the people in the shops and in the businesshouses in the rural towns are suffering just as much hardship as the people who are trying to make a living from the land. This, at a time of national recession, coupled with returns of rural commodities such as wool at their lowest levels for many decades, clearly vindicates what I have just said. This Government’s whole policy attitude and that of the ALP is basically back to the old them and us syndrome, those wealthy farmers and graziers viewed from the eyes of the socialist. I can assure members that there are not too many wealthy farmers and graziers left. Socialism is not the mathematics of justice; it is the arithmetic of envy. That is the problem with the lot opposite. Thanks to the years of Labor Governments federally, and now a State Labor Government, very few wealthy farmers and graziers are left. Once they become non-viable, it has a snowballing effect, as I just said. The businesspeople in the western towns and elsewhere in the State are suffering as a result of that snowball effect. Over the years, the Federal Government stripped farmers and graziers of tax concessions which were aimed at making them more resilient to their traditional problems of droughts, floods, fires and, of course, market fluctuations for their products. I make it known that Australia, as a primary-producing nation, is a price-taker, not a price-maker. That is where this Government has got it wrong. There is not much, if any, fat left within the rural communities to help them through the present tough times. The outlook is for worse yet to come, with a major drought looming over the entire State, not just a part of it. Recently, I found it quite remarkable to hear the Premier of this State saying that he would do everything possible to get Canberra to assist in restoring drought assistance under the national disaster category. To counter his claims of rorting the system against drought relief support of the National Party Government when he was in Opposition, on Legislative Assembly 2408 30 October 1991 last Sunday week on television he limply said that the current drought was “not a normal drought” but a major drought. It is more than a major drought. There is not only a drought but also a recession into the bargain. Rural commodity prices are at an all-time low. Wool prices are the lowest they have been for probably 50 years, yet the cost of production is the highest it has ever been in white man’s history. To thousands of people in rural areas who regularly live with the fear of periodic drought hanging over their heads, the Premier’s quaint terminology is lost. A drought is a drought in anybody’s language—anybody who understands, that is. A while ago, the honourable member for Flinders spoke about the people in his electorate and the harsh conditions confronting them. I can assure honourable members that the Government should be paying some of those people to stay on some of their blocks because they are not worthwhile places to be on, anyway, yet the Government is trying to increase their rents tenfold. Mr Goss said that he would leave no stone unturned to press for a restoration of assistance from the Federal Government. I agree with him 100 per cent. However, I would point out that most of these forms of assistance, which he is now rightfully suggesting should be available to land-holders, were in fact taken away from rural Queenslanders as a direct result of the constant baying and complaint of this same Labor Party when in Opposition. Mr Goss and others on his side of the House were claiming that the whole system was suspect. They claimed it was designed to help friends of the National Party, but that is where they got it wrong again. They are jealous of anybody who tries to have a go. Mr Palaszczuk: Rubbish! Mr JOHNSON: They are. The honourable member knows it. The people who are the providers in this State are those who are doing it hard. Members opposite do not understand that, and they do not want to understand it. Today, I can claim that the Premier’s about-face proves that a need has always existed for drought relief mechanisms within the Commonwealth/State financial arrangements for natural disasters in the same way as they were in existence before this Government came to power. The bitter memory of this State’s rural community of those attacks against drought assistance by Labor when in Opposition will not be forgotten. I was just pointing out the cruel coincidence of the introduction of this Bill at this time. The previous king hit against the State’s Crown lessees by this Government was the introduction of massive rental hikes for sheep and cattle properties under the Land Act Amendment Bill last November. Remarkably, it also followed media promises by the Premier of assistance to rural Queenslanders who were then trying to cope with the deepening recession—the recession we had to have, according to his Federal counterparts. The ink had hardly dried on the Premier’s press release after the Cabinet meeting in Toowoomba when this Minister delivered this Bill to this House some 48 hours later. As far as I am concerned, that is totally hypocritical. Despite widespread objections being made to the Minister’s department, the commencement date of 1 January 1991 went ahead. At that time, the Premier told the people of Toowoomba that to assist them through the economic recession, there would be a two- year moratorium on rent and on lease fee increases recommended by the Wolfe report. One might ask: does this promise still stand true? I note that the commencement date for the first annual rental period is still 1 July 1993. If so, why is there a rush to get this legislation through the House at this time? If what the Premier promised just 12 months ago to the day is still to be believed, I can assure Government members that they will not be in power when it is to be implemented. The National Party Government had decided to phase in the Carter rental increases over a period of 10 years, knowing full well the uncertainties of farming and grazing production within this State. At the time of preparing his report, Mr Carter stated quite clearly that it should not be implemented at a time of rural recession. That is exactly what is happening. Legislative Assembly 2409 30 October 1991

At next year’s election, the rural community will remember the Minister’s and this Government’s decisions on a wide range of issues detrimental to their life-style. I took note of those Government members who were interjecting during Mr Katter’s contribution, and I will tell the people of the west and rural Queensland what their attitudes are. Mr Prest interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The people around Port Curtis will listen to what I have to say. In his second- reading speech, the Minister stated that it is intended that more fundamental changes to the Land Act, as recommended by the Wolfe report, will be introduced at a later stage. One can only hope that the financial situation of this nation—not only of Queensland’s rural community—will vastly improve before that time. I welcome the fact that the Government decided to lift the freehold freeze imposed in February last year. Land-holders will now be able to assess how the Government is going to administer the new freeholding arrangements from actual applications being processed. Of course, that freeze need never have been imposed. But then again, it was a Labor policy decision made without much forethought; just another knee-jerk reaction. The Labor Government hates anybody getting ahead, and that was why the freeze was imposed. Personally, I believe that any Australian should have the right to purchase land within this nation, be it Crown land available for sale or freehold land without restriction. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated also that the Bill deals with the first and most urgent stage of the Wolfe recommendations relating to the freeholding of leases and the process for determining rent. Both have been demanded by Treasury. They are Treasury driven. I believe that the proposed introduction of a standard method of calculating rentals as a percentage of a property’s unimproved capital value will be no more readily accepted within the rural community than it has been by the urban masses. On a Statewide rural basis, the exercise will be vastly more complicated. I point out that while it is quoted as a market-driven mechanism, that is, one which increases values in times of upward market fluctuations, and downwards on the other side of the economic cycle, by freezing the annual valuations at record high levels the Government has effectively stopped any decrease in rates, rentals or land tax. This action alone demonstrates clearly the Government’s vindictive attitude to land- owners. I note also that a percentage rate for calculating the rents of the various lease types throughout the State has not yet been struck, and that the Minister first desires to consult with various arms of our rural industries before doing so. I hope and trust that this is not yet another Labor ploy to defuse rural anger at the basic impost of this Bill prior to the next State election. I assure the Government that rural people will not forget this legislation. The Minister has stated that the announcement of the rates will be determined closer to the date of commencement of the new system. I thoroughly agree with this point, provided that the mechanism is not too complicated or costly, because I firmly believe that, as farmers and graziers, we are simply caretakers for the future in the use of our properties. I refer back to today’s debate on the Estimates of the Environment and Heritage Department. Members spoke about conservation, heritage and whatever else. The people who run those properties, no matter where they are—whether they are on the downs or in the west, the far north or wherever—are true conservationists who know what they are doing with their land. They care for it, because they know what percentages they will get out of it. They know that, if they abuse it, they will not get that full return. I believe that we should aim at leaving our land to our children in a condition at least equal to—and, if possible, better than—the condition in which we gained it. That is one reason why we try to improve our land but this Government is trying to stop us from improving it. Unfortunately, as in all walks of life, there are some people who will overstock their land for the goal of more immediate monetary gain, with little concern for its continued viability. I do not agree with those people, and never have done. I do not condone their actions. Legislative Assembly 2410 30 October 1991

Unfortunately, the restrictive land policy of early Labor Governments of cutting up land into non-viable, uneconomic areas has been a major contributing factor to overstocking and, thus, land degradation. I believe that the vast majority of land-holders are good managers of the assets which they hold—their land and its productivity. I am more than a little apprehensive of the connotations that can be read into this Bill under the guise of land protection. For instance, clause 58 states in part that “A lessee must not destroy a tree” on the lease without first obtaining a permit to do so, and that, regardless, without a special permit he will be unable to destroy even a single tree within two years. My colleague the member for Flinders also referred to this matter. I refer to some of the mulgalands in this State where some poor, unfortunate people are struggling to make a living. If they do not push over or cut down the mulga trees, they will certainly go out the back door at a faster rate of knots than they would otherwise. Such a permit must be applied for in writing on the prescribed form and lodged at the district land office for a determination by an authorised officer. I feel that this Big Brother approach is overbearing. Where is it going to lead? Members of the Government do not even know where it will lead. I can tell them that it will ruin those people who are trying to make a living from those regions. Will we have to seek approval, for instance, to destroy trees that are noxious pests? At the moment, we are obliged to destroy them. If land-holders wish to clear back trees from a fence to maintain it in a stock-proof condition, they will have to apply for a permit and wait until the district land officer can find time to inspect the fence line. I am sure that everybody in this House would agree that that is absolutely ludicrous. If that is going to be written into the legislation, I do not want to be a part of it. What will happen in times of drought, such as those being experienced in an ever-widening sector of this State? I accept that, in some cases, particularly in relation to tourism developments, large areas of trees have been bulldozed in the name of progress, to be replaced by buildings, golf courses, lawns and the like, to induce tourists to come to Queensland and spend money here. In areas set aside for urban development, the destruction of trees occurs on a large scale. In many places, land-owners have pulled large areas of their land to improve their stock-carrying capacity and to develop their properties so that they can produce more, be it grain, wool, mutton or beef. That is what the National Party is all about—improving the aggregations of which we are proud. We are trying desperately to hold on to them. Mr Katter: Mr Schwarten said it was a crime to increase our productivity. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Schwarten would not understand. He lived for two or three years in the north- west country near McKinlay, so he should have more sense than to say that. He should understand the difficulties and hardships confronting people in that region of Queensland. In most instances, the clearing of land has been selective and moderate and in the best long-term interests of the particular properties to ensure their viability. Before concluding, I will mention one or two other points. Clause 56, which provides for hardship relating to the payment of rentals or instalments by lessees suffering the effects of drought, flood, fire, natural disaster, economic recession or severe market downturns, specifically states that interest being charged on any such deferment will continue to accrue. The only exceptions would be made with special permission of the Governor in Council. Surely, it is clearly illustrated right now throughout the wool and grain industries—and, unfortunately, probably very shortly in the beef industry—that, in many cases, the interest build-up pushes overdrafts too high, resulting in banks and finance houses forcing properties to be sold. The people are then forced into another embarrassing situation. However, that does not seem to register with the Government. When providing rent relief, anyone who has any compassion should certainly go that one step further and suspend interest payments to try to ensure that experienced farmers Legislative Assembly 2411 30 October 1991 and graziers and their families can remain on their properties. The objective that all honourable members should pursue is to ensure that those people remain viable and to try to help them through these difficult economic times, not to give them another good, solid kick in the guts—which, when the Bill is passed, is exactly what will happen. I note also that clause 47 of the Bill gives the chop to the age-old concession—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! The time to debate the clauses is at the Committee stage. The honourable member will keep to the Bill. Mr JOHNSON: The Minister might care to enlighten the House about why, under clause 67, it is deemed necessary to remove the need for applicants for road closures to advertise the fact in local papers. I am pointing out that it is of absolutely paramount importance that these aspects of the Bill are raised. Members of the Opposition will address those aspects at the Committee stage. What does the Minister, or any applicant, have to hide? Why should neighbours and people living in the area to be affected by the closure not be warned and given full details so that they can object? I also ask why, under clause 107, the present arbitrary 60-day requirement on the Valuer-General to advise an objector of the outcome of an objection is to be abandoned? Does its replacement by the words “as soon as is reasonable practicable after a decision is made” indicate that the Valuer-General’s Department cannot cope with the numbers of objectors within the 60-day period? If that is the case, how will the department be able to undertake effectively the new system required by the Bill that all Crown rents be set each year under the department’s unimproved capital value method? If the Bill is passed tonight, I hope that the Government shows compassion to the people who will not be able to meet those rent payments when they accrue. I assure members that people cannot pay the rents with which they are confronted now, let alone the increased rents that will accrue once the recommendations of the Wolfe report are implemented. In these hard economic times, some compassion should be shown to the people in the rural areas of this State—not only in the large western areas but also right across the State—so that they can redeem their operations and once again become viable. If those people in the western and other rural areas of this State are not viable, towns and cities will also be affected. Time expired. Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (10.36 p.m.), in reply: In replying to the contributions of honourable members, I will be fairly brief because the Bill has been debated over three nights. It has been a very wide-ranging debate. The crux of the argument is centred on four issues in the Bill: freeholding, the use of the unimproved capital value of land as the basis for rent, the tree-clearing and quarry material issue and the valuations. Many of the questions raised by honourable members were repetitive. Some were raised early in the debate by the shadow Minister, the member for Warrego, Mr Hobbs. I will put members straight on those issues. In relation to freeholding—the honourable member for Warrego claimed that he knew of a case of an application for freeholding not being granted. I would like him to give me details of that case. Under the previous Government, freeholding was refused in many cases. I can show the member the relevant files. Just because the Labor Party is now in Government does not mean that freeholding applications will be knocked back. I have signed freeholding grants. Because the people had fulfilled their obligations under the Act, depending on the conditions attaching to their lease, I was bound to do so. The main concern of National Party members is that they want the land for nothing. The policy of the Government in relation to freeholding that has caused concern among National Party members is this: the Government wants fair market value for the land. If land is freeholded, people will pay commercial values for it. However, if it is leasehold land, Legislative Assembly 2412 30 October 1991 members of the Opposition turn around and want it for nothing. They want to be able to pay $1,000 for the land and sell the timber for $50,000. Members of the Opposition complained about the unimproved capital value of land being the basis for rent. The Government has deliberately left out the prescribed rates for rentals because it is undertaking consultations with the land use consultative committee, which comprises representatives of every rural industry, including the UGA, the Cattlemen’s Union, the Australian Farmers Federation, the grain-growers association—you name it. There are also representatives of the tourism industry. Any industry that has anything to do with the land is represented on the land use consultative committee. The Bill is the beginning. The Government, in consultation with those people, will streamline the process. I also took exception to members opposite saying that the Government has not consulted anybody. Since the Wolfe report was published, the Government has consulted with most of those representatives, who also had the opportunity to make an input into the report. The Wolfe review committee travelled to several areas of Queensland to hold further meetings with those people. In broad terms, we expressed our acceptance of that. The Government had other discussions with industry representatives, but there is no way in the world that we will hand over the running of the Government to any industry, whether it be rural or any other. The Government has a big responsibility and wants to be the genuine custodian of the land asset that belongs to all Queenslanders. We will continue in that way and will have discussions with the people in the industry. More noise has been made in this House over the three nights we have debated this legislation than has been made throughout the rest of Queensland. Mr Katter: The rest of Queensland will be catching up with us. Mr EATON: If the honourable member will just listen and be quiet and civil for a moment, he will learn. In the three nights of this debate, not one member opposite has been able to prove that the Government has increased the rent or costs to the rural industry. The Government has done nothing but help them. Mr Hobbs: You have. Mr EATON: We have not. We have given over $100m in flood and cyclone damage relief. The Government has put up $20m for relief for every farmer, grazier and land-holder affected by the drought. The Government has made it much easier to get the benefits. No other Government has ever allowed them to get concessions. Mr Hobbs: That is not true. Mr EATON: The member says he is the shadow Minister, but he would have to stand 100 times in the same place to cast a shadow. He runs around the countryside blabbermouthing and does not think before he talks. All he is doing is bringing disgrace to the National Party. He simply wants to scaremonger and put fear in the hearts of the people who are facing drought. The honourable member has had plenty of time to tell me where the Government has made an increase. The Government was accused when it set up the Wolfe committee. It was said to be just a ploy to stop freeholding and to increase rents. As Minister for Land Management, I gave a 12-month exemption from the implementation of the Carter system, which cost the Government half a million dollars. There has been no acknowledgement of that. We have not increased one thing. The graziers and people in the rural areas have received benefits only from this Labor Government. I challenge the honourable member to cite one area in which the Lands Department and the Government have increased the rents or charges paid by rural people. The Government has done nothing but provide benefits for those people. They are hurting out there, but what do we find? Instead of members opposite trying to give them a bit of comfort and compassion, they race around the country barking like mongrel dogs and try to put fear into the hearts of those people who are facing hardship. Legislative Assembly 2413 30 October 1991

