Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1985

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

504 3 September 1985 Petitions

TUESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1985

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Wamer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILL Assent to the Electoral Districts Act Amendment Bill reported by Mr Speaker.

USE OF MICROPHONES Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that the sound system in the Chamber is active when microphones are left in the usual speaking position. I ask honourable members, after they have spoken, to lower their microphones so that the system does not pick up unnecessary background conversation.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Public Boat Ramp, Lota Creek From Mr Shaw (452 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide a new public boat ramp on the northem bank of Lota Creek.

Third-party Insurance Premiums From Mr Milliner (517 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will revoke recent third-party increases and determine future increases after public hearing. [Similar petitions were received from Mr Smith (507 signatories), Mr Palaszczuk (507 signatories), Mr Mackenroth (523 signatories), Mr Fouras (494 signatories), Mr Kmger (505 signatories), Mr Underwood (500 signatories), Mr CampbeU (500 signatories), Mr Shaw (503 signatories), Mr Bums (491 signatories), Mr Davis (490 signatories) and Mr De Lacy (503 signatories).]

Electoral Districts Bill From Mr Lickiss (134 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will reject or amend the Electoral Districts Bill so as not to increase the number of electorates. Pre-school Education Funding From Mr Lickiss (311 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that funding for pre-school education will continue and that action be taken to have the Federal Govemment reverse its decision to abolish such funding. [A similar petition was received from Ms Wamer (148 signatories).]

Sex Education in Schools; Abortion Laws From Ms Wamer (8 774 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide for comprehensive sex education in schools and for the repeal of abortion laws.

Abortion Laws From Ms Warner (2 761 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will repeal the abortion laws. Ministerial Statements 3 September 1985 505

Return of Medical Records; Abortion Laws From Ms Wamer (432 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU provide for the retum of all medical records to medical clinics and for amendment of abortion laws. Petitions received.

PAPERS The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Order in CouncU under the Gas Act 1965-1981 Regulations under— Explosives Act 1952-1981 Gas Act 1965-1981 Miners' Homestead Leases Act 1913-1982 Mining Act 1968-1983 Mining Titles Freeholding Act 1980-1983 Motor Spirit Vendors Acts, 1933 to 1934 Petroleum Act 1923-1983 Harbours Act 1955-1982 By-laws under the Harbours Act 1955-1982 Report incorporating the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of the Union- Fidelity Tmstee Company of Australia Limited for the year ended 28 Febmary 1985.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS South East Queensland Electricity Board Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy) (11.7 a.m.), by leave: I wish to make a ministerial statement to the House on the misinformation and untmths about the South East Queensland Electricity Board operations and work-force, which are constantly flowing from Opposition members, particularly the honourable member for Nudgee (Mr Vaughan) and Electrical Trades Union officials. It is about time they got their facts right and stopped trying to mislead the public. Mr Vaughan's latest effort was to claim that, in 1983-84, the entire budget for SEQEB salaries, wages and allowances was $ 17.3m. Then he had the audacity to claim that figures provided by the general manager of SEQEB (Mr Gilbert) showing the savings made by SEQEB in wages and salaries since the dispute do not add up. The only figures that do not add up are those stated by Mr Vau^an and his colleagues. In fact, the wages figures issued by the honourable member for Nudgee are 15 years out of date, which shows how Uttle credibility can be given to any statements by the Australian Labor Party on this issue. The board's budget for wages, salaries and allowances for the current financial year is $89.5m, a saving of nearly $ 19m on the estimated costs for this year before the dispute occurred. Let me add that, as a non profit-making authority, as are all power industry authorities in the State, any savings that are made by SEQEB wiU benefit the consumers. I repeat, for what I hope wiU be the last time, that SEQEB is operating efficiently and is providing a continuous supply of electricity to consumers in south-east Queensland, and that it will continue to do so despite efforts of the ALP and the ETU officials to undermine that service. To confirm this—as honourable members will be aware, a most unseasonal wind storm hit south-east Queensland early on Monday moming and continued for most of 506 3 September 1985 Ministerial Statements the day. Winds gusting up to 100 km/h brought down power lines and created transformer problems, causing black-outs to about 9 000 consumers. During the night SEQEB depots were manned to meet this emergency and, by 7 a.m., most consumers had power restored, with most of the remainder reconnected by 10 a.m. As the winds continued during yesterday, there were isolated problems but, by and large, the SEQEB work-gangs deaU with these dismptions efficiently and effectively, demonstrating their capability of meeting such an emergency. So let us hear no more of the rantings and ravings of ALP members and union officials that SEQEB cannot meet any emergency situation and maintain power suppUes to consumers in its region.

Australian Domestic Satellite Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (11.9 a.m.), by leave: Honourable members will be aware that Aussat 1, Australia's first domestic satellite, has now been positioned in what wiU be its permanent orbit. In terms of economic and social impact, this event represents the most significant technological advance of the decade. The Queensland Govemment has recognised the satellite for what it is and has moved quickly to put in place a major strategy to ensure, not only that Queensland has its share of the benefits to be accmed from the satellite but also that it takes a clear and appropriate lead. As part of its overall technology strategy for the State, the Queensland Govemment has decided to— develop a 10-year telecommunications strategy plan, involving Aussat, Telecom, private and public networks and State-owned microwave and optical fibre systems, to carry Govemment department, statutory authority and instmmentality traffic in the form of voice, data, telex, facsimile and videotex services; and establish a pilot State Govemment telecommunications network—known as Q-Net—to test out a range of common interest group network and special operational services, preparatory to the implemtation of the 10-year plan, with a special emphasis on the use of transponder No. 11 on Aussat 1. The potential flow on of both social and economic benefit to Queensland from both the Q-Net pilot and the ultimate network resulting from the 10-year plan is enormous. The policy issues, the nature of these strategic initiatives and perspective setting discussion is presented in a paper titled. The Aussat Satellite and Social and Economic Development in Australia, which I have had prepared for this purpose by Doug Rowell, Deputy Director and Chief Executive Officer, Department of Industry Development, who is chairman of the Telecommunications Strategy Planning Committee. This paper will be made available to members for their information. It is important that the satelite is seen in the social and economic context in which it belongs. The real focus of satellite developments in Queensland will be on the uses to which they can be put and not the technology itself These improved services are available with the careful application of existing new technologies. It is important that the appUcations are tested well before long-term commitments are made. The pilot satellite system affords that opportunity. Each earth station represents a significant investment in each community, and the impact of the Q-Net projects will provide a significant positive impact on the social and economic well-being of the people as a direct result of the improved effectiveness of the deUvery of Govemment services. In addition, opportunities exist for other interested parties to utilise what is, in principle, a Govemment services infrastmcture investment. This can be achieved by the shared use of earth stations. The Govemment will encourage shared earth station use. Questions Without Notice 3 September 1985 507

Such services provided via Q-Net earth stations could not only provide a real doUar revenue base to offset capital and operating costs from this Government investment, but also provide a tangible pubUc benefit from this valuable asset. Local govemment and self-help organisations could make effective use of Q-Net earth stations in establishing Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial television rebroadcast facilities. Although the Queensland Govemment has no direct responsibility for commercial TV broadcasting, it has adopted a policy to encourage the introduction of commericial TV broadcasting in the State that is free-to-air, which is different from pay-as-you-go TV, is Queensland Govemment-owned and which provides Queensland and regional news and features. This Govemment is doing everything in its power to bring about maximum advantage to Queenslanders of the Australian domestic satelUte. This is a new and exciting era of technological change and we need to move with it to remain competitive. This is an important issue for us aU and I urge aU members to read the paper. The Aussat Satellite and Social and Economic Development in Australia.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Sir Edward Lyons; Totalisator Administration Board Meetings Mr WARBURTON: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to allegations surrounding the granting of the Oxenford TAB licence and statements made by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing in the Chamber last Thursday in relation to the former chairman. Sir Edward Lyons. I ask: As there appears to be a legal restriction preventing members and former members of the TAB from speaking about proceedings at board meetings, will he take such necessary steps as would enable Sir Edward Lyons to make a pubUc statement in response to the Minister's statement, so the tmth wiU come out? Specifically, is he prepared to have Sir Edward Lyons's statement tabled in this House? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In retum, I would like an indication from the Leader of the Opposition whether he would like to include in an investigation the members for Rockhampton North and Mackay and the money that they have in their pockets relative to tickets. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If he wants an inquiry, let it be into the action of those two members, the interest that has accmed, and so on. It is no good the Leader of the Opposition being aU one-sided and making out that everything is rosy on the Opposition side of the House. At this time, there is no justification for the inquiry sought by the Leader of the Opposition. Unless he can come up with something much more positive than he has today, there is no intention of agreeing to what he asked. I am draAving attention to a situation that does exist in the Opposition, to something that honourable members do know is correct. Mr Warburton interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition taUcs about a moral issue. Honourable members know that a moral issue is involved in the case of two members to whom I have referred. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition began to concentrate on them. Coal Sales to Europe Mr NEAL: I refer to the present problems in South Africa and ask the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer whether those problems have had any effect on coal sales to Europe, whether any spot sales have occurted as a result, and, if so, to what extent. 508 3 September 1985 Questions Without Notice

Mr GUNN: I am sure that all honourable members appreciate that South Africa, because of its geographical situation, is a large supplier of steaming coal to the European market. Many European markets are now not available to South Africa. It is very pleasing to note that Australian producers, in particular Queensland producers, have access to spot sales to European markets. It is particularly pleasing to me to note that the West Moreton mines are very busy in that market. It is of great importance to Queensland that prices for steaming coal have risen by between $3 and $5 a tonne. Only recently I was talking to some mine-owners who thanked the Govemment for the help and assistance it gave by way of raU freights and port facility charges in their time of grave need. I know that that help was appreciated very much. I am very pleased that Australian mine-owners are grasping the opportunity. Recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Denmark was in Queensland. Denmark has increased its coal orders from Queensland by 33 per cent. Mr Fouras: Tell us about your support of the racist regime in South Africa. Mr GUNN: If the honourable member is not interested in this, he is not interested in anything. I am aware that he has no interest in the coal-mining industry in Queensland and is therefore doing his utmost to knock it. I congratulate Queensland mine-owners on their work in this field. They have got into the market. The Japanese market is far better than it has been. If the honourable member cares to read The Australian Financial Review of this moming's date, he will see that it gives a good account of what is happening with coal-mining. The Govemment is very appreciative of what is happening, because it will be assisted greatly by increased revenue from raU freights. As I said, mine-owners are very appreciative of the assistance the Govemment rendered in rail freights and port charges when they were in grave need. Kangaroo Quotas Mr NEAL: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: In view of the concem expressed by industry organisations about the huge number of kangaroos in Queensland and the widespread financial damage being caused to pastures, crops and fences, and the fact that many land-holders are destroying kangaroos under section 25 permits, with the result that the hides and carcasses are left to rot in the fields, what steps has he taken to convince his Federal counterpart to issue Queensland with a more reasonable and responsible increase in quota that wiU not endanger any of the species being harvested, but, at the same time, wiU put an end to the ludicrous situation that is putting shooters into dole queues? Mr McKECHNIE: The people of Queensland, particularly farmers, graziers and kangaroo-shooters, should be clearly aware that the Govemment has taken every step possible to try to convince the Commonwealth Govemment to increase the quota this year. A month or so ago, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier and Treasurer, and part of that letter stated that the Commonwealth Govemment was waiting to be convinced that kangaroos were doing significant damage to crops and pastures. The Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has been up to Queensland and has seen the damage with his own two eyes. I do not know what more Queensland can do to convince the Federal Govemment; we are in regular contact. Yesterday I spoke with Mr Cohen and asked him how long the Queensland Govemment has to wait before the Commonwealth makes up its mind as to whether it will increase the quota. He indicated that he would give me an answer to that question soon, so I hope to be in a position in the next day or two to tell the kangaroo-shooting industry how long it will be before Mr Cohen makes up his mind. In case the Commonwealth Govemment does not come good with a realistic quota, the Queensland Govemment is seeking legal advice from two Queen's Counsel about any possible action that the Govemment can take to extricate Queensland from the agreement. Questions Without Notice 3 September 1985 509

Mr Fouras: What about seceding? That is normally better. It might be cheaper in the long mn. Mr McKECHNIE: The honourable member for South Brisbane talks about seceding. It is a well-known fact that his endorsement is under threat. He is taking every opportunity that he can to get his name in the papers in order to hold off the chaUenge from the honourable member for Kurilpa (Ms Wamer). I know what he is on about, and that is another question. Last week, here in Queensland, I chaired a meeting of the Kangaroo Advisory Committee. Honourable Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr McKECHNIE: I chaired that meeting, and I was able to make decisions on the spot and advise the industry of what will happen when the Commonwealth makes its decision. However, the previous day, Mr Cohen's committee met, and Mr Cohen must now bring more evidence before it, thereby procrastinating a little longer. That is the difference between the decision-making of this Govemment and that of the Com­ monwealth Government. The Prime Minister's comment about whether kangaroos are doing significant damage to crops and pastures in Queensland is a good example of the difference between the attitude of the Labor Party and that of the National Party to the mral sector. The National Party Govemment is well aware of the damage that has been done and of the problems that primary producers face. The Queensland Govemment expects that the Commonwealth will introduce a capital gains tax, death duties or similar taxes, so to help primary producers pass their properties on to sons, daughters and grandchildren without paying significant stamp duty, the Queensland Govemment has passed a number of laws. In addition, grain-growers have been exempted in some way from the rise in rail freights. However, the Commonwealth is prepared to fiddle while Rome bums and, literally, let kangaroos eat farmers out of house and home. It is time that the Commonwealth came to a decision. If it does not, the Queensland Govemment will explore every legal avenue open to it to try to overcome the problem and extricate the Queensland Kangaroo Management Program from the Commonwealth. It is clear that there are more kangaroos in Queensland and in Australia today than there were when Captain Cook landed. It is about time that the Commonwealth told the world the facts of life. The species of kangaroo that are harvested in Queensland are not in any danger of extinction; they are in plague proportions. The Queensland Govemment wants to do something about it, but the Commonwealth Govemment is fmstrating every move it makes.

Mr M. Evans Mr DAVIS: In asking a question of the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I refer to my speech in the Address in Reply debate on Thursday, 29 August, during which, by way of interjection, he said that the former executive director of the National Party (Mr Mike Evans) had been sacked. I now ask: As Mr Evans has publicly denied what the Minister said in this Chamber and as the vice-president of the National Party (Mr Holm) has said that Mr Evans was not sacked, which makes the Minister's statement patently untme, will he apologise to both Mr Evans and to this House for attempting to mislead its members? If he will not, will he resign? Mr GUNN: Every circus has to have its clown. Every member in this House has always known that the honourable member for Brisbane Central is the clown in this Chamber. Anything that may happen between Mr Evans and me has nothing to do with the honourable member. That is something that, in due course, I will work out with Mr 510 3 September 1985 Questions Without Notice

Evans. At no time wiU I worry about what the honourable member for Brisbane Central thinks.