The Government is trying to alleviate some of the problems faced by these people. We have gone out to meet them. If the honourable member would like to call a meeting, I will meet with those people any time he likes. We are trying to help them by doing something positive, which is more than I can say for Opposition members. Their contributions were mere drivel and hogwash, and they had nothing constructive or sound to offer. That has been the disappointing part of this debate. Opposition members came into this House to turn this into a political point-scoring exercise so that they can go back to their electorates and say, “I went down to Parliament House and told them.” All they have done is spread a lot of innuendoes and misrepresentation about Government policies. One Opposition member even had the hide to criticise the Wolfe review by saying that the committee did not know what it was doing. Those people were independent and had consultations with everyone involved in the industry. Everyone was given two or three chances to make a contribution. Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders will cease interjecting. Mr EATON: All the honourable member is doing is making a lot of noise. This House has been debating this legislation for three nights, and I ask honourable members to agree to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. A. G. Eaton (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr HOBBS (10.50 p.m.): This clause deals with the reservation to the Crown of all quarry material exclusive of topsoil where a deed of grant is issued after the commencement of the Act, and where the quarry material was owned by the Crown. The quarry material and topsoil are defined in the Forestry Act. I believe that the effect of this Legislative Assembly 2414 30 October 1991 clause will be to basically determine the two types of freehold that Queensland will have. The Wolfe report makes the position quite clear. I am not saying that what is stated in the Wolfe report is totally correct. Mr Dollin: It is not far wrong. Mr HOBBS: One of the things this Government is saying is that it endorses the principles in the Wolfe report which recommends a reduction in the types of tenure that apply in Queensland. The Government is creating an additional form of tenure. There will be two types of freehold tenure—the old type and the new type. The type of tenure provided for in the Bill will allow quarrying rights to be retained by the Crown, but some freehold title will not have quarrying rights included. The most important feature of this legislation is that, at the present moment, each department can place a covenant over a particular piece of land if it is required for the purposes of quarrying, forestry, or as a nature reserve. The Minister is saying that he now wants a second bite of the cherry, because he is saying that, in the first instance, the departments are entitled to do that. He is saying that when a person makes an application for freehold tenure, he or she has to check with all the departments, which would then advise whether or not the land was available for freeholding and, in some cases, they would indicate the use to which the department intended to put the land. The effect of this is that the Government has a second go at using the land and is not allowing people who purchase it to own it in its entirety. Presently, local authorities and Main Roads can buy quarrying material on the open market at a low price. I have owned freehold land, and I have since sold some of the land that had quarrying rights attached to it. I can inform the Committee what has happened in my experience. Main Roads bought some of the material from me—— Mr Dollin: You didn’t pay for it as freehold. You got it for nothing. Mr HOBBS: The member should listen to this. Main Roads paid me only a handful of silver for the material that it wanted to use, which was okay. It was used to help build a dam, and I was able to improve my property, but Main Roads did not have to pay a great deal for the material it took. Main Roads made a hell of a mess of it. It dug up the material and left the site without tidying up, but l did not complain. The material that was used in construction of roads was only a minuscule part of the overall cost compared to the total cost of the roadway. I do not believe there is anything to be gained by denying a land-owner the total use of his land. The Minister has stated that the effect of the Bill will be that the quarrying material can be used by the owner of the land, which is great—and so the owner should be able to use it, and he should have the right to be able to sell it if he wants to do so. Mr Dollin: Not unless he pays for it. Mr HOBBS: The Minister is taking everything away from the land-owner and is denying people the right to own land. What is wrong with this Minister? I do not see why he wants to take away the rights of people to own property. It is a typically socialist attitude. Mr Dollin: Rubbish! Mr HOBBS: It is just not right at all. It is a Claytons freehold title that is being provided by this Bill, and the Opposition is totally opposed to the particular section that denies the land-owner the right to keep quarrying material under his control as part of freehold tenure. Mr EATON: I cannot accept that proposition because the reason for retaining those rights is that the material is an asset that belongs to all the people of Queensland. The major users of quarries are shire councils and Main Roads. All I am doing is providing an asset that is to be preserved for the benefit of all the people of Queensland. The only use to which quarrying material is put by local councils and Main Roads is to improve the lot of the whole community by upgrading the roads upon which people travel. It is Legislative Assembly 2415 30 October 1991 ridiculous to ignore the fact that people want to obtain freehold title in certain areas specifically to control quarrying material and sit back and do nothing for the rest of their lives at the expense of all other Queenslanders. Opposition members interjected. Mr EATON: This is what has happened in the past, and the records show it. My department has looked into this matter and the Government believes that quarrying material is an asset that should be used for the benefit of all the people of Queensland. I find the Opposition’s proposition unacceptable, and I intend to retain the clause. Mr KATTER: That ugly phrase, “The land belongs to all Queenslanders”, keeps cropping up. Mr Dollin: Of course it does! Mr KATTER: There it is again. If 80 per cent of the surface area of land in Queensland is owned by the people of Queensland through the Government of Queensland, which is the repository of public interest in Queensland, then this would be the only State outside eastern Europe and northern Asia where that situation exists. Does the Minister really understand what he is saying? The Bill reflects the Minister’s philosophical point of view very accurately. Although I have not heard all speakers in the debate, I heard the Minister, Mr Bredhauer and Mr Foley, and Mr Dollin is screaming abuse at me here and saying the same thing—the State owns this land. The Minister is imposing upon Queensland a socialist concept of land-ownership. That is what the Minister is doing here tonight. He has seen the success of that system in the communist countries and will impose that upon his own State of Queensland. Mr STONEMAN: I have to put on record in this place that I am affronted by the suggestion that the Minister has put forward in respect of this amendment. I cannot believe—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no amendment. We are talking about clause 5. Mr STONEMAN: I am talking about clause 5. It is an amendment to the Land Act, as I understand. The CHAIRMAN: There is no amendment to the amendment. Mr STONEMAN: It is an amendment to the Act. The CHAIRMAN: Go on. Mr STONEMAN: The definition of “quarry material” needs to be looked into. In the minds of a lot of people, “quarry material” could be granite ridge, it could be hard rock, or it could be anything. It could also be good topsoil, it could also be land in close proximity to buildings, facilities, yards, dips, or any other facility. A person could in all sincerity buy the land and with no thought whatsoever sell parts of the land for profit to Main Roads, councils, or whatever. That is why I am so affronted. I was about to leave the Chamber when I heard the Minister make that statement. Circumstances change, and they change dramatically. It could be that the type of material that Main Roads, the shire, or any other public body could be seeking is quite dissociated from the original purpose of that land. I have a neighbour who has held land under freehold title for many years. The circumstances under which he sells his quarrying materials are such that he does so in the public interest. He would be able to hold out against the sale of that land under the terms of the Act as it exists. However, because he feels an obligation to provide that material, he does so. But he has done so on numerous occasions to the detriment of the continuing viability and value of his property. It needs to be understood that he will end up with a hole in the ground. Freeholders may gain, superficially and in the short term, because of the sale of quarrying material; but, in the Legislative Assembly 2416 30 October 1991 long term, those people end up with a hole in the ground—nothing! I think that has to be considered. I cannot believe the Minister’s statement. He seems to think that people buy land with the pure and almost malicious intent of sucking from the public good and then simply reselling that land that was otherwise bought for another purpose. I find that an affront to the decency and intent of the people who are the subject of this amendment of the Act. I want to make a further point that quarry materials do not have to be in what is sometimes termed “mongrel” country. It can be good topsoil. The land could be quarried for all sorts of reasons. This Bill will now allow the quarrying of material to within something like 100 metres of a dwelling and gives the person who owns that land no control whatsoever. That person might accept the terms of the freeholding when he enters into the contract with the Government, thinking that “quarry material” is the rocky hill at the back of the property, or the gravelly ridge down in another direction, only to find that “quarry material” can be anything regardless of the soil type. Quarry material can be taken from within 100 metres of a person’s home. I am incensed at the suggestion that a Minister of the Crown will stand in this Chamber and say that people were buying land to effectively rob the community when, in fact, good and decent people for years—such as my neighbour—have given their good land for the public good. I think that suggestion is something that the Minister is going to live to regret. It is a slight on the people who have been involved in this process of quarrying throughout the years with the Government in the name of construction and other processes that involve quarrying from private land. Mr EATON: I cannot accept the information given by the two previous speakers. I think they have the bull by the horns. They have misinterpreted what I have said. This Government is introducing an amendment to quarry 200 yards from a house. These people will receive compensation for the roads or anything else that occurs in setting up the quarry. They will have the use of it on their own property. We are talking about big properties. Apparently people buy land to lose money. All these people are buying the land, giving it away, and not making any money out of it. I am very pleased the honourable member thinks that way. Mr PERRETT: The Minister is incorrect when he says people give things away because they want to lose money. I know of cases, particularly in the area I come from, where there are very small deposits of quarrying material on very valuable land. I also know of cases where people out of generosity have donated that virtually for the good of the community so that the material can be used on roads, for instance. I know of a particular property-owner who had a deposit of fine sand on his property which was used to make concrete blocks that were used to build a shopping centre in that area. Because of the generosity of that property-holder, the whole community benefited by having a shopping centre built in that area, to the detriment of the value of that property from which the sand was taken. That same property-owner also donated sand and loam for top-dressing sporting ovals, rodeo fields and so on, which were for the good of the whole community. Thousands of dollars worth of damage was done to the value of his own property because he wanted to see the community benefit. This flies in the face of what this Government is trying to do, and I will certainly oppose it very strongly. Mr HOBBS: I am totally opposed to this clause, and I am horrified at what is happening here. Honourable members should be discussing what the Minister has said. He says that he knows of someone who bought a block of land with the very explicit purpose of holding it for quarrying use. What about the rest of the Aussie battlers out there? There are thousands of them out there who are working very hard to try to make a living. They are not all trying to do what the Minister has suggested. The Government is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. The majority of people are good, hard-working Legislative Assembly 2417 30 October 1991 people, and they are being denied the right to have something they should have, and something the rest of the community has. There are thousands of blocks of freehold land that people now have the right to own. Under this legislation, the Minister is denying future generations the right to freehold land. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member is getting off the clause. He is now talking about the right to freehold land, and this clause is about quarrying. The discussion is becoming too wide. Please come back to this specific clause. Mr HOBBS: Mr Chairman, for your benefit, it is being said that the quarrying right is not available for freehold land. That is the point I am making. The Minister has said that there can be a quarry within 200 metres of a home. How would honourable members like to have ten 300-horsepower motors screaming 200 yards from their homes? Government members talk about noise pollution at airports and so forth. People are screaming about noise, and this Government wants 300-horsepower motors screaming in people’s ears day in and day out. There are quarries in my electorate. There is one person who lives about 3 kilometres away from a quarry. Even though there is a hill between his home and the quarry, he is at the stage that after three months he has absolutely had it. At the present moment he is almost stark raving mad. The people at the quarry start work at half past 4 in the morning. Of course, that was before daylight-saving started; it would be half past 3 now. Mr Veivers: Take it easy! Mr HOBBS: I am sorry. In that situation, because of the extra daylight they can now work an extra hour, so they are going even later at the end of the day. They have these motors screaming all the time, and if a train comes in at night or if trucks arrive late, they load at night-time as well. How would the Minister like to have loaders going all night right beside his door? In addition, electricity is necessary for quarrying, and most quarrying areas are nowhere near power lines. They have their own generator sets, and they are also about 300 or 400 horsepower. They are screaming away as well as the crushers, and there is an incredible amount of noise. This Government is doing the wrong thing. There should be an ability for the people who own that land to at least say, “Well, you can have a quarry if I can sell you the land. I will sell it to you. The trucks can drive in away from my family and away from where the prevailing winds blow”. But at the present moment the Government is denying those people that right. It is immoral. I think it is purely socialist legislation, and I am totally opposed to it. The CHAIRMAN: The Minister may answer the rest of the questions. Mr EATON: The Opposition’s proposals are still unacceptable. Opposition members began by telling us how people give the sand and gravel away. Whether it is sold or given away, one still ends up with a hole and the handicap. Mr STONEMAN: Let us assume that there is a road closure beside a piece of freehold land. Under the terms of this amendment, as I understand it, closure, when that road closed by agreement and then subsequently is able to be incorporated in the freehold land or becomes a separate piece of freehold in its own right, with a separate title, will, under the terms of this amendment, carry the covenant of being able to be quarried. The concern I have is that many genuine and honest people will look at that—and they will be appraised of the situation by the Lands Department, I would assume, and by their solicitor—and say, “Now hang on. There is nothing on this that relates to a quarry. There is no quarrying material on this”, because they will look upon a quarry as rock or gravel, but, as the honourable member for Barambah pointed out, it could well be that there is a particular type of sand, a particular soil type, or a particular type of something that in the future could be deemed to be quarrying material. This puts an open-ended covenant across all land that, from this day forward, will be freeholded under the terms of this Legislative Assembly 2418 30 October 1991 legislation. I believe that is reprehensible. Over a period, thousands of people could potentially be caught up within the net of this unbelievable amendment. Mr EATON: It will apply only to land freeholded after 5 February. Question—That clause 5, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members, for all further divisions on this Bill, the bells will be rung for two minutes. Clauses 6 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr HOBBS (11.17 p.m.): This is the nuts and bolts clause of the Bill. It deals with the change from the present 10-year rental period to an annual rental period. The Government is breaking an existing contract with many lease-holders who have in the past few years taken out a contract with the Government for a 10-year lease. It is now telling them that the contract will be on an annual basis. As well, the Government has not prescribed what the annual lease will be. The Wolfe report identified what the prescribed rate may be. For the benefit of honourable members who may not be familiar with the process, I point out that the assessment of rental will be carried out on the basis of the Valuer-General’s valuation of the lease. In the past, rental was assessed on the net rate system, which was based on the ability of the block of land to produce and on its carrying capacity. The rental is now based on the sale price of land in the area, and that plays no part in, and bears no relationship to, the capital return on the block of land in question. Someone may have a piece of land that is near a dam, a town, the coastline or a development of some sort. Such land will have a Valuer-General’s valuation which is higher than that of a neighbouring block. Both blocks of land will be agricultural blocks used for grazing. As a result, one of the two pieces of land will be assessed at a higher rental. The prescribed rate that the Government uses to determine how much rent is paid can vary. The Wolfe report said that the rate for rural areas may vary from 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent and that for sporting and recreational clubs it may be 3 per cent; residential, 3 per cent; Legislative Assembly 2419 30 October 1991 commercial, 6 per cent; industrial, 6 per cent; tourist leases, 5 per cent; and public utilities, 6 per cent. Some of the larger aggregates may be charged rental up to a rate of 6 per cent as well. It is like buying a pig in a poke. The Government is asking the Opposition to sign a blank cheque on behalf of the lessees of Queensland for the Government to be able to say, “We will fix it up for you. We will charge you a rate that will be appropriate. We will consult.” We have seen how much consultation has occurred on this Bill. There has been next to none. The Minister need only talk to industry groups and they will tell him that. The Minister has said that he has attended conferences and so forth—the cocktail set. What I have said is quite true. The people need only be asked and they will say that there has been no consultation about what is proposed. A certain amount of consultation has taken place with regard to the Wolfe report. There was consultation initially, but in the end result there has been no consultation about exactly what this Bill will contain. That is unsuitable. People do not particularly want this legislation. At the end of the day, there will be a lot of unhappy lease-holders. If the Government sets a prescribed rate of, say, 2.5 per cent on an average one-family living area block of land and valuations drop by half, the Government’s rental intake will probably drop by approximately half as well. Is the Government happy with that? Shire councils do not operate in that way. They make sure that they have a steady income all the time. If the Government sticks to the one rate, over a year there may be a 100 per cent variation in the rental. I note that this clause contains a provision for the Minister to average the valuation. It states that the Minister “may average the valuation”. What procedure is adopted to achieve that? I guess it depends on the Minister of the day, who may or may not be sympathetic, as to whether there is a hike in the valuation. Can the Minister tell us what sort of an increase he would call the trigger point at which he would average the valuation? Would it be an increase of 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent? I do not believe that the annual valuation will be a suitable way in which to determine rents. The valuation should extend over a longer period. It is well known that the rural industry is very volatile and that there should be some consistency in the charges that are placed on it. It needs the ability to be able to plan ahead. Under this legislation, it does not have that ability. Mr KATTER: I believe that this is probably the clause that represents the ugliest aspect of this Bill, which is the ugliest Bill that I have seen come into this Chamber since I have been a member. That is a pretty strong statement. I ask members to understand what is happening here. Approximately 80 per cent of the surface area of Queensland is covered by leases. Most of them are pastoral leases, or something of that nature. I cannot speak with great familiarity about every area in Queensland, but I can about my own area, where most leases are valued at about $50,000. People on that land pay an annual rent of about $2,000. I know that, when they are sold, most properties in my area are valued at about $750,000. That is the average price of a sale in the Flinders electorate, which covers about a tenth of the surface area of the State. About $250,000 of that $750,000 relates to improvements. So the real valuation is half a million dollars. If a person is paying $2,000 in rent upon a property that is worth $50,000, and the property is given a realistic valuation of half a million dollars, that person then must pay 10 times $2,000, which is $20,000. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr KATTER: The present Lands Department valuation is $50,000. That department is very conservative in its valuations. The point that I am trying to make is that the Government is blowing away all the graziers in Queensland who do not own freehold property—which represents about 80 per cent of the land mass of Queensland, not 80 per cent of the number of graziers. Those people cannot afford to have suddenly imposed Legislative Assembly 2420 30 October 1991 upon them a rental of $20,000. This issue is a bit like the subject of mining. Only two or three members in this place have ever been miners. So when I speak about mining, very few members know anything about it. Only two or three members have lived on leases. So when I talk about pastoral leases, very few members know anything about the subject. I ask members to understand clearly that the present lease valuation is $50,000. The valuation that this Government intends to impose is at least half a million dollars, which represents a tenfold increase in the rentals that those people would pay. The present rentals of $2,000 will leap to $20,000. Probably half of those stations would be rented for considerably more than that. According to ABARE, the average income prediction for this year is $24,000 or $26,000. So all of the profits of those properties will be taken by the Lands Department. That is why this clause will blow those people clean away. I am dealing in facts. The Minister can check on everything that I am saying to ensure that it is correct. I do not know who drafted this legislation, nor do I know what he had in mind at the time. All I can say is that what is proposed here is absolutely horrific. It must blow all of those people away. There will be a fire storm of hatred out there. In the past, the National Party has made similar predictions, and the Government has had to back down. On many occasions when the National Party was in Government, we had to back down because we did things that were as stupid as what is proposed in clause 15. If the Minister is not going to do anything about this tonight, he must address this problem. There is no way that we can live with this clause. As to the second half of the clause—I do not intend to repeat what I have already said 400 times. According to the Explanatory Notes, clause 15 provides “that a pastoral lease is to be used only for grazing or agricultural purposes”. The Minister is most certainly delivering on his promise that we do not own the land; that the Government owns the land, and that we have the right to run some moo cows on it—and even then, under very restrictive conditions. Eighty per cent of the surface area of Queensland is no longer owned by the land-owner. We no longer live in an owner/operator society on the land in Queensland. Mr Dollin: It has always been like that. Mr KATTER: If the member wants to talk about the technicalities of the law—that is correct. Mr Dollin: It stayed like that all the time under the National Party. It never altered. Mr KATTER: I am not making a political point, I am making a very serious point. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Flinders will raise his questions with the Minister. Mr KATTER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will do that. I believe that we are in a discussion mode. In fact, we call this a Committee. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Standing Orders state that members will speak through the Chair. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I will not argue with you. I will bow to your wishes. The second half of this clause relates to a point upon which the Minister and I cannot agree, so I will not pursue the matter any further. However, we can agree upon the first half of this clause. It relates to a technicality, the machinery of which will impose upon all those people on leases a huge increase so that they will be paying rentals of $20,000. That will happen almost instantaneously under this proposal. If the Government believes that people on an annual income of $26,000 can afford an imposition of $20,000, all I can say is that it is greatly mistaken. I notice that the honourable member for Mount Isa is in the Chamber. Many graziers in his electorate vote for the Labor Party. In fact, the shire chairman, who ran against me in the last State election, was the president of the local ALP Legislative Assembly 2421 30 October 1991 branch. There is no way in the world that he will wear this sort of proposal, because he will be up for $20,000 a year. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that this Government is saying that we are moving towards a proper Valuer-General valuation. There is no doubt that the proper Valuer-General valuation for the vast bulk of those stations would be somewhere between $300,000 and $700,000—let me say $500,000. The average rental paid is $2,000. So there will be a tenfold increase. The CHAIRMAN: Order! This is tedious repetition. The honourable member has already made that point. He will finish up or resume his seat. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I bow to your wishes. As you have quite rightly said, I have repeated myself, but only because this matter is of such great importance. I am trying desperately to communicate as best I can the very real worry that the Opposition has with this clause. I seek some assurance from the Minister that this matter will be addressed. Mr EATON: In answer to the honourable member’s question—he must remember that this is the first year when annual valuations have been carried out for every shire council in Queensland. Valuations have been made for rental purposes. By basing the valuation on the unimproved capital value of land, it is a matter of setting the percentage of the dollar, as the shire councils do. The honourable member is trying to make the Government say what it will charge in 10 years’ time. The Government is moving away from that. When revaluations were done every five to seven years, there were steep increases in valuations. When we add to that the boom periods in some of the coastal regions, such as the Gold Coast, Cairns and other tourist regions, there were very steep increases in valuations. The Government will address that problem when it arises. That is why the Government provides the mechanism to deal with the problem when the valuation increases unexpectedly. When the revaluation was done every seven or eight years and when there was a boom in a particular area, some places experienced increases of nearly 2 000 per cent. I take the honourable member’s point. The Government is discussing that with the land use consultative committee. That is why the Bill does not provide for a percentage. The percentage will be prescribed after consultation. The provision for an annual valuation takes out the humps and bumps with the sudden increases in valuation. The Government will move with the times and, hopefully, avoid some of the steep increases. If there is any downturn in valuations, the benefit will go to the land- holder. Mr QUINN: I have a question for the Minister. The Bill contains a very subtle change from the recommendations of the Wolfe report, which recommended that the unimproved capital value of land be averaged over a three-year period—a moving average as of statute. In the Bill, the Minister has made a very subtle change in that he has given himself the option to, in his opinion, average the unimproved capital values over a number of years at his discretion. That is a very subtle change and it gives the Minister the power to average out the valuations. I ask the Minister why he moved away from the Wolfe recommendations in that regard. Mr EATON: I did that in case there were any steep increases in valuation. That provision gives the Minister the mechanism to help solve the problem. If in 12 months the annual valuation suddenly increases sharply, the increased valuation can be averaged out with another lower valuation. As I say, I do not expect a sudden increase but, these days, one cannot predict that accurately. The Bill provides a mechanism that will give the Minister the opportunity to average the valuations over a period, which will reduce a very high valuation. Mr QUINN: The point is that the Wolfe report recommendation removes the averaging from the Minister’s discretion. The recommendation is for an automatic Legislative Assembly 2422 30 October 1991 averaging so that the lumps and bumps will not be there. Under the proposal in the Bill, the lumps and bumps will be there but the Minister has the discretion to average them out, to smooth them out. According to the Minister’s argument, the recommendations of the Wolfe report ought to be contained in the Bill, but they are not. The discretion now lies with the Minister to average out the valuations. As I said, it is a subtle change but it is an extremely important change because there may be steep increases in valuations in one year and the Minister may decide not to act. That in turn would mean large rental increases for lease-holders. Under the recommendations of the Wolfe report, that would not occur because the valuations over a three-year period would be averaged automatically. That is the subtle change to which I refer. Mr STONEMAN: Again, I speak with some degree of knowledge of this matter, having been involved in leasehold pastoral holdings and grazing homesteads for many, many years in western Queensland. I am appalled that yet another constraint will be placed on people who are unable to pass on any of their costs—people who are price-takers at every level and who are, as I said earlier in the debate, susceptible to the vagaries of market conditions and of capacity to maintain the value of their asset. The true value of their asset is only that value which applies to the capacity of the asset to give them a certain degree of return on their investment. In many, many cases, assets have been overvalued. I acknowledge that some people have got themselves into trouble, but they have had to ride with the market wave. In normal circumstances, under the terms of the purchase of leasehold land—and I look to my experiences in the leaseholding of pastoral land—one of the great certainties was that people knew what their rental would be. They had at least one fixed cost. They had a reasonable idea of the history of shire rates, but they had at least one fixed cost that was averaged over a 10-year period. Some people had 30-year leases that were extended to 40 years and, in some cases, to 50 years, and at least they had the knowledge that for 10 years a particular rental would be applied to the asset off which they were trying to make a living. Mr Elliott: The ability to budget. Mr STONEMAN: That is exactly it. In respect of rentals, people had the ability to budget. That was most important. If people were in the last half or two-thirds of their rental period, they could be told by the bank manager that they might be subject to either a resumption, a part resumption or a whole resumption. However, at least people knew what their rentals were and they could assess the cost of the rental against the remaining term of the lease. Under the amendment to the Bill, people will not have that knowledge any more. The rental can change every year. When people had 10 years left in their leases, they knew that for 10 years they would pay a certain rent. In those days, when people were in the last third of their lease, the Crown could take at least one-third of people’s holding and up to one-half at the end of the term of the lease. The bank manager would say, “You might be certain of retaining the lease, but the Government of the day can reclaim a certain percentage of the land.” Under the terms of the Bill, the bank managers will say, “You have fixed costs for which you have budgeted, but in the next 10 years the Crown could increase those costs each year by an infinite amount.” People will have no knowledge or capacity to budget for any of those factors. The Minister referred to a boom. A boom applies only to those regions that have a real estate component. It does not apply in the normal sense to the pastoral land of this State. The vast land masses of this State, to which the honourable member for Flinders referred, do not have booms. They may have had something of a boom over the past few years, but that boom was unrelated to the capacity of that land to provide a return on investment. The boom has nothing to do with this. Legislative Assembly 2423 30 October 1991