Strike by Queensland Jockeys Mr DAVIS: In asking a question of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to the Minister's announcement on Friday that he beUeved that the trouble with the jockeys association had been ironed out and that a newpaper report stated that the Minister was critical of the jockeys' resorting to strike action and that their action was detrimental to racing. I now ask: Would the Minister not agree that yesterday's actions by the Queensland Turf Club stewards in standing down, for four weeks, those jockeys who participated in that action would be equally detrimental to racing? What action will he take to ensure that this dispute does not escalate further? Mr HINZE: I think that the honourable member would have to expect that I am very, very concemed, and I am placed in a position in which I can do nothing more than say that. Mr Price: You can't ride the horse yourself. Mr HINZE: I would Uke to get a gig for the honourable member and one for me; then we would see how good he is. To retum to the question—it is tme that a meeting took place between the various sections of the industry. At the time, I reported faithfully that I beUeved that the dispute would be settled amicably. The dispute had been going on for some time. The only way to resolve these problems is to discuss the matter round a table. When everybody left the meeting, I gained the impression that that was the feeling. This moming I understand that the New South Wales and Victorian jockeys support the Queensland jockeys. Of course, that wiU be detrimental to the racing industry in Australia. Having said that, I can say no more. The principal club is the Queensland Turf Club. I have no control over the stewards, and I certainly do not want any.

Legal Action by Australian Small Business Association Against Trade Unions Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to reports that the Australian Small Business Association has given its Queensland branch the go-ahead to sue trade unions for recovery of profits lost during the power industry dispute. Can he assure the House that the Govemment will lend its support to any action that these businesses or others may take against the unions involved? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I can say without any doubt on my part and on the part of the Govemment that we will always support any business that wants to sue the union-leaders for any action that they may take that results in considerable loss, such as that experienced by many companies because of the power industry dispute. Not only will we support the businesses, but we will also encourage them in every way possible. I assure the honourable member that the union-leaders will be pursued at every opportunity. They must realise that they are not the elected Govemment and that they do not dictate the terms under which people live and work. The Govemment wiU go step by step. The honourable member can convey to the union-leaders that they are on the down side of the mountain and going down very rapidly. They will be pursued at every opportunity. Mr R. J. Gibbs: How was this moming's medical? How did they find you this moming? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I did not hear what the honourable member said. He can ask his question later. Questions Without Notice 3 September 1985 511

I assure the honourable member for Surfers Paradise that any company that suffers loss as a result of union action that is not fair and just—and nine times out of 10 it is not—should pursue the unions. The unions cannot hurt the companies; they cannot hang them or put them in gaol. The companies should pursue the unions for the losses that they have sustained. They have every right to recover their losses as a result of union action.

Greenslopes Fertility Control Clinic Ms WARNER: I ask the Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce: In the light of the failure of the Supreme Court action to prevent a woman from having a termination of pregnancy in 1983; in the light of the police blunder over search warrants and the illegal seizure of files on 20 May at the Greenslopes Fertility Control CUnic; in the light of Mr Justice McPherson's decision on 24 May 1985; and in the light of the inestimable damage done to women in Queensland by the harassment, or threatened harassment, by police, was he, as the Minister responsible, directly involved in the decision to send police to the Greenslopes clinic on 27 August? If so, who gave him the information that an illegal act was to take place, and what qualifications did they have to suggest such a thing? If the Minister was not involved, who gave the direction to the police to go and harass a young girl, and what evidence did they have that an iUegal act may be taking place? I ask also: Do the Queensland police have an absolutely free hand to act on garbled information given to them by discredited politicians?

Mr GLASSON: The answer is simply, "No" I did not direct any person to go and investigate what was happening at Greenslopes or to take part in an interception at Greenslopes. I repeat: the answer is, "No"

Abortion Legislation Ms WARNER: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General: In the light of the continuing uncertainty and trauma that is caused by the cynical political manipulation of women in Queensland who need to seek terminations of pregnancies, will he clarify the position by repealing the abortion laws as they now stand, in order to allow Queensland women peace of mind and freedom of choice to control their own fertiUty? Mr HARPER: No.

No-strike Agreement between British Trade Unions and Employers Mr JENNINGS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to recent newspaper reports in which it has been stated that British trade unions, long regarded as among the most militant in the world, are now proposing and selling no- strike deals to large local and overseas companies in an endeavour to ensure that jobs are not lost. As this is another indication of how the discreet, intelligent and responsible actions of the Queensland Govemment in recent industrial disputes by insisting on no- strike conditions in essential industries have received wide acclaim aU round the world, I ask: Will the Premier and Treasurer draw the attention of Queenslanders and unionists to this refreshing approach by British union-leaders in an attempt to maintain job opportunities and trouble-free production?

Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is well known in the free worid, in which strikes occur—of course, no strikes occur in the other part of the world, where strikes are not tolerated—that the militant unions are the greatest cause of depression and unemployment in society at large. It is because of the mUitant attitude of unions and their adamant demands that a person cannot accept a job unless he or she complies with everything that the unions lay down that many people cannot get a job today in this nation. In Britain a few of the unions have realised Mr McLean: That is mbbish, and you know it is mbbish. 512 3 September 1985 Questions Without Notice

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member for Bulimba is part of the mbbish that I am referring to. It is well known that some of the unions in Britain realise that they have been the cause of much unemployment, the loss of industry and the closing down of industry, and in some areas they have come out and offered a strike-free industry if people will invest their money in that industry. It is about time the unions in AustraUa realised that they, too, could generate jobs, prosperity and confidence if they adopted the same spirit and attitude as those British unions.

Reduction in Commonwealth Funding for Queensland Kindergartens Mr JENNINGS: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to reports that Commonwealth Govemment funding of kindergartens in Queensland has been drastically reduced. I now ask: What is the reason for such a repudiation by the Commonwealth Govemment of its responsibilities in this area, and are any steps contemplated by the Queensland Govemment to alleviate the problem? Mr Comben interjected. Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. Those honourable members who were listening this moming would have heard the Clerk read a number of petitions that were lodged regarding this particular matter. The Federal Govemment has decided that it will no longer fund pre-school education in Queensland and, I presume, in Australia generally. That wiU result in a $6.06m loss to the Queensland Treasury. I believe the honourable member for Windsor (Mr Comben) interjected that I would say that there is no need for the Federal Education Ministry. He is completely cortect; I fully agree with the honourable member for Windsor on that. There is no need for the Commonwealth Department of Education, and I would be very happy indeed, as would the Queensland Govemment, if the Federal Govemment withdrew entirely from education-funding and then gave the States the correct amount Mr Hamill: You have got the money from the tax-sharing grants. What are you complaining about? You have had a 144 per cent increase in tax-sharing grants since 1977-78. Mr POWELL: I have no intention of entering into a shouting match with fools who will not stand for the national anthem. The point that should be made is that we would be very happy if the Federal Govemment would, at the same time as removing itself from funding of this type, give the State the amount of tax reimbursement to which it is entitled. That it does not do. The honourable member has asked, as many of State's kindergartens have asked, "What can be done?" FirsUy, those who ask the question should make their Federal members completely apprised of the matter. I suggest also that they should listen with a good deal of anticipation to Thursday's Budget announcement by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen). Neither he nor the Govemment has ever let people, particularly our children, down. We will make sure that the children of this State are educated properly.

Mr P. Blake; Government Action on Insurance Dealings Mr COMBEN: My question is directed to the clown Minister Assisting the Treasurer: Will he advise the House why the State Govemment Insurance Office has not taken both criminal and civil action— Mr GUNN: I rise to a point of order. I object to that and ask for a withdrawal. Questions Without Notice 3 September 1985 513

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, but I did not hear what was said. The Deputy Premier has asked for a withdrawl of— Mr Davis interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask for complete silence from the member for Brisbane Central when I am addressing another honourable member. I view his interjections with serious concem. It has been reported to me by the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer that the member for Windsor made an offensive comment at the beginning of his question. I ask him to withdraw it immediately. Mr COMBEN: I willingly withdraw offensive words. Could he teU me what the offensive words were and I will withdraw them? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the honourable member to withdraw them. Mr COMBEN: I have not said anything. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw them. Mr COMBEN: I withdraw them. I continue with my question: WiU the Minister advise the House why the SGIO has not taken both civil and criminal action against Mr Pat Blake in respect of the fraudulent misappropriation of at least $25,000 in insurance premiums received on behalf of the SGIO but misappropriated by Mr Blake? Has the matter been reported by the SGIO to the poUce, following complaints by individuals to the SGIO? Why were the unpaid premiums transferted to an unrecoverable debts ledger without any proper attempt to recover the premiums? Did he, since Mr Blake is a former National Party candidate for Stafford, intervene in intemal SGIO matters to stop its being reported to police? Mr GUNN: The honourable member may not be aware that the SGIO is an autonomous body mn by an autonomous board. It is a matter entirely for the board. Sale of Encumbered Motor Vehicles Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General: Is he aware of public concem that, at present, unscmpulous dealers are able to seU, without fumishing positive proof of title, motor vehicles and caravans that may have been stolen, which often causes untold financial problems for innocent buyers? Can the Minister inform the House when legislation will be introduced that will protect unwary members of the public from rip-off merchants? Mr HARPER: For quite some time, the Govemment has been concemed about the sale of encumbered motor vehicles and caravans. The problems arise when the encumbrance is not disclosed to the purchaser or would-be purchaser. Consideration has been given by the Govemment to the introduction of a chattels security register. I am pleased to inform the House that that move wiU be proceeded with and that expressions of interest will be invited for the supply or provision of equipment, under certain conditions, that wiU be used to estabUsh such a register. Steps will be taken within the next few weeks and, when the Govemment receives a response from private industry, the Govemment will then be in a position to set up a computerised chattels security register that will be capable of returning information about encumbrance in a matter of seconds to those who inquire. Totalisator Administration Board Agencies and Subagencies Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing: As Minister for Racing, at any time prior to the recent recommendation of the Totalisator Administration Board to grant a TAB subagency licence at Oxenford to 514 3 September 1985 Questions Without Notice

Junefair Pty Ltd, has he attended a board meeting and asked the board for that licence to be granted to his family company, Junefair Pty Ltd? Mr HINZE: I have only one comment to make. I think the honourable member must be stupid. Opposition Members interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn and that the question be answered. Mr HINZE: As the honourable member feels that that is an offensive remark- that I said he is stupid—I will withdraw it. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will ask his second question. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will put that question on notice, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: In my opinion, the Minister has answered the question. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: If honourable members find this a very laughable matter Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair cannot mle on how a Minister should answer a question. I have brought that to the notice of honourable members before. I beUeve that the Minister has answered the question. If necessary, the honourable member for Archerfield can ask the question again right now. He can put the question to the Minister without notice. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will ask the question again, on notice this time: As Minister for Racing, prior to the recent recommendation of the Totalisator Administration Board Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe that the honourable member is unaware that he is asking his second question. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will now put my second question. Registration Fees Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I refer to the widespread criticism that has been made of recently announced increases in third-party compulsory insurance charges and, bearing in mind the justifiable fear of many pensioners, social service payment recipients and low-income families, for whom a private motor vehicle is a necessity, that such savage increases will place a private family car out of reach, I ask: Will the Minister give consideration to adopting the Westem Australian system, under which car registration fees can be paid half-yearly, so that the hardship of paying mammoth yearly charges can be alleviated? Mr GUNN: I am inclined to believe what the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) said earlier about the honourable member for Archerfield (Mr Palaszczuk). Car registration has nothing to do with third-party insurance. Apparently the honourable member does not understand that, so I will cite the third- party insurance premium on an ordinary motor vehicle in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In Queensland, it is $168; in New South Wales, $174; and in Victoria, $177. I repeat: third-party insurance is not a Govemipent charge. It is an insurance charge and has nothing whatever to do with the Govemment. The Govemment does Questions Without Notice 3 September 1985 515

not get one red cent out of third-party insurance. The honourable member mentioned registration. Third-party insurance has nothing to do with registration. Oxenford Totalisator Administration Board Subagency Licence Mr BRADDY: In asking a question of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to the allegations in relation to the Oxenford TAB subagency licence and documents tabled in this Chamber last Thursday that refer to poUtical interference—which the Minister did not deny—in the granting of the Ucence. I ask: Who is there, apart from the Minister, who could possibly have been responsible for such political interference? Mr HINZE: The answer is: blind Freddy. Cost of Freighting Coal to Electricity-generating Stations Mr INNES: In asking a question of the Minister for Mines and Energy, I refer to the fact that, earUer this year, I asked him a detailed question about the provision of coal to the Queensland Electricity Commission, as it now is. I asked for details of the cost of the provision of that coal for electricity generation. In the Minister's detailed answers, he refused to answer the part of my question relating to both the price of coal and the cost of freighting it to the generating stations. In relation to the cost of freighting coal to the power stations, I ask: How does the provision of that information differ from putting Works Department and other Govemment contracts out to tender? What is the confidentiaUty that the Minister claims should operate to prevent the information as to the cost of the coal being suppUed? Further, and more particularly, how can the Minister claim any confidentiality about what a Govemment statutory authority, the Queensland Electricity Commission, is charged by a Govemment department, the Railway Department, for freight? After reflection, is the Minister prepared to reconsider the answer that he gave me earlier this year and provide me with the information? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I adhere to the answer I gave to the earlier question. The electricity industry is a private enterprise one. The more it works along the lines of a private organisation, the better it is. The industry is indicating that it is moving more towards private enterprise and getting out from the stranglehold of the unions. On the matter of confidentiality, which is what the question is all about—the electricity industry buys coal from various groups. From time to time it lets tenders for coal supplies. Tenders are called for each new power station. As the commission is a private enterprise organisation supplying electricity to the public of Queensland, the price that it pays for coal should not become public knowledge. I do not believe that the electricity industry should be in a position different from that of other private organisations relative to its private business, such as the supply of coal. ConfidentiaUty is the norm for private enterprise. There should be no disclosure of private information simply because a Govemment instmmentality is involved. ABC Television Program Survey Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology: Further to his ministerial statement this moming, is he aware that TV viewers in Queensland country areas are upset at having to wait until October for the ABC to finish a survey of what those viewers want to see each night on The National? If it seems likely that there will be no real improvement in that program, will the Govemment ensure the avaUability of the Aussat satellite so that country residents will see a retum to the transmission of information they require, which was previously suppUed by the ABC? Mr AHERN: Well might people in remote communities be concemed about reports that the ABC is to conduct yet another survey on this matter. When the Aussat satelUte was designed, it was designed to provide an ABC television service, by way of a small inexpensive dish and sourced by the respective States, to people living in remote 516 3 September 1985 Address in Reply communities. If there is to be any walking away from that, the people in remote communities will be greatly disadvantaged and clearly the very expensive satellite will be wasted. People in remote communities are looking forward with considerable expec­ tation to this service, which they see as emanating from Brisbane, providing a weather and news service from Brisbane under the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. As to the satellite, the hardware is well ahead of the software. Australia will have a satellite ready for use by the end of this calendar year. A whole range of people who should be ready to use it are not ready to use it. The ABC is in that group. Clearly it will not be ready with all of its services. The community has a right to expect—and there is a need for—Queensland news for Queensland people and Queensland weather for Queensland people. That was the way in which the satellite was designed and, clearly, that is the way it must operate. We assisted in providing the commercial area. We hope that under the HACBSS program the Federal Govemment wiU approve very soon the one commercial service, which will at least give a commercial service to those users. We will be doing everything in our power to see that the satellite television service aspirations of the people living in the Roma electorate are met. Anything less than a locally sourced television service to those people will be unacceptable and a clear abrogation of the Federal Govemment's clear responsibility that developed at the time of designing the Aussat satellite. At 12 noon, In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 17, the House proceeded with the debate on the Address in Reply.