One other thing that needs to be understood is that droughts occur in cycles. From my understanding and research, droughts happen every 11 to 12 years. That was the basis upon which the original rental structure was phased in. It took into account the fact that over a period of a decade there would be a range of seasons. Under this provision, it will be absolutely and totally ad hoc. I wonder whether or not the Government or the Minister has communicated that fact to pastoral organisations such as the UGA, the Cattlemen’s Union and the Queensland Farmers Federation. If the Minister has communicated with those organisations, I do not think it has been explained carefully. However, if it has been carefully explained and they have accepted it, I would have to say that they are either fools or have totally abrogated their responsibility to the organisations they represent. I state that clearly and concisely because I do not believe that the enormity of what is suggested under this legislation has really sunk into those organisations, if in fact the Minister has really communicated with them. I ask the Minister: is it not the case that he could effectively double or treble the rental on Crown leases on an annual basis without respect to any other factor? That is a decision that will be made by the Government of the day. There will no longer be a situation in which a lessee knows for a fixed period of possibly 10 years what his or her costs will be. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, and hopefully I will agree with what he has to say. Mr EATON: This matter has been covered. Rent is not the most important thing to a land-holder. There are many other increases he has to face. Until now, and probably for a long time, land rent has been the cheapest component of any commercial operation, whether it be an industrial operation or a grazing or agricultural property. All other charges are unpredictable and move up or down in the way the member discussed tonight in the hypothetical schemes he has put forward. There is no safety built in. In answer to Mr Quinn’s comments—the Wolfe committee recommended averaging both upwards and downwards. I did not accept that, because if there is a sudden drop in valuations and the rents come down, I could have said, “You have too steep a benefit there. I am going to average that to bring your rent up.” We accept that the lessee will get the benefit. If the valuations are on an annual basis, the value will keep up with the times because we do not expect any of the sudden movements that have occurred in the past. If there is an increase, it will not be very much because of these annual valuations; and if there is a decrease, we do not expect it to be so steep. Mr QUINN: The Wolfe report recommended that a moving average be installed because the committee saw it as being fair to both the lessee and the Crown. The Minister has just explained the way the rates drop. I would be concerned that the return to the Crown would not be substantial enough. That goes against what the Wolfe report recommended. Although the prescribed rates are not mentioned in the Bill, it states that they will apply from a prescribed date. The Minister had a long time to consult with the industry. I take it that consultations did take place, because he and the member for Cook said they did. At present, we are in the throes of the worst rural depression in Queensland for quite some time. Commodity prices are extremely low. We know what the bottom rates are and what these people can now afford to pay. Changes between now and the date on which the prescribed rates apply, that is 1 July 1993, will not vary all that much. Hopefully, most primary producers will be in the throes of some sort of recovery by that time. I put it to the Minister that it is not unreasonable for him to come into this Chamber and present the Bill as it is. I take it that the Bill will have to be worded this way so that the prescribed rates can be enacted through regulations, but the Minister should be able to give the Chamber some idea of what the prescribed rates ought to have been. The conditions which apply to primary producers between now and the date when the prescribed rates will apply will not vary all that much. The Minister should have made such a statement to this Legislative Assembly 2424 30 October 1991