ADDRESS IN REPLY Resumption of Debate—Fifth and Sixth Allotted Days Debate resumed from 29 August (see p. 487) on Mr Henderson's motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (12 noon): Last Friday, when I went to the opening of the new Sunstate cement plant at Fisherman Islands in my electorate, I had no intention of speaking in the Address in Reply debate. In the pouring rain, before a captive audience of business people, the Premier and Treasurer spoke of how he enjoyed that type of meeting rather than Parliament. He proceeded to tell some of his fairy stories about the National Party's role in Queensland's development. As I drove home through my electorate of Lytton, about a mile from the cement plant I saw the faded, broken-down sign erected to proclaim a multimillion-dollar marina that the Premier announced on behalf of Prospect Marine. I looked at the mud and long grass and recalled the Premier's statements about the large intemational hotel, the condominiums, the marina, and the shops and offices that would be built there, and of the thousands of jobs that would be created. I also thought of the hundreds of jobs that the Premier promised all over the State but which have failed to materialise. A few miles down the road, I passed the site of the promised steel-mill, which was to have provided hundreds of jobs, I saw the mins of the lovely home that had been demolished so that the soil on the block could be transferted to fill the steel-miU site. The soil was not moved and the steel-mill has joined the list of National Party phantom projects and phantom jobs. As I drew closer to home, I passed the site where the Brisbane City Council is constmcting a new sewage treatment plant. It is on the ground that, many years ago, the then Liberal Minister for commercial and industrial development (Mr Norm Lee) said could not be used because it was reserved for a $40m chemical plant that would Address in Reply 3 September 1985 517 create hundreds of jobs during constmction and hundreds more when operating. That did not eventuate, either. As I passed the Bulimba "B" power house, which was recently ordered to be closed after millions of dollars had been spent on upgrading its performance to be ready for the Steel-miU, chemical plant and marina, I realised why the Premier told the audience at the opening of the cement plant about his preference for those types of functions at which he cannot be questioned and made to face the facts. As I tumed into my office driveway, it stmck me that the Premier's speech at the opening of the ultra-modem Sunstate cement plant should be the basis of my speech in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Govemor's Speech, which was also written by National Party hype merchants. I thought of the things that the Premier did not say last Friday. I thought of the businessmen and women who have set new records for bankmptcy because of their belief in the Premier's oft-quoted big projects and the hundreds of jobs that they would create that have become what I call the National Party's phantom projects scandal. In his speech at the cement plant, the Premier did not say that Queensland has had the worst unemployment rate in Australia for the last nine months; that it is the only State in which unemployment has risen since July 1984; and that 1 000 full-time jobs have been lost in Queensland in the 12 months to July 1985. Mr Newton interjected. Mr BURNS: I will not match wits with my friend the honourable member for Caboolture; I never attack anyone who is undefended. The Premier did not say that Queensland workers, young and old, face the dismal prospect of living on the dole. Instead, he spoke of the 1 000 people a month who are pouring into Queensland from the south. I ask honourable members to remember back to when he spoke of 4 000 a month. The substantially reduced numbers coming to Queensland from southem States have done so because of the massive public relations campaign mounted by the Premier and his National Party conspirators. The Premier did not say at Sunstate that the National Party Govemment's task force on employment in Queensland told the Govemment in April this year that the number of job-seekers among interstate migrants in 1983-84 compared with retirees Mr Newton interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind honourable members that interjections that are not responded to are superfluous to the debate and only intermpt the proceedings of the Chamber. Mr BURNS: The task force report told the Govemment that the number of job- seekers among interstate migrants in 1983-84 compared with retirees was not significant and that there was a small net outflow of those interstate migrants, influenced primarily by employment considerations. It also pointed out that further net outflows of job- seekers over the next two or three years will have the effect of bringing Queensland's unemployment rate closer to the national average. In other words, the Govemment's own committee on unemployment said that people were leaving Queensland to look for jobs in the south and that, in the next two to three years, the number of job-seekers leaving the State may improve Queensland's shocking unemployment figures. That is what the Govemment's own committee said. To put it bluntly, the committee suggests, to lower unemployment figures, a policy of chasing workers over the border. Today, I want to expose the scandal of National Party hype that has led to the shocking state of our economy, our unemployment crisis and lack of business confidence. 518 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

In the last few years, the National Party has promised phantom projects worth $36,000m that would have created 75 000 direct jobs and, using the multipUer effect, a total of 245 000 indirect jobs throughout the State. I wTote that last sentence yesterday moming. Since then, I have found a few more projects. The figures are now $40,000m, 90 000 jobs and 300 000 indirect jobs that would have been created. If the National Party's performance had matched its promises, the 106 000 Queenslanders out of work all would have had jobs and an additional 500 a day would have had to be imported into this State to fill the jobs that the members of the Govemment have promised, and that the Premier has promised on their behalf, over the last few years. Those jobs have never eventuated. I would Uke to remind National Party members of the schemes that were sold to Queenslanders as certainties, the jobs that were promised, the projects that were to boom and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that was offered by the Bjelke-Petersens and others of the National Party. I want to tell the tmth about the National Party promises and performance. I will begin with the Premier's friends Sir Edward Lyons, Mr Iwasaki, Stephen Horvath and Lang Hancock. On 26 November 1980, the Premier tumed the first sod for a $5m women's fashion and sportswear factory for Katies at Beenleigh. The Premier said that the factory would provide 1 000 new jobs by mid-1983. Katies chairman. Sir Edward Lyons, said that the factory would employ 400 people when completed in early 1982, and would take on a further 600 by mid-1983. The then Minister for culture, national parks and recreation and local member (Mr Ivan Gibbs) said that the factory would be a godsend for employment in the Beenleigh area. Now, in September 1985, there are no jobs and no factory. Other firms able to offer jobs have been tumed away because a large area of the Crown industrial site has been reserved for Katies since 1978. Now I will speak about Iwasaki—the Premier's little mate. The Queensland Intemational Tourist Centre Agreement Act, the special Iwasaki Act, provided for work on the Yeppoon resort to commence in April 1979, with the first stage to be completed within five years. In the Sunday Sun of 5 August 1979, Mr Iwasaki said he would poiu- $20m into the development over the next two years, instead of stretching it over the scheduled five years. So, by August 1981, one should have seen motels, units, a golf course, a beach centre and an intemational village catering for mUlions of visitors. In March 1978, the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Russ Hinze) said that tourists should begin arriving in about 12 months, and added a forecast that a trickle of about 20 000 visitors in the first year was expected to become a miUion-a-year flood. According to Mr Hinze, in 1979, 20 000 Japanese tourists should have passed through Yeppoon and a miUion tourists in 1980 and each year since. Where is the flood of Japanese tourists? What has the Govemment done about Iwasaki's trail of broken promises? The five-year first stage period has long gone and not one tourist has stayed at the old fraud's resort. In June 1979, the Premier said of the so-called hydrogen car— "It is a fantastic invention and as soon as I can get one, I will." Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said the new hydrogen power system meant Australia would be independent of oil-selling countries and added— "The oil industry can no longer hold us to ransom.

We don't need to worry about drilling on the Barrier Reef." In Febmary 1980, we were told the Premier was to sell the hydrogen car to Japanese motor vehicle manufacturers in Tokyo. In July that year, the Premier's much publicised hydrogen car was displayed in Brisbane. He declared— "It's fantastic. All you've got to do is put water in the tank. I forecast today will go down as a very special day in our history. This is cheap, pollution-free and readily available: It's just water." Address in Reply 3 September 1985 519

The Premier stepped from the dais, drank a cup of water from a can and poured the rest into the tank. But as he moved to start the car, there was an embarrassing silence. A few minutes later. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen announced— "Mr Stephen Horvath's mechanic has gone somewhere with the keys and we can't catch up with him ... But I am sure aU you people can have a good look at the car, so long as you don't touch anything." Mr Horvath took the Premier for a ride without ever starting his engine. While I am speaking of cars, let me look at the reports issued by the National Party on a BMW car plant. In November 1983, the Premier announced that the European car maker BMW was definitely interested in taking over GMH's Brisbane plant. It was claimed that the deal could save the jobs of 880 workers at the Acacia Ridge factory, which GMH was to close later in 1984. That is another factory closure in this State. The papers reported— "Since GMH made its shock closure announcement on October 8, the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen has made a personal mission of saving the jobs at the doomed car factory." Eighteen months later, in May 1985, it was reported that, after talks in West Germany with Deputy Premier (Bill Gunn), BMW and the State Govemment had drafted plans for a multimillion-dollar assembly plant in Brisbane. Executives from BMW's West German headquarters were to arrive in Brisbane in June this year for discussions with the Govemment on a possible plant site and other details. It was estimated that it would cost up to $100m to establish the car assembly plant, which would serve the Australasian market and create hundreds of jobs. But, a few days later, the Australian boss of BMW refuted claims that the West German firm was planning a $100m car factory in Brisbane. Mr Ron Meatchem, general manager of BMW Australia, said from Melboume that the first he had heard of Mr Gunn's proposal was when he read it in the paper. Honourable members know how the Govemment hypes things up. Mr Meatchem said— "When I was in Germany about four weeks ago, some company officials told me Mr Gunn was visiting and asked what they should do with him. I suggested they give him a tour of the factory, a nice lunch and a trip through our museum. We have a far-reaching plan for our future in Australia, and can assure you that building a factory in Brisbane is not part of it." What would have happened if the Govemment had taken him and given him a drink? They only took him to the museum and we had 880 jobs and a $100m plant. What would have happened if they had given him some of that famous Rhine wine? We would have had a million jobs and a million plants. Now let us look at Port Petersen, Petersen city and a new power station. In 1982, Lang Hancock offered Queensland a multimillion-dollar Port Petersen, Petersen city, a steelworks and a power station supplying the new major industrial complex and connected to the State's electricity grid. It was hyped up, recycled, and fed out at regular intervals by the National Party's public relations machine. Who could forget the starry-eyed look on the Premier's face when he spoke of the thousands at work building Lang Hancock's personal monument to the Premier—Port Petersen? FinaUy, even his own Cabinet colleagues rejected the proposal. They wiped it out. Whilst I am on ports, honourable members will remember the Bribie coal port and the Bundaberg coal port proposals. In 1982 the State Govemment announced that it was considering a deep-water port on Bribie Island to export coal from the Marathon Petroleum Ltd lease on the Darling Downs. The developer said that it had been planning 520 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

since 1979 to develop the huge coal deposits surrounding Macalister, 30km north-west of Dalby, but could not go ahead without a deep-water port. Finally, Mr Ahem (the National Party member for Landsborough) said that the Govemment had definitely rejected the island site for the proposed coal port in favour of another site near Bundaberg. I wonder how much coal will be exported this year from the phantom Bundaberg coal port and from the Macalister coal mine? Lang Hancock's steel-miU was not the only miU never to see the light of day. In March 1980 the Premier confirmed that German businessmen with $2 billion to invest had begun talks on the constmction of a steel-miU in Gladstone or TownsvUle. The Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) said, "It looks as if this will be a goer." The investors told the Premier that their preliminary investigations favoured Gladstone because it was linked to coking coal fields by rail and had a good port. "But, I wiU be pushing hard for Townsville or another northem city," Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said. Nothing has been heard of it since. He must have given it a good shove. He shoved it right into the ocean. But there are more phantom mills. In the early 1980s Brisbane Mini Steel Mills Pty Ltd, floated a proposal for a steel-miU in Queensland. At the time, the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) said that a 10-year management contract had been signed with a commitment to produce from 100 000 tonnes in 1985 to 250 000 tonnes in 1987, when 230 people would be employed. The site has not yet been filled. In 1984, the Queensland Govemment, through its Industry Minister (Mr Ahem), became involved in the Quest steel-miU matter. In October 1984, the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) said that only one miU would be permitted in the State and that there were four bidders for the miU: BHP, Quest Corporation Pty Ltd, a consortium led by Mr Lang Hancock, and Norstar Intemational Pty Ltd. At the time, Mr Ahem said the successful company would be required to commence constmction in early 1985 and be operational within two years. He said that the project would create between 100 and 200 jobs directly, with another 400 to 500 indirectly. In November 1984, the Queensland National Party Cabinet endorsed the Quest Corporation's $66m ministeel-mill proposal. The Govemment said that Quest would employ 1 500 people to build its mill on Crown land at the Carole Park Industrial Estate. BHP said that it planned to proceed with a $40m rolUng mill and The Courier- Mail reported Mr Ahem as welcoming BHP "if it happens" Mr Ahem said in that Courier-Mail article— "Cabinet was satisfied Quest—a heavyweight group that stacks up well—had the financial, management, marketing and technical resources to build and operate Queensland's first steel making facility." Mr Ahem said that Quest had sought no Govemment aid other than industrial estate land. In March 1985, the Queensland Cabinet was considering a package of proposals that could help rescue the ailing consortium. On 29 March the Queensland Govemment did another backflip and offered a $27m transfusion of funds to the Quest Corporation, which, five months before, Mr Ahem said had sought no Govemment aid and had the financial management, marketing and technical resources deemed necessary by the National Party Govemment. On 12 April, the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology said that he expected Quest to sign binding letters of intent to take its major plant from a British steel company in 10 days. On 18 June 1985, the Minister announced that the Quest Steel-miU bid had failed, but that he had hopes of a new United States proposal to establish a rolling mill in Brisbane. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 521