Chamber so that the Bill could be fairly judged on its true merits. We have no idea what the prescribed rates will be that will commence in approximately eight months’ time. Mr KATTER: We do not really have any assurances. The Minister said that he is not applying the valuation. He is really asking us to accept a blank cheque. I am not in the business of telling the Minister how to run politics. A Government member interjected. Mr KATTER: Members are trying to have a serious debate and can do without the honourable member’s giggling. Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: That is the voice of serious discussion. A Government member interjected. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, it is enormously difficult when those sorts of remarks are made when I am trying to communicate. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to speak to the Minister. Mr KATTER: I am trying to, but it is very difficult. I will return to what I was saying. The Minister is asking us to accept a blank cheque. We have no statement, and the only thing we can do is go out there and fight like hell to make sure that everyone rises up in anger and forces upon the Government the fact that they will not accept the horrific impositions that will flow from the new valuations. That is the first point I wish to make. My second point is that we had the same problem with rates. Under Russell Hinze, we introduced one of many things introduced by that excellent Minister in this place, which was the A plus B divided by 2 formula. This formula used the last valuation 10 years ago, plus the new valuation—which was the present valuation—divided by 2. That was an excellent answer to what in north Queensland was called the Mission Beach effect. The likes of the Prime Minister’s wife retired to Mission Beach and paid $200,000 for a piece of land, and many railway pensioners who also retired there were forced out onto the streets. The A plus B divided by 2 formula was very, very effective, but the formula is utterly useless when annual valuations are being carried out. The averaging formula is of no value whatsoever, as far as I can see, when there are annual valuations. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr KATTER: That is not right because in the case of annual valuations, the average moves up very quickly and the valuations become horrific—up to 1 000 per cent higher than they should be, as I outlined earlier. I have two other difficulties. One is that I still have not received any assurances that an actual figure is to be stated. The Minister has left out the figure, which might be construed as a good thing; but it could also be construed as a very bad thing because he might add a figure that is much higher than was thought previously. The other is that there is no formula stated in the Bill, although reference is made to an averaging formula which, because of annual valuations—to which I and so many intelligent people have always been trenchantly opposed—have been the cause of many people being put out of their homes. They cannot afford to pay the rates, and now they will not be able to afford to pay the increased rentals calculated on increased valuations which, in my electorate, could move very swiftly to amount to increases of 1 000 per cent. No-one should have to have increases of 1 000 per cent imposed upon him. Under the principle of good government, that should never happen. Mr STONEMAN: Again, I ask the Minister: what was the consultative process involving the organisations concerned, particularly with those organisations that represent owners of the larger areas of leasehold in this State, namely, the UGA and the Cattlemen’s Union? I cannot believe that if they had been properly explained they would accept the terms of the legislation. If the provisions were properly explained and if Legislative Assembly 2425 30 October 1991 representatives of those organisations did accept them, they were either fools or they were abnegating their responsibilities. I also make the point that in his reply, the Minister mentioned that the idea of the clause is to prevent sudden increases in rental charges. I point out that, in the past, no sudden increases in rents have taken place because they were spread over a 10-year period. The Minister may be referring to a few Mickey Mouse rents applying to land that contains a real estate component and is located along the coastline, but I am referring to the vast majority of the pastoral lands of this State where in fact a sudden increase in rental charges has never occurred, unless it was an increase that was imposed at the end of a 10-year period. Even so, such an increase would take into consideration all the vagaries of production and of the season, the market conditions that applied during the relevant period, and the future projections of the industry. I query the statement that a sudden rise in rentals is part of the component necessitating this legislation. The rental charge is only one part of the costs imposed by the Crown. The Minister has described the increases in rentals as a small part only of the overall cost of a pastoral operation. I put it to him that that statement is incorrect. Rentals are a very significant part of the cost components imposed on pastoral land-holders. When I had a pastoral development holding, in addition to the annual rental charges, the Crown imposed upon me conditions obliging me to sink a certain number of bores, clear certain land and get rid of pests. I had an area of land that included approximately 60 000 acres of heart-leaf poison that I had to eradicate as best I possibly could in compliance with conditions of the lease. I had to maintain all the improvements that I or someone else in the past had erected, or the lease would have been cancelled. The Minister suggests that the increase in dollar terms for Crown rent in the annual rental charge imposed by the Lands Department is a small part of the rental component, but that is a ludicrous statement. He should take into account the fact that the increase is merely a part of the costs that are imposed on the land-holder by the Crown. Again, I say that the lease already imposes conditions such as keeping the land free of pests, maintaining the improvements and in my case—and this probably would not apply to many members of this Parliament who have held pastoral leases—I had to make certain improvements. In fact, the Bill provides that pastoral lease holdings should not exceed 60 years and are to exceed 50 years only in cases where the land is subject to very extensive development conditions. I recognise that pastoral development holdings are being phased out, but the fact of the matter is that this Bill will apply to grazing homestead and all other types of leases. The lease-holder must maintain a certain standard of improvements and a certain degree of utilisation. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments in response to the matters I have raised. Mr EATON: This Bill sets up the framework and the mechanism for leases. As I said, officers of my department have engaged in consultation with various rural organisations. Mr Stoneman: What did they say? Mr EATON: I can tell the honourable member now that they do not agree with the Government. From the day the Government announced the Wolfe review, the UGA representatives wanted to run the committee and the Cattlemen’s Union said that they wanted to run it. Even the pig-breeders wanted to run it, and every other rural producer wanted a part in it. If the Government had acceded to those requests, it would have resulted in a larger and more costly review than the Fitzgerald inquiry and it would never have come to an end. That is why the Government chose three independent people and told them to make their decisions based on the submissions made by people involved in rural industries. The Government felt that the committee’s decisions would be objective and that no accusations of Caesar judging Caesar could be made. I can tell the member Legislative Assembly 2426 30 October 1991 for Burdekin right now that the various rural organisations do not like this legislation, but this Government is endeavouring to set up a framework for the determination of future leases throughout the State. It will be two years before any increases in rentals will be imposed as a result of the framework that is going to be set up. I would like to take up the point made by the member for Burdekin about the rental not being the small part of the component that I suggested it was. I point out that I said that the rental was the smallest component of a commercial operation. Mr Stoneman: What about the requirement to make improvements? Mr EATON: The honourable member should listen to me for a change. I have had some very sad cases drawn to my attention. People who were in financial trouble were looking to me for concessions. I hope to be able to illustrate how big the rental component is in a commercial operation by what I am about to say. The people who came to see me were honest men, and after I had taken on board the submissions they had put to me, I said, “If, as a favour and a grant, I give you the equivalent of two years’ rent which you will take along to your banker, will he get off your back?” Not one of the seven people in the room answered. They all hung their heads because each of them knew that it was only a little bit of rent that they were paying. It was less than $1,100 each and, in fact, some of them were paying even less than that. The honourable member would know only too well that many graziers and grain-growers own businesses worth a very large amount of money, and that is a factor that must be taken into consideration. That is what annoys me here tonight. I have travelled all over Queensland. I have met the primary producers. They have come on agro, but in the finish when we have all sat down and talked and had a cup of tea in the shire council chambers, they have left saying, “Look, we want you to know that we are hurting. We appreciate the opportunity of coming to talk to you and you did not run away from us.” The primary producers believe that Ministers usually fly in, give them a belt, and then fly away. I have talked and listened to those graziers. This Government is trying to do something for them. Every National Party speaker has had a chance to tell me where this Government has increased costs in rural industry by even 1 per cent. I think it is a waste of time even arguing with members opposite. I am going to sit down. Mr STONEMAN: I would like to take issue with the Minister on that point. I did not say that the amount charged in dollar terms was the significant factor. I said that it is but a part of the cost applied by the Crown in respect of leases. It is part of the requirement to do a whole range of other things. What I am saying is that the Crown requirement in respect of leasehold land is far greater than the bill that comes in the mail annually. The Minister has attempted to twist around what I have said. I make the point again that the value of the land against which the assessment of the rental is made is only as good as the capacity of that property to produce an income to the lessee. The lessee has to be able to maintain the property, regardless of the requirements of the Lands Department. The lessee has to maintain the mills, the bores, the fences, the roads—you name it. The lessee has to maintain the regrowth of timber, buildings, the lot. The lessee also has to try to make a living for himself. That is what is being overlooked by members of the Government. They do not understand. I do not say that the Minister does not understand because he has only had time to make four trips out to rural Queensland. I say that because I have spent 25 years of my life—and in comparison with some other people, that is only a drop in the bucket—on leasehold land. I know exactly what I am saying about this Bill. It is not a rip-off of the Government, it is not an infinitesimal small part of the component; it is a major part because, I repeat, the bill one receives in the mail is only a small part of the charge applied by the Crown under the legislation. This legislation—not only the amendment—has always applied under previous Governments since the Land Act came into being. I say to the Minister that he is totally misreading the importance of the attack on the lessees in the pastoral industry. It is Legislative Assembly 2427 30 October 1991 implied that it is a mere $1,100, and I am sure one would like to be able to lease 20 000 or 30 000 acres for that amount. That sounds good to someone who may have a real estate component on the coast and who is able to match some of those increases that the Minister talks about. I do not deny that. What the Minister is really talking about—and I go back to the member for Flinders’ comment—is that the vast majority of this State is leasehold land and the vast majority of it is tied up in the pastoral areas of this State. What this Government is doing is attacking the pastoral areas and the people who are trying to make a living, trying to do something for themselves and trying to do something for the good of this State. Mr KATTER: I constantly reiterate that the beef industry is not a primary industry, it is a secondary industry. The jobs of 20 000 meat-workers depend on what happens here tonight. There are no assurances from the Minister. Primary producers know that valuations are going to go up 1 000 per cent, but the Minister gives those people no formula and no assurances that we have a formula that works. The Minister has carefully avoided saying that valuations are going to stay as they are. In fact, I think one could only interpret the Minister’s words as saying that they are going to increase. All one can feel is great apprehension at what the Minister is putting forward here tonight. The Minister is constantly referring to the authority from which these recommendations are made, and that authority is the Wolfe report. It absolutely appals me. Mrs Wolfe is a very personable and charming lady. I would not deny that for a moment. Mrs Wolfe listens, but she is from a very wealthy background—two or three generations of wealth. She has never lived outside of Hamilton in her entire life. She is very gifted intellectually. She went to university. She skipped through her examinations. She is a barrister. Does such a person know what it is like to be in the position of my very best friend’s son, who last year spent only four months at home with his wife and his three little children because he was working as a navvy on a railway line so that he could meet bank interest rates which had doubled and trebled? That was something he had not allowed for. Should anything have happened to that man’s wife, she was 30 miles away from the nearest human being. They are the sort of people with whom this Government is dealing. How could Mrs Wolfe understand the effect of the imposition of an extra $20,000 a year upon that particular person? I am quite happy to give that person’s name to the Minister if he thinks that I am exaggerating about the man’s circumstances. The other person on the committee was an inner city real estate agent. What in heaven’s name would an inner city real estate agent know about those people who live in the vast land mass of rural Queensland? What would an inner city, very well healed real estate agent know about this? Mr Eaton: He wasn’t a real estate agent. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the member for Flinders please come back to the point. Mr KATTER: I will have to abide by the judgment of the Chairman. The third person—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have asked the honourable member for Flinders to come back to the point. Mr KATTER: The Minister is saying that we should listen to it because it came from the Wolfe report. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with that argument. Mr HOBBS: A little while ago, the Minister said that the rents are only a small component of the costs in a commercial operation. I want to say that that is not quite correct. In actual fact, the figures here have been compiled by ABARE. Although one may look at those figures in the future and say that ABARE’s projections were not that flash, the figures that ABARE have compiled in the past must be based on some pretty accurate Legislative Assembly 2428 30 October 1991 statistics. On an average sheep property, under what this Government is proposing to do, Crown rentals will be 25 per cent of real disposable income. I have some figures here which represent the real expenditure on input by the farm sector. Even interest paid on farm properties, on the average for Australia , is 12.6 per cent of farm input. Rentals represent 25 per cent; but, under this proposal, the way the incomes are, they will increase dramatically. We are also talking about wages, which represent 13.7 per cent. So, again, the figure for rentals will be even higher than the wages factor. If the VG valuation goes down by 30 per cent and the prescribed rate stays the same, the amount of rental with regard to disposable income will be 18 per cent. If it goes down by 40 per cent on the next valuation, the rentals will be 15 per cent of the real disposable income of that sheep property, and that is really very high. It is still higher than the interest component, wages, chemicals, and fertiliser and fuel. What must be remembered as well is that people on these blocks of land also contribute to both direct and indirect State and Federal taxes by way of income tax, sales tax, fuel excise, import duties, rates, taxes and stamp duty. They are paying excessive rates in many of those cases as well, so it is not just a case of saying it is a small component. What this Government is proposing will be a very, very large component. Question—That clause 15, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 16 and 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr HOBBS (12.08 a.m.): This clause is the first one that deals with the particular terms and conditions of freeholding. There has been a diminution in the period over which freeholding can be paid. In the past, it could be paid over 40 years. Under this clause, the period with regard to agricultural farms has been reduced to 30 years. The Bill contains other similar clauses. In the previous legislation, a freeholding could be paid out over a period of 40 years. The value of the land was divided by 40 and the amount arrived at was the amount that was paid over that time. Under this clause, the Government has also added an interest component. Legislative Assembly 2429 30 October 1991

Mr Dollin interjected. Mr HOBBS: The honourable member does not pay his taxes. Mr Dollin: I do. Mr HOBBS: He does not pay his taxes. He has never paid tax in his life. Another important aspect is that, by providing a minimum instalment, the Government is denying the average person the ability to freehold. The Wolfe report stated that a person had to pay one and a half times his Crown rental. Earlier, Mr Katter mentioned a person who paid $20,000 in rental. The minimum he would pay under this clause before he started would be $30,000. As this clause deals with agricultural farms, the rental may be cheaper. However, the principle is still the same. A person may still have to pay a huge amount of money up front in instalments, plus interest, to be able to obtain freehold. Why would a person bother paying a huge price on an annual basis for freehold land that at the end of the day will not be much better than a lease? With this clause, the Government is ensuring that people do not freehold. Mr KATTER: This is another vexed part of the Bill. Effectively, the clause makes it very difficult for people to freehold. Government members seem to believe that freeholding is terribly wrong. Countries in Europe have freehold land tenure over the entire country. All the land in North America is owned privately. The only parts of the world in which land is not owned privately are in eastern European countries and, now, in Queensland. It is obvious that, by stopping people from freeholding the Government intends to keep the land. Earlier, an honourable member asked, “Why shouldn’t you have to pay interest on it?” Many times I argued with Ministers of the former Government that the marketplace recognises no difference between freeholding and leaseholding. People simply buy a block of land and nobody cares very much whether it is freehold or leasehold. I do not know what will happen as a result of these changes that are being imposed upon us. The honourable member for Maryborough is saying that we have to buy the land twice. Because we are unlucky enough to have a pastoral lease—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! In this Chamber, the honourable member cannot put words into another member’s mouth. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I do not wish to disagree with what you are saying. I am not putting words into his mouth. That is exactly what he just said to me. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Those words would not have been recorded in Hansard, so the honourable member cannot say that that is what the honourable member said. Mr KATTER: Let me say that, constantly in this debate and in the media, Government members have put forward the concept that we have to buy these places again. That is what is happening here. We have already bought them once, and now, because we cannot possibly remain as lease-holders under the terms and conditions being imposed by this legislation, we will be forced to convert to freehold. However, that conversion appears to me to be so onerous that it cannot be carried out. Under the old system, we were looking at a replacement for the rental. Instead of paying the rental, we paid a freeholding fee. Now, it is no longer a replacement for rental; it is a very substantial amount which nobody in my electorate will be able to afford to meet. I have reiterated constantly that the ABARE figure is $26,000. The Government has the mistaken belief that people are making huge amounts of money. If the Minister had toured those areas, he would realise only too well that there is hardly a station homestead in the mid-west region of north Queensland that has anything better than a fibrolite house erected on it. Unfortunately, very few of those houses have air-conditioning. Most of us would expect air-conditioning to be a reasonable requirement in the dry tropics, which are most suited to the installation of evaporative air-conditioning. We are talking about people who are very poor and who live a very hard life. The Government is making it impossible for them to Legislative Assembly 2430 30 October 1991 freehold, yet it is imposing so many terms and conditions on their leasehold tenure that they cannot claim to own the land. If they want to own the land, they must go freeholding, but that has become so onerous as to be impossible. It is impossible to go one way and it is impossible to stay where they are. God help all those poor people out there! Mr QUINN: I wish to raise a question of equity and fairness. Under this Bill, we are imposing upon people who wish to freehold the condition that they pay the unimproved capital value in cash up front; or, if they wish to pay over a period, at a prescribed interest rate. I note that, several weeks ago, we put through this Parliament a Bill that allowed people with miners’ homestead leases to freehold. Under the terms of that Bill, they were able to freehold at 1980 valuations, with generous discounts for cash up to 49 per cent and no interest payments over a period. Why are we treating people differently? Mr EATON: That was done because the freeholding conditions of different types of leases such as residential leases, miners’ homestead perpetual leases and, in some cases, Housing Commission leases were all based on different valuations. In that case, the 1980 valuations were used, thereby putting all the leases on the one level. That was a costly exercise for the Government as well. If that was not done, a person living across the road from or alongside someone who had a Housing Commission freeholding lease, a miners’ homestead perpetual lease or a town residential lease would be discriminated against. As I said, about four or five different types of leases were involved and all had different conditions for freeholding. An attempt has been made to reduce the types of leases so that there is not a lease for every day of the week. That was the only way in which to encourage people to freehold, and they were given two years in which to apply to freehold the leases. If they do not do it in that time, they will be given another form of tenure, and that will be the end of it. Mr ELLIOTT: In common with the member for South Coast, I find the provisions in this clause quite amazing. They are inequitable and unreasonable. I also find it rather unusual that we should be asked to accept an open chequebook in respect of the interest rate. There does not appear to be any interest rate spelt out. As the term will now be 30 years instead of 40 years as it was before, are we to accept whatever is to be handed out on the day on which the various freeholding exercises are embarked upon? What will the interest rate be? Who will be the arbiter of what that interest rate will be? The whole thing is abhorrent and unreasonable. Mr QUINN: The point is not that the previous Bill tidied up the leases. I accept that. I spoke on that Bill, and I was quite happy to see it passed under those circumstances. The point in this case is that, under this Bill, people are being asked to pay the unimproved capital value at current valuation prices, whereas the terms of freeholding of previous leases were struck at 1980 valuations. It is a question of fairness and equity. People are being treated differently under two pieces of legislation, which I think is unfair to them. I am quite sure that the Minister should have been aware that both of these pieces of legislation were to come before the Parliament within weeks of each other and that people should have been treated the same under both pieces of legislation. That is the point that I wish to make. Mr EATON: Different people read the Wolfe report in different ways. The recommendation in that report was that the system be standardised. To clear this up, that was done, not exactly as the report outlined but in line with its recommendations. Legislative Assembly 2431 30 October 1991

Question—That clause 18, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 19 to 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27— Mr HOBBS (12.25 a.m.): This particular clause deals with the matters that the Minister is to consider when dealing with an application to convert to a grazing homestead freeholding lease. I am very concerned that the Minister has gone to some great lengths to spell out all the conditions that will be required. Although in some ways it is difficult to argue against each particular point, it nevertheless makes it more difficult. It really means that a tick has to be placed beside each of the conditions. I believe that those conditions are too wide and go into unnecessary detail. Last night, the member for Yeronga spoke about this matter and asked: what is the difference? The simple fact is that there is a difference. Each particular aspect is identified. I cannot deny that serious land degradation is a problem. This clause states— “. . . whether any substantial part is at serious risk from land degradation; and whether any substantial part suffers from serious land degradation . . .” To a certain degree, the Minister is splitting hairs. I do not believe that those conditions are necessary. This clause also deals with a requirement for environmental and nature conservation purposes. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of dress of the member for Fassifern. I notice that he is now doing the right thing and leaving the Chamber. Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member’s point of order is valid. I accept it. I point out that members must not interject from other than their correct seats. Mr HOBBS: As to the conditions that the Minister is placing on particular pieces of land that will be converted to freehold—clause 27 states, in part— Legislative Assembly 2432 30 October 1991

“. . . whether any part is on an island or its location, topography, geology, accessibility, heritage importance, aesthetic appeal or like matters make it special . . .” Many pieces of land would have exactly those attributes that would make them very special. The clause also refers to “any other matter the Minister considers appropriate”. I believe that limits the ability of a lease-holder to convert his land to freehold, as he should have the right to do. After all, we live in a free society. People should be able to own their land. The Minister has said that people who have their own homes should be able to have freehold land. Why cannot people who have their own farms have freehold land? Much freehold land will not qualify under those conditions of this clause. As to land that suffers from serious degradation—what does the Government intend to do with it? If pieces of land suffer from a degree of degradation, will the Government say that the land cannot be freeholded? Will it impose particular conditions? Will it really be of any great benefit? Some land degradation is caused because blocks of land are far too small. This factor is addressed under the PIPE Scheme, which is designed to build up blocks of land so that they become viable. As I said, these conditions are inappropriate and far too heavy handed. Clause 27, as read, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39— Mr HOBBS (12.30 a.m.): This clause deals with the repeal of section 193A relating to applications to freehold tourist leases. I do not doubt that tourist leases, foreign investment and who should really own our land are very emotional issues. However, I point out to the Minister that plenty of little Aussie battlers who start up small tourist operations should be able to freehold their land, if they so desire. If they want to obtain funds from a bank, they should be able to say to the bank manager, “I have total security over that land.” There is no doubt in my mind that, although long-term leases would probably be quite good, freehold land is certainly a far better tenure to put up as collateral. Many Australians have a genuine interest in freeholding their land to run tourist operations. Under this clause, the Minister is denying them that right. Mr QUINN: I notice that, under this Bill, the maximum lease period on any lease is 30 years. Yet the Wolfe report recommended that, in some instances, leases could run to 50 years. I ask the Minister why there is that difference. Mr EATON: That is in general terms. In special circumstances, the LAC can recommend that leases run for 50 years. Clause 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr EATON (12.31 a.m.): As to lessees of grazing homestead freeholding leases and agricultural farms—the Bill provides that the discount under schedule 3 is to continue for existing leases and those leases where applications were received before certain dates except for the non-competitive perpetual leases. The omission of the non-competitive leases was an oversight by the instructing officer in the preparation of the Bill. The proposed amendment to clause 40 rectifies that omission. All existing leases that had that entitlement will retain it. I therefore move the following amendment— “At page 36, after line 18, insert— ‘(14) If— (a) an application under section 191 of the Land Act 1962 was received before 5 February 1990; or Legislative Assembly 2433 30 October 1991