The story of the National Party's failed steel-miU proposals is scandalous, but it is insignificant when one considers the National Party's promises and performance on power houses. About 20 per cent of what the Queensland Electricity Commission bortowed last financial year was used to pay interest on its debt. Queensland famiUes are paying dearly for the National Party's mismanagement of the electricity industry. They are paying for the cost of power generation that the National Party Govemment cannot seU. However, in 1980, the Premier and Treasurer was speaking of six new power houses and was also trying to find out if private enterprise was interested. In 1979 The Sunday Mail reported that South Korea wanted to build a power house at Millmerran—the recommended site rejected by State Cabinet in 1978 in favour of Tarong. It was reported that Millmerran Coal had approached the Govemment with an offer from a major Korean trading firm which wanted to own the station and sell the power in bulk to the State. In 1980, the Premier and Treasurer announced that Comalco would be offered the right to prospect for coal in the northern Bowen Basin and said that Comalco would buUd a power station—operating it privately was an option—as well as using coal for its alumina refinery. He said that the establishment of a power station by Comalco would not affect the State's electricity development program during this decade. Remember that. The Premier and Treasurer said that, because of the State's rapid development, electricity supply would be quite a problem over the next two years and that there would be a shortage. He said— "We are working towards the provision of six new power houses, two of which are planned and in the preparatory stages. We are also trying to find out whether private enterprise might be interested." It was interested. How does that "Bjelke pie in the sky" stack up in the light of the announcement in July that Bulimba "B" and Tennyson Power Stations would close and CoUinsville Power Station's capacity would be reduced? What happened to the promised alumina plants? In June 1980, the Premier and Treasurer went to Canberta with a submission that said, in part— "Queensland now has outstanding firm options for power to two smelters of 1320MW (Comalco 720MW for four potUnes and Alcan 600MW for three potlines)." The Premier and Treasurer's submission went on to say— "It is confidently anticipated that one further aluminium smelter will be established in Queensland in the mid to late 1980s in addition to the two smelters now formally committed." In December 1980, the Premier and Treasurer announced that Bowen would be the site of Queensland's second alumina refinery, to be built by Comalco at a cost of $800m. He said— "It is another chapter in the rapid growth of this State and one justified by the buoyant world market for aluminium." Where is the buoyant world market for aluminium that the Premier and Treasurer spoke about? In November 1981, the Premier and Treasurer announced that Comalco had plans that would lead to second generation fuUy integrated aluminium development, probably for Bowen in north Queensland. He went on to say that prospects existed for new aluminium demands in the second half of this decade, which means that we should be seeing some action at Bowen right now, on the eve of the second half of this decade. However, nothing eventuated. 522 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

In October 1980, the honourable member for Isis (Mr Powell) said that an announcement about the establishment of an alumina smelter at Bundaberg could be expected almost immediately. The first of three planned stages was to produce 100 000 tonnes of aluminium a year and employ 1 500 workers. Ultimately, the smelter was to be capable of producing 296 000 tonnes of aluminium a year and create 2 700 new jobs. The honourable member for Isis also said that port faciUties would not be required and that the smelter was scheduled to come into operation in 1983. However, no sooner had he spoken than it was reported that the company was believed to have been embarrassed by the disclosure of plans to build the smelter at Bundaberg instead of Gladstone. On 29 May 1981, Alcan Australia Ltd said that it had deferred a decision to proceed with the smelter. That decision marked the second major alteration in Alcan's Queensland smelter proposals. The original plan to site the plant at Gladstone was changed because of the prospect—built up by the hype—that the neighbouring development of the Rundle shale-oil and other major projects would impose severe strains on the central Queensland port. Alcan decided that the Kurri Kurri plant in New South Wales would be accelerated and Bundaberg shelved. The Boyne Island Stage 2 expansion from two pot lines to four pot lines, at an estimated cost of $420m and with 550 jobs, has been postponed. One of the reasons for that was the high cost of electricity. Back to electricity again and to the Minister sitting in the Chamber! I tum to the National Party propaganda on converting coal to oil. In May 1975, the National Party Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr Camm) said that Queensland coal samples were being tested in New South Wales for possible use for an oil-from- coal scheme. He said that an investigation would be made into possible steel, aluminium, chemical, gas and oil-from-coal industries on the vast coal-fields of the Bowen Basin in central Queensland. The Minister said that consideration would be given to other potential major industries such as aluminium, caustic soda-chlorine, metaUurgical, coke and the large-scale conversion of coal to synthetic cmde oil and natural gas and chemicals. When Govemment Ministers made a speech, didn't they make some proposals! They included anything they could think of, save Disneyland. Iwasaki was promising that. We were to have had Disneyland opening five or six years ago. The other is Disneyland stuff, too. In 1980, it was reported that Queensland's Wandoan coal-field could give the State self-sufficiency in petrol, diesel and gas fuels for 100 years. It was said that Wandoan coal could produce petrol for 23c a litre. At one stage, the Premier was advocating a car that could be mn on pint bottles of water. All we had to do to mn our cars all over the place was manufacture plastic botUes and mn to the tap. That was one of Job's proposals. But here was a better one: for 23c a litre, Wandoan coal could be tumed into petrol. What are we paying for petrol today? The Govemment cannot tell me that it would not be viable at those prices. Today we are paying more than 50c a litre for petrol, but the Premier claimed that it could be produced for 23c a litre. The Premier said that intemational companies had made preliminary estimates for the conversion of 14 million tonnes of coal a year into 3 300 000 tonnes of fuel products. The Premier said that the Govemment had even earmarked a dam site for the project. Where is the dam ? Again, nothing happened. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BURNS: Yes, he got the dam, didn't he? It is the Bjelke-Petersen Dam up near Kingaroy. In October 1974, Queenslanders were told a liquefaction plant tuming coal into oil would be buUt at Millmerran on the Darling Downs in the early 1980s. Millmerran Coal Pty Ltd proposed a $250m plant with an annual output of at least three million barrels. The Premier welcomed reports that Japan and Australia had agreed in principle on the proposed plant to convert coal to oil. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 523