(b) an application received before 3 October 1991 was in respect of a lease issued or a lease converted from a special lease issued— (i) under the Land Act 1962 and under an arrangement under section 24 of the Industrial Development Act 1963; or (ii) before the commencement of the Industrial Development Act 1963—under a recommendation of the Minister administering industrial development; the amount payable to complete the purchase is to be calculated under Schedule 3 to the Land Regulations 1988.’ ” Amendment agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47— Mr HOBBS (12.35 a.m.): The clause takes away the concessional arrangements for the sale or lease of Crown land to a religious body for the erection of church buildings. Under the clause, the prescribed rate is unknown. In the past, those religious bodies were able to lease land at a peppercorn rent. They will now be placed into the commercial sector with regard to annual valuations and annual rentals. They will have to pay an unknown prescribed rate, which could be anywhere between 1.5 per cent and 6 per cent. The reason why I question the clause is that, in the future, many organisations could be and will be affected. For example, a church school could be sited on quite a large piece of land. It could be on the outskirts of a reasonably large metropolitan area, or it could be in a provincial area. Several acres—perhaps several hundred acres—of land, which could become very valuable, could be involved. The Minister may lock those people into reasonably high rentals, whereas in the past they paid a peppercorn rent. If the land valuations increase, those people will be locked into paying high rentals. The Bill contains no provision for a concessional rate. Perhaps the Minister might comment on whether he would look favourably on giving a concessional prescribed rate to bodies such as those. Mr JOHNSON: I note that clause 47 of the Bill, as the member for Warrego said, gives the chop to the age-old concession given to religious bodies for the sale or lease of Crown land. I bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that this clause virtually interlocks with clause 118. Clause 47 will hardly win the Government any brownie points, particularly when linked with clause 118, which takes the money-grab one step further by withdrawing concessional rents on existing leases to the same religious bodies. I ask the Minister to refer to that. Mr VEIVERS: I must repeat what both the previous speakers said. The arrangements on the Gold Coast are ideal, but the Minister is going to take away the rights of those people. Near Labrador, different temples are now being built. That land is quite expensive. If the Minister starts taking the concessions away from the people who are building those temples by increasing the valuation of the land and then charging increased rent, he will be in hot water. About five churches are there—Baha’i temples and all. I am sure that those people will not be pleased. As the other speakers have said, those people have been paying peppercorn rent. Excuse the expression, but it is rather childish to take away from those people the peppercorn rents when everybody—even Government members—would realise that those religious groups will not be able to pay those sorts of rents. Mr EATON: The honourable member talked about church schools. They do not get the land for a peppercorn rent, but the honourable member need not worry. Religious bodies devoting their land to charitable or non-profit activities will pay concessional rents. Legislative Assembly 2434 30 October 1991

Mr VEIVERS: Most schools are non-profit. They try very hard. Mr Eaton: If they are non-profit, they will get a concession. Mr VEIVERS: What if they end up with a bit of money in the bank and they stoke a bit away for buildings? This has happened because they have been saving up. Will the Minister say, “You have saved that much money so you are up for the rent”? Will he check them or run an assets test on them? Can he give us some advice on this matter, because it is most important? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I know of a group in Jandowae that has a lease over a piece of land which is so large that the goannas carry a cut lunch to work their way around it. The rent on the lease has increased tremendously. The Minister referred to non-profit organisations, but these people are faced with a fivefold increase in rent. They made representations to the Minister that the rent should be more realistic. This organisation is struggling to survive. I find it unbelievable that this Government is in fact putting some sort of impost on organisations that want to survive and provide some sort of quality of life. This is not a religious organisation in the pure sense. Its members are golfers, and golf is pretty close to a religion. The Jandowae Golf Club is situated in poor country, and it is not a profit-making organisation. It is not covered under this clause in the strictest terms, but you would understand if you were a devoted golfer, Mr Chairman. I know you are a great cricketer, because I saw you play. If the Government wants to provide people with some form of quality of life, it must have some compassion for these non-profit organisations. Mr EATON: If they are a non-profit organisation, they get a concession. The private schools are paying full rent now and they will not get a concession on leasehold land. Mr STONEMAN: I again ask the Minister: when he says “non-profit organisation”, does that mean they are not charging or, if they are charging, it is to cover their costs and enable the education of the children? Could the Minister give me some clarification on the terms “profit” and “non-profit” before I make any further comments? This is a very, very important component and we need to know what the difference is and what the Minister would determine as profit or non-profit organisations. Mr EATON: The member is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They are paying the full rate on leasehold land. As I said before, we are putting the mechanism into place. If any church buys a business, it will pay as a commercial operation, but if the church is run for charity, such as the Salvation Army, it will receive all the concessions. Most of the schools are situated on freehold land, but those on leasehold land are paying the full rent. At present, churches on leasehold land are paying the full rent. This is contained in the clause and is something that will have to be decided later on. This legislation sets up the mechanism. Mr KATTER: Charters Towers has approximately 17 churches and seven church schools. They are all on leasehold land. They do not want a concession. They do not want to have to pay the amount that is imposed upon them. They want what they have at present and do not want it taken away. Like other boarding schools throughout Queensland, these schools are finding it tough. They have had reductions in enrolments because rural people do not have any money to send their children away. They are not elitist schools; they are very much ordinary functional schools. No-one would consider them to be anything else. If the Government imposes these rentals, they will be placed in a desperate position. These people own huge areas of land—in some cases, 20, 30 or 100 acres—and it is all leasehold land. If they are to pay the same rates as other people, heaven help the kids attending the All Souls Anglican school. Legislative Assembly 2435 30 October 1991

Mr VEIVERS: On the coast, there are churches on leasehold land and behind them are units and places for old people to stay. What is the story there? Can the Minister answer that question? Will they be on the same title or will the Minister split them? Is the Minister saying that the church will not pay because it is non-profit, but down the back there is the problem with the units or townhouses? The Minister knows there are quite a few on the coast, and that creates a bit of a problem. I ask the Minister to clarify that for me. Mr Eaton: As I said before, if it is a commercial operation, they have to pay. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. There are some technicalities involved here and we know it is a very big Bill, but would it be possible for the Minister to discuss the matter with his adviser? It is a very important point. Mr EATON: It will not be introduced until 1992. As I said earlier, we are putting the mechanism in place. We have talked with graziers and a consultative committee has been established. The member is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There are three Opposition members on their feet. I will recognise only one, and that will be the member for Surfers Paradise. Mr BORBIDGE: I might be able to help the Committee. Can the Minister advise whether the prescribed rate, which he is not prepared to tell the Parliament tonight, will be dealt with by regulation? If it will be dealt with by regulation, will it be subject to disallowance by the Parliament? Mr EATON: I am not prepared to say that because, as I said, discussions are taking place with a view to setting the prescribed rate. The discussions will include consideration of whether it will be set by regulation and altered by regulation, or whether it will be set in lease form or as a percentage. These matters will be decided further down the track, and I remind the honourable member that it will be two years before the rentals are increased. The Government wants to get this Bill passed by the Parliament to provide a framework so that we will know where we are going. Mr STONEMAN: I wish to take this point up further with the Minister because the Wolfe report recommendations state as follows— “New Crown rentals will be determined on the basis of a percentage of the unimproved capital values. Those categories are as follows . . . (5) commercial 6 per cent.” The Minister is putting schools that are supplying services to children in many areas that would otherwise have no capacity to provide educational facilities into a category that will attract a commercial rate, and he is asking members of the Opposition to accept that arrangement. The rate will be 6 per cent, or it will be a rate determined by regulation. The Minister is asking each and every member of this Parliament to accept a pig in a poke, or an unknown rate on behalf of schools, church organisations and other institutions. He is asking the Opposition to accept the clause blindly, but we would be totally and absolutely irresponsible if we had a bar of such a suggestion. Mr JOHNSON: Surely the Minister can show a little bit of compassion towards church groups. Mr Palaszczuk: Oh, no! Mr JOHNSON: The member for Archerfield should bear with me for a minute. I ask him to be fair dinkum about this because I am sick of his rot. He has been carrying on all night with that rot. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the member to stick to the clause. Legislative Assembly 2436 30 October 1991

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Chairman, I will get on with the job. Surely the Minister can take into account the amount of money that, in the long term, these church organisations save Governments through the provision of educational facilities and various other welfare services. The Government intends to slug the churches and charitable organisations that are struggling. Mr Palaszczuk: No, you have got it all wrong again. Mr JOHNSON: It is my understanding that churches right throughout the State—and I do not care whether they are in Birdsville, Quilpie, Normanton, Mount Isa or where they are—are all struggling. Surely the Minister can swallow his pride and show some compassion. Mr KATTER: The Minister tells us that a concession is being provided under the terms of this clause, but that is an absolutely ludicrous statement. To say “a concession exists” is not very good for St Mary’s Catholic Girls School, which is in one of the main streets of Charters Towers, because I would hate to think of the value of the land on which it is situated. The school is going to be told that it will receive a concession, but I am afraid that is just not good enough. Approximately 40 schoolteachers’ livelihoods depend upon the viability of that school and approximately 200 students will have nowhere to go if these quite outrageous charges are imposed. The Gold Coast is a different part of the State altogether where there are very large pieces of land worth millions and millions of dollars. If the Minister carries out what appears to be, on the face of it, the intention of this clause, it will be cold comfort for the church organisations of this State. Unless the Minister spells out the concessions tonight, I am afraid that members of the Opposition will have to tell the community that the legislation has to be read as it stands. The Minister has stated that a concession will be provided, but I am afraid that the statement is worth nothing at all. I cite the example of St Mary’s Catholic Girls School, which is in one of the main streets in Charters Towers. In fact, I can think of an even better example, that is, the Catholic girls school right in the centre of Southport, which overlooks the sea. I would hate to think of the rentals that would have to be paid in respect of that property, but all the Minister can say is that religious organisations will receive a concession. I can honestly say to the Minister that such a statement is of no use at all to members of the Opposition. Mr EATON: Members of the Opposition are trying to make political mileage out of this clause. Opposition members: No! Mr EATON: They should wait a minute. They have said that these organisations should be given a concession, and I have said that the concessions will be decided over the next two years during discussions. I have already said that these organisations will be given concessions and that the Government has no intention of penalising them. I have just stated that religious non-profit organisations such as churches will be given concessions, but the Leader of the Opposition is citing examples of people cutting down a tree and being fined $48,000. If members of the Opposition want to go out into the community, put words into the mouths of people and stir up trouble—— Mr Veivers: No. We are just asking. Mr EATON: Members of the Opposition have heard what I have said and they can read it later. Mr BORBIDGE: I consider the comments made by the Minister to be an outright attack on every church and religious institution in this State. Mr T. B. Sullivan: You have been told they will get a concession 10 times. Mr BORBIDGE: The member should try explaining this to his constituents. What we are witnessing tonight is an outright attack on the churches and religious institutions of Legislative Assembly 2437 30 October 1991 this State. A few minutes ago, the Opposition gave the Government and the Minister an out. We said, “Tell us what you want to do. Tell us if you are prepared to do it by regulation, and tell us if you are prepared to table those regulations in the House so that we can move a motion of disallowance.” The Minister said, “No.” He said that this Government is not interested. Mr Palaszczuk: Rubbish! Mr BORBIDGE: I say to this Committee that what the Government is doing is an absolute outrage. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Well may the member for Mount Coot-tha squawk, because what the Minister is doing is an absolute disgrace. As soon as the church schools and religious institutions of this State find out what the Minister and the Government are attempting to push through the Parliament at 1 o’clock in the morning, it will be to their eternal shame. I say to the Minister, “If you want to keep members of this Parliament up tonight debating this legislation, we are more than pleased to do that.” All we have asked the Minister to do is give us an answer on behalf of the Government, but the Minister has not been prepared to do that. He told the Opposition to jump in the lake. Mr Johnson: He doesn’t know the answer. Mr BORBIDGE: He does not know the answer. Mrs Edmond: He has given it six times. Why don’t you listen. Mr BORBIDGE: I say to the lady at the back of the Chamber who is so excited, “Why are you not prepared”—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr BORBIDGE: I say to the lady at the back of the Chamber: why is she not prepared to accept the Minister tabling a regulation in this place that is subject to disallowance and debate? That is all I ask. I say to the Minister, if he is not prepared to do that, then he and the Government are hiding. Mr EATON: In reply to the honourable member’s query—if the Government does not table the regulations now, there are no regulations and they receive the concession. If they decide that they want to change the system and have it done by regulation, then the Government agrees, and it will be done that way. I am not going to make a commitment two years ahead. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I want to draw the attention of honourable members to a few things that have happened in the past. A few months ago the Parliament passed the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill. The idea of that Bill was to put before the Assembly, in clear terms, very specific knowledge about each Act so that it is easy to interpret. I ask honourable members to bear that in mind. About two weeks ago, the Parliament passed the South Bank Corporation Bill. In that particular debate—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is relevant, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member must come back to the point. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am. It is relevant, because in the debate on that Bill the National Party asked for a specific length of time for leases of land on the South Bank. During the debate, the Premier suggested that there be a lease of 120 years. The National Party proposed an amendment that the leases be for 124 years, and the Premier refused to accept it. That piece of legislation went through this Chamber as a pig in a poke. No-one Legislative Assembly 2438 30 October 1991 knows exactly what is going to be offered to the people out there who are going to bid for land on the South Bank. There is another piece of legislation before the Chamber tonight which is incomplete and extremely vague. There are assurances from the Government that concessions will be given, yet I have correspondence between myself and the Minister about a non-profit organisation in my electorate whose lease has increased from $50 to $250. The Minister tells me that there are concessions! I find that hard to believe and I will not accept legislation that is not precise enough for me to know exactly what is in it. Mr KATTER: What is happening here is that legislation is going through to allow the front bench to charge whatever they like. If these charges are in keeping with the charges to other organisations, they are going to be quite horrific. The Minister has told us three great lies. I will delete reference to the first one in deference to the Chamber. The second lie is, “The cheque is in the mail”, and the third lie is, “I am from the Government. Trust me.” People who give to any Government an open-ended cheque, particularly in this day and age, would have to have rocks in their heads. In my area there are six schools, and in the honourable member for Southport’s electorate, there is the Ashmore Catholic church. That church has an old people’s home behind it, and there is also a school. The land those buildings are on is worth millions of dollars. Unless the concession is approximately 100 per cent, those properties are going to be wiped out. The Minister is sitting here saying to the Opposition that we should accept his word for it. I do not want to say that he is going to break his word, but he has not given us any word. The Opposition has been given no assurances whatsoever, except that there will be some sort of concession. All I can say is that the views of certain people who are screaming down the back here—and I know their views on religion, and please excuse me for having some grave misgivings about what is being proposed here—— Mr HOBBS: Mr Chairman—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I believe you have had plenty of debate—— Mr HOBBS: No, I have not. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Mr BORBIDGE: I move that the member for Warrego be now heard. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I warn the honourable member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A. Mr BORBIDGE: I understand that I can move at any time—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN: I now ask the member for Surfers Paradise to withdraw under Standing Order 123A. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN: I ask the member for Surfers Paradise to withdraw under Standing Order 123A. Whereupon the honourable member for Sufers Paradise withdrew from the Chamber. Mr KATTER: The member for Surfers Paradise, who has just been expelled, stood up and asked to move that the member be heard. He asked that the member be heard. The CHAIRMAN: Order! You are questioning the decision of the Chair and it is out of order. I call the member for Warrego. Legislative Assembly 2439 30 October 1991

Mr KATTER: So, we are not allowed to move resolutions in this place, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to sit down. Mr KATTER: I am asking a question. I have a right to ask a question. The CHAIRMAN: I warn the member for Flinders under Standing Order 123A. Mr KATTER: Are we going to get an answer or are we not? The CHAIRMAN: I now ask the member for Flinders to withdraw from the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Flinders withdrew from the Chamber. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. I feel that there has been a great injustice done here. The National Party has asked the Minister for a clear and concise answer and we have not received an answer. As an Opposition party, we are entitled to an answer. You have thrown two men out of the Chamber for no reason. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am on my feet. Opposition members cannot demand that a Minister answer in any specific way. If the Minister prefers not to answer your questions, that is his prerogative. The situation is that the Opposition has had at least 10 speakers—— Mr Hobbs: I’ve only had one. The CHAIRMAN: —and the Minister has replied in a manner he feels fit. Order! Opposition members cannot demand that he answer in a certain way. The member for Warrego is now on his feet and he has the right to speak, because he has not spoken three times. I now recognise the member for Warrego. Mr HOBBS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is what we were after in the first place. What I would like to say to the Minister is this—— Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that the members that you have asked to leave the Chamber are still in the Chamber and are trying to get other members to misbehave. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr HOBBS: What a show! The Opposition is talking about a religious body that is going to be denied the right to a concession. I will just give the Government some figures, and I will use the Wolfe report that the Government has embraced. At the moment, the rental that a religious body is charged on a valuation of, say, $100,000 is approximately $1,500. Under the Government’s proposal, on a commercial rate of 6 per cent—and the Minister has not said it will not be that much—the rent would be $6,000. Therefore, there would be a huge increase. Let us take, for example, a religious body which in fact has a higher valuation. Let us also take, for instance, the south bank. This Government is totally opposed to freehold land. It is going to sell that land on a leasehold basis. Therefore, if a church body wanted to buy a block of land on the south bank, it would find that it would in fact be very, very expensive—perhaps half a million dollars. At present, if the church body bought that land, it would pay a rental of about $6,500. Under the Government’s proposal, it would be paying up to $30,000. That is what this Government is all about. It is absolutely denying those people the right of a concession that they already have. The Government is taking that away from them. I do not believe that is right. You are frauds, absolute frauds, the lot of you! The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, now that we have gone through that particular period, I ask you for clarification of what happened previously. Any member in this Chamber is allowed to speak to a clause three times, but he is not allowed Legislative Assembly 2440 30 October 1991 to speak for more than 10 minutes on any one occasion. The member for Warrego rose to speak. He had not had three turns, and he had not spoken for more than 10 minutes on any occasion. You did not allow him to speak. I ask you to clarify for us why you did not allow him to speak, because that decision has meant that two members have been asked to leave this Chamber. I ask you to clarify why you did not allow the member for Warrego to take his third turn, when he had not spoken for 10 minutes on any occasion. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I was making the point—and I was interrupted—that Standing Order 141 refers to tedious repetition. Something like 12 Opposition members had spoken about different schools and different churches. They made the same point again and again. The Minister had finished. If the member had rose then, I probably would have allowed him to speak. What was happening was that while I was on my feet, other members continued to argue with me, which was showing disrespect to the Chair. It happened two or three times, and that is why those members were sent from the Chamber—because they were arguing with me while I was on my feet. If they had sat down and then, when I sat down, got up and took a point of order, they would have been acknowledged, but they did not follow the rules of this Chamber, which state that members must sit down when the Chairman or the Speaker is on his feet. That is a rule and a Standing Order that should be respected by the members of the Opposition. The member for Warrego has now had his third turn to speak. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, after your clarification, we are talking about the honourable member for Warrego. We are not talking about any other member. You did not give the member for Warrego the chance to speak for a third time. Therefore, the Opposition moves a motion of dissent against the Chairman for his decision not to allow the member for Warrego to speak a third time. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr LINGARD: I have moved a motion. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Warrego has spoken a third time. It is out of order for the member for Fassifern to move that motion, because it is too late. It had to be moved at the time when that decision was made. It is now out of order. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I move a motion of dissent against your ruling not to allow a motion of dissent. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have told the honourable member that it is out of order, and he will not accept the ruling. Mr LINGARD: Mr Chairman, I move a motion of dissent against your ruling. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is out of order. Mr LINGARD: Mr Chairman, I move a formal motion of dissent against your ruling. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to sit down. Standing Order 118 states— “If any objection is taken to a Ruling or Decision of the Chairman of Committees, such objection must be taken at once and be stated in writing.” I am saying that it is too late. That matter has already been dealt with. The honourable member for Warrego has spoken. It is out of order for the honourable member for Fassifern to move his formal motion. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am now giving a warning to members of the Opposition. I have given a clear clarification of my rules. I will now—— Opposition members: Your rules? Legislative Assembly 2441 30 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Under Standing Order 124, I will now—— Mr GILMORE: Mr Chairman, I have a written request under Standing Order 118. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under Standing Order 124, I will state that any further points of order will just be obstructing the business of the Committee. Mr LINGARD: Mr Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege in that you have not allowed me to perform my duty in this Chamber. I am moving a motion of dissent against your recent rulings, and you must accept that motion of dissent against your recent rulings. The CHAIRMAN: Order! For the last time, I inform the honourable member for Fassifern that his motion is out of order under Standing Order 118. It was not moved at the time. It is over. Question—That clause 47, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (1.14 a.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

J. and G. Worsfold Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (1.14 a.m.): Georgina Worsfold is a young wife and a mother with a 12-month-old baby to look after. Like most women in that position, she also has to cope with the chores around the home. In her case, those involve hand-feeding 100 head of starving cattle, wrestling with heavy machinery and cutting firewood with a chainsaw. Normally, she could rely on her husband for help, but things are not normal for John and Georgina Worsfold. They are cattle-producers on some of the most drought- Legislative Assembly 2442 30 October 1991 affected country in this State. John has taken to the stock-route to keep 600 head of cattle alive. He has been on the road for some time doing the job of six men, with the help of only two inexperienced boys. With cows calving along the way, John Worsfold has been getting an average of four hours’ sleep a night. Recently, all of that took its toll and he took ill, meaning his wife had to take control of the mob for two days while he recovered—all with a 12-month-old baby. Because the rules say that cattle must travel 10 kilometres a day on the stock-route, she had to keep the mob moving. When they set off from their property in the Wandoan area and headed south for Surat, the Worsfolds knew they would do it hard, but they had no choice. That mob is their future. They struck real trouble near Roma, when they found the stock-route south towards Surat was short on feed, and with boggy waterholes which would kill weakened cows. They turned and headed north towards Injune, but that option is rapidly running out for them. There is a big mob—about 1 200 head—moving south on the same stock-route. There will be no feed left behind that mob. So the Worsfolds are stuck with trucking their cattle to Springsure, where they might have a chance. The big catch is cost—and the rules of the drought relief scheme look like beating them. It will cost close to $7,000 to truck the Worsfold’s cattle to Springsure; but, like most producers, they do not have that sort of money any more. It might as well be $7m. The Worsfolds have had to spend a lot of money already on keeping their travelling mob alive. Portable water troughs had to be bought. Water has had to be bought and carted to the stock. That costs $65 an hour for the time spent loading, and travelling to and from the mob. Even so, with waterholes sometimes 45 kilometres apart, thirsty cattle break through fences to reach private waterholes. That means that the Worsfolds have to repair those fences. This family is running out of money, but it must keep the stock alive to survive as an economic unit. It has done all it can, but petty rules might well get the upper hand. The Worsfolds face the same dilemma as scores of other people with stock on the road. They cannot afford to keep moving and they cannot afford to take their stock back home. No subsidy is provided for that. The subsidy is for moving the stock away from the home property to where they can get feed. That amount is payable only when they return home. That might be an option for some stock-owners, but not for the Worsfolds. The rules say that there can be no subsidy for stock taken back to a drought-declared property, and their property, Rochdale, at Wandoan, is likely to be drought declared for some time yet. I ask honourable members to consider the situation in which these people find themselves. They had no feed at home; they chased it in the long paddock, but that has run out. They cannot afford to truck the stock to a new feed source and, if they take the stock home now, they will lose all hope of a subsidy being paid later. These people cannot wait for a drought loan to pay a trucking bill. The QIDC takes six weeks to process applications. It takes six to eight weeks to have interest subsidy approved. In that time, the Worsfolds’ cattle will be dead. I really believe it is time that the Minister for Primary Industries moved to free up the rules and allowed some latitude and common sense in dealing with each and every case individually. These are real people with real cattle which are really dying. Telling them that rules are rules makes no sense to them at all. I hope it makes no sense to the members of this House, either. Surely, we can insist on changes. They would probably be too late for the Worsfolds, but they just might save another family. I ask the House to do that in the interests of some people out there who have done all they can for themselves and their cattle.

Legalisation of Prostitution Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (1.19 a.m.): I rise tonight to voice my personal opinion on the matter of the legalisation of brothels in Queensland. At this point in time, I realise that Legislative Assembly 2443 30 October 1991 the debate is only just beginning. These are my personal views on the matter up to the present. The debate obviously has to continue, and I look forward to its progression. I believe it should be recognised that, as the law stands today, prostitution itself is not illegal in Queensland. Currently, it is legal for a sole operator to work from a house. What is not legal is the keeping of organised brothels, living off the proceeds of prostitution—in other words, the pimps—and public soliciting and procuring. In my view, the legalisation of an organised prostitution system will open up the way for both male and female brothels. That is a situation which not many members of the general public would relish; nor is it necessary when, at this point in time, prostitution by a sole operator working from a house is legal. Thailand has a legalised prostitution system and it has the worst AIDS problem in the world. Legalisation will not automatically safeguard public health. A “clean bill” health certificate for prostitutes is only one-half of the problem. Male clients visit brothels. While inspections may detect infected prostitutes themselves, they will not detect carriers or those clients who are infected. Married men who visit prostitutes will inevitably transmit AIDS and other notifiable diseases to their innocent partners. I find it hard to accept that it is the sign of a progressive society that legislation making organised prostitution legal for men, women, girls and boys is classed as a progressive move. By legalising organised prostitution, we would be saying that the sex industry is an acceptable occupation. I find it hard to believe that, quite apart from being degrading to women, male and female brothels are the mark of a mature society. It has not been proven anywhere in the world that the incidence of rape is reduced by legalising organised prostitution. What has been proved is that legalised prostitution encourages organised crime rather than discourages it. Brothels are also associated with the illicit drug industry. In Victoria, where prostitution has been legalised, there are now more illegal brothels than there are legal brothels. Further, there are immense difficulties with local authorities being expected to approve town-planning applications for legal brothels. Indeed, in my own city, the Townsville City Council has reacted in quite a hostile manner to the proposed role of local authorities if brothels are legalised in Queensland. I understand that concern. On 28 October, public submissions closed, and in due course the all-party Criminal Justice Committee will review those submissions and present its report to the Parliament. I welcome that process as part of the informed debate on the issue. The purpose of my speech tonight is to answer the questions from electors in Townsville who have been asking my opinion on the matter. Based on the information available to me at this point in time, it is my opinion that legalising organised prostitution does not make it right. We know that prostitution has existed since time immemorial, but to argue that we should therefore legalise it seems to me to be the same as saying that we should legalise rape, murder, theft, etc. Finally, there is only one other aspect on which I would like to comment. If brothels are legalised, subject to registration and monitored by a registration board, how can the board regulate for practices—including safe sex—that occur within a brothel? I have refrained from commenting on the morality of this issue. I have simply expressed my views based on the information presently available to me on the matter of legalising organised prostitution. I conclude with my previous comments that it seems to me that prostitution itself is not illegal in Queensland for a sole operator who works from a house. At this point in time, it seems to me that male and female brothels are not an indication of a progressive and mature society. Legislative Assembly 2444 30 October 1991

Merit Principle Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (1.24 a.m.): Yesterday, during the Matters of Public Interest debate, I raised the issue of the merit principle as it is being applied to the recruitment and employment procedures of various Government departments, statutory authorities and Government instrumentalities. Members opposite shrieked interjections across the floor, saying that what I was talking about was a figment of my imagination. They said then—and continue to say tonight—that the merit principle underlines every recruitment and appointment decision that is made by the Goss Labor Government and the public service. We in the Liberal Party reject those claims. We know what we are talking about. Do Government members know who agrees with us? One of their own unions—one of their brethren! Subsequent to what I said yesterday in this place, I received a copy of a letter dated 22 October 1991, which makes extremely interesting reading and proves totally what I said yesterday in this place. That letter, which was sent to the Premier by Jeni Eastwood, the General Secretary of the Professional Officers Association, makes extremely interesting reading. I wish to acquaint members opposite with it, because it totally proves what I have said about the merit principle. In part, the letter states— “It is of considerable concern to the Association and to our members employed in the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, that the Commission and in particular the Board of this Commission need pay no heed to or regard for your Government’s stated policies and practices. The Association appreciates that the Government would wish the Commission to operate autonomously but surely such operations must be subject to the Government’s general parameters and objectives. Of specific concern to the Association is the recent process that occurred within the Commission regarding the appointment of numerous senior people to newly created positions. A number of new positions were created within the Executive level of the organisation. These positions were created by the Board on the 2nd October 1991. By 17th October 1991, all of the positions were filled, on the determination of the Commission Board. In no way did the process of recruitment and selection for these executive positions meet any standard of equity and merit. There was certainly no resemblance between the process that took place within the Commission and the Government’s stated objectives as contained within the ‘Public Sector Management Commission’s Standard for Recruitment and Selection’. Staff were informed of the new positions in a Staff Bulletin and it was indicated that officers could submit a ‘brief resume’ but the following statement was also made: ‘The officers appointed in an acting capacity in five of the above six new positions are seen by the Board to fulfil the requirements for the respective positions.’ Despite this discouragement, a number of officers may have still been interested in submitting an application. However, at no stage were position descriptions for the new positions drawn up, nor were selection criteria developed or distributed. No information at all, in fact, was provided to potential applicants. No selection committee was ever established. The Board simply determined the outcomes. Legislative Assembly 2445 30 October 1991

Not only are the staff of the Commission significantly upset and demoralised by what has occurred, but outside bodies would also no doubt view these suspect appointments in a poor light. Our concern with this dubious practice was raised with the Board and the relevant Minister prior to appointments being approved. Nevertheless, the process went ahead. This is just one example of the Commission’s apparent complete disregard for the Government objectives. Similar disregard has occurred in relation to the use of contracts within senior executive ranks and with abiding by provisions of the Redundancy Policy. It seems that in an effort to allow the Commission to function independently, the Government has allowed the Commission to operate quite contrary to all fair and equitable practices. The Association believes that the Government needs to provide direction to the Commission on fundamental issues such as the application of the merit principle. The Association would be most pleased if we could meet with you in the very near future to discuss these and other problems we face with the Corrective Services Commission. Until then, the Association would be most appreciative if the Government could take action to require the recently-filled Executive positions of the Commission, to be readvertised and selection occur in a fair and equitable manner.” The letter concludes— “We await your favourable reply.” There you have it. They were the words of Jeni Eastwood and the Professional Officers Association—not mine. They await the Premier’s reply, and so do members on this side of the House. That letter proves totally what I said yesterday about the merit principle. What people on this side of the House are saying is exactly what Jeni Eastwood said, that is, that many of the positions that we have mentioned and questioned should be readvertised, new applications should be sought, and the criteria for appointment and the criteria in relation to qualifications should be made clear to all potential applicants. Since making that speech yesterday, I have been threatened with legal action. People have sought to intimidate me and prevent my making similar statements. I give notice that I shall not desist; I will keep on responsibly fulfilling my responsibility within this place. I look forward to receiving many more replies to add to the 22 replies that I have already received to the advertisement that I placed in this morning’s Courier-Mail.

Anti-discrimination Legislation Dr CLARK (Barron River) (1.29 a.m.): Under the National Party, women in Queensland were second-class citizen—the victims of discrimination and neglect of their needs. By the end of Labor’s first term, there will be in place effective anti-discrimination legislation that will protect women from the discrimination that they currently experience in many important facets of their lives. The equal opportunity in public employment Act will establish guidelines for equitable employment practices in the public sector. Women will be one of four groups targeted by public sector managers to improve their representation across the Queensland public sector. Equal employment opportunity programs and strategies will be developed within each Government department and agency to ensure that women—as one of the targeted groups—do gain access to the same career and training opportunities in the public sector as do men. Legislative Assembly 2446 30 October 1991

Recently, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations addressed a conference titled Balancing the Gains: Women, Efficiency and Award Restructuring, which was attended by over 200 women. The Minister had this to say— “The goal is for men and women to take their place side by side in the development of a productive and efficient Queensland economy which is also a fair and open one.” I commend the Minister for his affirmation of the significant role that women must play in our society. The Minister went on to describe a range of Government initiatives that increase career choices, training opportunities and employment prospects for Queensland women. Paul Braddy, the Minister for Education, has established a gender equity unit within the Department of Education to ensure that girls participate to their full capacity within the education system, with special attention to the provision of programs to encourage girls to study science and maths. This will enable girls to have access to a much wider range of career options, and will begin to turn around a situation in Queensland in which women are segregated into traditional employment areas. Currently in Queensland, females are concentrated into three main categories: clerical, 79.2 per cent; service, sport and recreation, 66.1 per cent; and sales, 57 per cent. Women still represent only 14 per cent of administrative, executive and managerial positions. The Government recognises its responsibility to take a lead and provide role models for girls. In the past 18 months, it has appointed the following— the first women’s adviser to the Premier; the first woman departmental head in the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs; the first women inspectors of police; the first woman master of the Supreme Court; the first woman District Court judge; the first woman industrial commissioner; and the first director of equity within the Department of Education. However, I want to make another important point tonight, that is, the necessity of men becoming involved in and committed to community services programs at grassroots level, programs that are currently almost exclusively initiated and delivered by women. Thus, I believe that it is just as important for men to become involved in areas traditionally regarded as the province of women as it is for women to move into areas traditionally dominated by men. Within my electorate, it is women who have been the moving force, the powerhouse behind the establishment of three neighbourhood centres. It is the women who recognised the lack of social infrastructure, the lack of personal and family support services in their rapidly growing communities. It was the women who recognised those community needs and did something about it. Although I commend the women in my electorate for their commitment, I also have a message for them: when you sit at your committee meetings and look around in vain for the men, do not accept that situation. It must change. Social infrastructure and community services will not be given the resources they deserve until more men become involved at the grassroots level and really experience how important those support services are in our community. Unfortunately, men do still have the most power in Australian society. It is men who determine the priority. It is men who frame our budgets. I say to the women on those committees: you must regard as a vital task the identification and involvement of men in your work. Do not allow them the luxury of saying, “Well, that’s women’s issues. Let them get on with it while we get on with more important things.” Legislative Assembly 2447 30 October 1991

Why is it that men do not have such a high profile within the provision of community services? Perhaps it is because social services can rarely be seen so they cannot serve as a testament to someone’s ego—they are quietly there when needed. However, they do not have the same kudos as opening buildings, commissioning dams, opening highways and things with which men like to be associated and for which they can claim credit. Perhaps, more charitably, it is because it is women and children rather than men who have a greater need for support services within the community. The women who dominate the committees that I have referred to may feel reluctant to involve men, may feel reluctant to burden themselves with ignorant, antagonistic or egocentric males—but it is necessary if attitudes are to change. There are enough men who are sympathetic, who could understand, if given the opportunity, and it is those men that women must seek out and enlist because, until the gender balance changes in the community services area, it will always get second-class treatment. It will always be taken less seriously than some of the other services that are provided in communities. At least that will be so until women themselves are taken more seriously and have an equal share of political power so that they can ensure that women get the community services that they need.

Health and Physical Education Student Assessment Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (1.35 a.m.): I wish to advise the Parliament of the unfair method of determining the exit level of achievement in the subject of health and physical education for Year 12 students in this State. The method is called the “at least” model and reflects the students’ worst performance in one of the three areas of that subject, that is, content, process or skill. Put simply, if a student was to score a C for content, a B for process and an A for skill, that student would exit with an over all C level only. In 1990, health and physical education was the fifth most popular Year 12 course, with some 9 400 students, so it is extremely important that those students be subject to a fair system of assessment. Very often, health and PE students are particularly skilled sportspeople yet, under this system, such skill can go unrewarded. Traditionally, health and PE was taught with 60 per cent of the time spent on practical or skill work and 40 per cent of the course time devoted to content and process. Any assessment should therefore reflect the relative time spent on each part of the course, but in the “at least” method the final score reflects the worst area of performance and, very often, a part of the course on which only 20 per cent of the subject time was spent. Of the 42 senior board subjects for 1990, health and PE achieved the lowest percentage of very high achievements at 3.3 per cent, whereas the subject used to have approximately 8 per cent to 9 per cent of students achieving VHAs. The low figure of 3.3 per cent VHAs for health and PE for 1990 can be compared with other board performance-based subjects, such as music—17.8 per cent; art—7.4 per cent; speech and drama—10.7 per cent; theatre—8.5 per cent; and dance—9 per cent. Languages score a high percentage of VHAs, for example, French—22 per cent; German—26 per cent; and Japanese—23 per cent. It would appear that a language student has a far greater chance of achieving a VHA than does a student who has outstanding sporting ability. The “at least” system of assessment for health and PE was introduced into schools during 1989-90 without any trial. The system is, however, being trialled for maths A, B and C in 17 Queensland schools and is being considered for introduction to the information processing and technology course. Opposition to that system of assessment has come from many physical education teachers and school principals throughout the State. The health and physical education curriculum development committee of the Ministerial Advisory Council for Curriculum Development is opposed to the “at least” system. That committee comprises members from the Education Department, the Association of Independent Schools, Catholic education and Christian schools. Dissatisfaction with that Legislative Assembly 2448 30 October 1991 system has also been expressed by principals from the Darling Downs—representing State, Catholic and independent schools—and also from the Capricornia District Principals Association at Rockhampton. The Board of Secondary School Studies in a document released this month entitled “Criteria and Standards in Exit Levels of Achievement” states that each description of an exit level describes the set of acceptable minimum standards that must be reached for the award of that exit level. Trade-offs may occur within each of the criteria. The point that physical education teachers are making is that trade-offs should be across-the-board of all three criteria, that is, skill, process and content, which make up the subject, not just within those individual criteria only and then to score the student on the lowest achievement. Schools believe that the method has been forced upon them by universities, who were claiming that there was an anomaly between the ASAT score and the mean TE scores of schools due to the influence of the health and PE results. Schools believe that that imposition from above has imposed a discriminating process on health and PE students in the selection of tertiary students. As a result of this “at least” method of assessment, students receive absolutely no recognition for achieving a good score in parts of their course. If they score badly in one section, there is no incentive and no reward for high achievement in any other part of the course. This is all about providing justice to students of health and PE. The “at least” model does away with the professional judgment of teachers. It has encouraged some schools to fudge the system, avoid using the “at least” model and get through the system of the reviewing panel without any detection. Teachers of health and PE are frustrated with the system. When the system is explained to parents, they want their children to withdraw from the course. Teachers and principals are frustrated that their objections to this method of assessment are not being heeded by the Board of Secondary School Studies. This system of reflecting only the minimum achievement of health and PE students is not a true reflection of the overall ability of these students and it should be immediately reviewed by the Education Department.

Railway Noise in Yeronga Electorate Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (1.40 a.m.): Tonight I rise in this House to urge an attack on the problem of railway noise on behalf of the good and patient people of Yeronga and on behalf of all those who have long endured the roar of locomotives and the rattle of carriages that go clank in the night. Rising noise levels in our cities pose a menace to civil society. We simply cannot allow the noise of trains, planes, trucks, industry and ghetto-blasters to rob us of the quality of our urban life. Over the past two years, I have received many complaints from residents of the suburb of Tennyson disturbed at the noise of the shunting, the refrigerated wagons and trains starting up at the Moolabin goods yards. Indeed, when I attended with my wife at the Tennyson scout hall, upon alighting from our car we thought that World War III must have broken out, for the noise from the nearby shunting yard was so utterly unexpected. Following representations to the Minister for Transport, I am pleased to say that action was taken to ensure that loose shunting did not take place, to provide what could be done by way of noise abatement and to prevent such noise occurring on Sunday. In recent months, the Yeronga District Residents’ Association has expressed concerns over possible noise problems associated with the proposed standard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane at Fisherman Islands. In response to a question from me in this House on 4 September 1991, the Minister indicated that it was expected that the additional rail traffic on a standard gauge rail link would result in an extra four train movements a day. I Legislative Assembly 2449 30 October 1991 thank the Minister for receiving a delegation from the Yeronga District Residents’ Association on 29 October when it was made plain by the Minister that no decision had been taken on that proposed rail link. I also note the very important assurance given to this House by the Minister on 8 October in response to my question on this matter that an impact assessment study would be undertaken to monitor the impact of the expansion of the rail capacity in that corridor and to assess the social, environmental and economic impacts upon the area adjoining that corridor. I welcome those assurances in respect of the standard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane. It is now clear that the minds of citizens may be put at rest and they may be assured that, before any decision is made to go ahead with such a project, an environmental impact assessment will be undertaken as outlined by the Minister. However, I urge that further action be taken. I urge that a general study be undertaken into rail noise in metropolitan areas throughout Queensland with a view to formulating a rail noise policy. It is extraordinary that under previous National Party and Liberal Party Governments no rail noise policy was developed. It has simply been a case of the burden falling upon the citizens to bear the brunt of that railway noise. In this respect, the stunning hypocrisy of the Liberal Party is truly breathtaking. I table a press release from Denver Beanland, the Queensland Liberal Party Leader, dated 26 June 1991, urging this Government to proceed with the standard gauge rail link and a further document produced in October indicating that the development of a standard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane was Liberal Party policy. Nowhere in these documents is it urged that there be any assessment of the environmental impact upon the citizens and, in particular, nowhere in the Liberal Party documents is there any commitment to the environmental impact assessment that is so profoundly important. However, I urge, over and above these, that there be a noise study with the development of a rail noise policy. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 1.44 a.m. (Thursday) Legislative Assembly 2450 30 October 1991