In July 1976, a $600m project to convert coal into oil at Millmerran was reported to get under way "soon" That was two years after the first one. In November 1979, the headUnes said a coal conversion plant employing 500 people in the MiUmerran area may be built by May 1981. The conversion plant would employ 500 people and the coal mines another 500. Where's the plant? Where are the jobs? They are logical questions, are they not, since it was to be completed by 1981? In 1980, the Premier announced a massive shale-oU project at Julia Creek to be undertaken by CSR, with a capital cost of $5.8 bUUon, producing over 100 000 barrels of hydrotreated shale-oil per stream day. Hundreds of jobs were envisaged. What happened? Nothing happened! The infamous Rundle oU-shale project was to cost thousands of miUions of doUars and produce many thousands of jobs. To date, the only money spent has been a large donation to the Bjelke-Petersen fund in retum for a knighthood. At one stage, headlines proclaimed that the Premier had Japanese financiers fighting over who would have the right to develop the Condor oil-shale. The Courier-Mail reported on 10 April 1981 that the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, as he then was, said that a Japanese consortium had indicated it would sign a letter of intent, "possibly as early as next week", to develop Queensland's vast Condor shale-oil deposits. He said that a group of banks and other business concems was interested in providing finance and know-how for the $4,000m project. In May 1983, the Premier said that a caustic soda plant at Gladstone, proposed by Audax Chemicals and Metals Ltd, would create 1 000 jobs during its three-year con­ stmction phase. A permanent work-force of 300 would be employed when the plant reached full production, with another 150 employed in support industry. I will have to speed up. I am allotted 30 minutes only, but I have about another 30 projects to refer to. The Premier said that a feasibility study, covering technology, capital costs, marketing, sales price projections, operating costs and project finance, found that the project was viable. Where is the caustic soda plant? In 1980, the Premier announced that Lend Lease was involved in negotiations with the Queensland Govemment for a $ 1,200m coke plant at Gladstone. He said it was planned that the first stage of the plant would be producing coke and other by-products from Queensland coal by 1984—last year. Mr Bjelke-Petersen, as he then was, said that the plant was the likely foremnner to constmction of a major steel-miU in Queensland. He said studies indicated that world demand for coke would reach 350 milUon tonnes a year by 1985. Present production figures would faU short of this by about 50 mUlion tonnes a year. Constmction work would provide jobs for about 1 000, with the completed complex providing 400 permanent jobs. In June 1981, the Queensland Govemment used the tender for the prized Gregory South coal area as a bait for private enterprise to build two $ 1,000m coke plants. The Premier said that the Lend Lease consortium had proposed a plant in Gladstone producing 3 million tonnes of coke a year, to come into operation in 1986. The New Hope consortium proposed a plant for Mackay, producing 4 miUion tonnes a year from 1988. Under the Cabinet decision, Lend Lease would be required to offer the New Hope consortium a share in development of the Lake Lindsay coal deposits, near Blackwater, over which it now holds an authority to prospect. Financial circles are asking what has happened to the $2 billion coke plant at Gladstone—never mind the one at Mackay. In Febmary 1980, the Premier began talks in Tokyo to site a uranium processing plant on the north Queensland coast. He used the same sales pitch—this is his PR—to a European consortium, in London. The Premier and Treasurer described the talks as "very satisfactory" and said that the consortium would be sending a technical team to Australia to look into the building of enrichment plant equipment. Since then Mary Kathleen Uranium Mine has closed and the town has been sold up. It was a great success! 524 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

I now tum my attention to the saga of the pulp-mills. Millions of dollars of tax­ payers' money has been spent planting and cultivating in south-east Queensland a giant crop of pulpwood that the National Party Govemment cannot sell. Three phantom pulp- mUls have been proposed and dropped. The first proposal was that Woodlands was supposed to have contracted to buUd a pulp-mill in 1968. Nearly 10 years later, it sold out to CSR. The second proposal was that Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd. was then allegedly prepared to harvest both the Govemment's crop, plus their own, and use a mill on Bribie Island. The third proposal was for a $300m pulp-mill on the Mary River. In October 1982 the National Party Govemment announced that the Ekono Oy pulp-mill proposal would provide 500 new jobs in the area. In November 1983 the pubUc was told of a trial pulpwood shipment to Finland. It was election-time, of course. In April 1984 the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Bill Glasson) flew to Finland to witness the trial using these logs and announced that the $300m pulp-mill now appeared certain. In May 1984 the Premier and Treasurer was reported in the newspapers as saying that he was still very optimistic. In March 1985 the Premier and Treasurer visited New Zealand to negotiate funds for the proposed mUl. But in March 1985, the project became doubtful because the price of electricity was a stumbling block. It is amazing how the price of electricity, which the National Party Govemment has controlled and manipulated, caused the Govemment trouble. At the same time according to a report in the Daily Sun, the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police told Parliament— "The proposed mill would be a large user of electricity, and power costs are therefore an important factor in the overall viability of the project. For a number of reasons, the cost of supplying electrical energy in Queensland is somewhat higher than in some of the other major paper-producing countries, such as New Zealand, with which this MUl would have to compete." Ekono's option expired on 30 June and in July 1985, the National Party Govemment announced another flop. In November 1979 the Premier and Treasurer claimed that a big American company was very interested in becoming involved in the establishment of a transcontinental railway line across the top of Australia. He would not name the company but said it was "very big" and that the line to connect the Pilbara and Queensland's coal mines would cost about $400m. On 23 March 1980 the Premier and Treasurer said the line would connect Westem Australian iron-ore fields and Queensland coal deposits, making it possible for steel- mills to be built on either side of the continent. He said that constmction of the 3 500 km rail line would be a mammoth task, employing thousands of men and costing about $ 1,000m. Although $600m had been added to the price, no line was built. In 1983 the Queensland Govemment wanted to build a railway line to join Goondiwindi and Boggabilla and proposed a line to connect Mount Isa with Darwin and Alice Springs. The Northem Territory project would cost around $700m. The then Northem Territory Chief Minister (Mr Everingham) said that constmction of the railway line would have to be at Queensland's expense, because the Northem Territory was not in a position to contribute. Govemment members who have taken up the issue on behalf of cane-farmers should listen to me and hear what follows. The Premier and Treasurer promised that the project could be financed through long-term loans serviced from profits on freight, including the haulage of Queensland coal to supply the proposed Channel Island power station in Darwin. In Darwin Mr Everinghan said that the Queensland Government had indicated that it would pay for the 1 600 km Mount Isa line, so the Govemment that will not provide one extra dollar to the stmggling sugar industry could offer $700m to build a rail line to the Northem Territory, and finance the project itself Address in Reply 3 September 1985 525

I am mnning short of time, so I wiU skip through the matter of Australia's "financial capital" fairly quickly. For more than two years now, honourable members have been told that Brisbane will become the financial headquarters of the nation. Brisbane was to be the envy of Melboume and Sydney. First, we were told that relaxation of duty on Brisbane stock exchange transactions would bring so much trade here that we would be well on the way towards achieving that goal. That bid failed and the tax had to be reinstated. Next followed the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Bill, which the Premier and Treasurer mshed through Parliament—so he could claim Queensland was the first in this sphere. However, he made such a mess of the proposal, because of the way legislation was mshed through, that it had to be amended by the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General (Mr Harper). The conspicuous lack of information coming out of the Govemment would suggest that the secondary mortgages market is not a successful one. None of the foreign banks will have headquarters here which would help to fulfil the National Party's financial capital dream. I want now to concentrate on the matter of foreign investment. Every year, Govemment Ministers undertake overseas trips to promote foreign investment in Queensland. Table 11, headed "Foreign Investment Proposals by Location", which indicates expected investment for the period 1 July 1983 to 20 June 1984 indicates as follows: Queensland received 33 proposals. South Australia 159, Westem Australia 165, New South Wales 346 and Victoria 119. In addition to that, the expected new investment in Queensland was $2m; yet the Queensland Govemment keeps sending its Ministers overseas. The Queensland Govemment ought to complain about foreign banks not coming here. A proposal by the Japanese Mitsui Bank, supported by Queensland, was so badly handled that Mitsui made no independent approach to the Federal Govemment, which seems to be at odds with the usual Japanese approach. I have only a minute left, so I will conclude on this note: there is an old song titled Old MacDonald had a Farm. It goes something like this— "Here a power house. There a power house. Everywhere a power house. Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i o." The National Party's version of the song should go like this— "Here a smelter, There a smelter. Everywhere a smelter. Old Bjelke-Petersen had a yam." The song would finish not with "ee i ee i o", but with "oh where oh where did they go?" Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (12.30 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the motion so ably moved by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and seconded by the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper) for the adoption of the Address in Reply. As member for Toowoomba North, I have the honour to again pledge my allegiance and that of the people of Toowoomba to our Most Gracious Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II and to her most worthy representative in Queensland, His Excellency the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell. I also extend my sincere congratulations, and those of the citizens of Toowoomba, to His Excellency on his recent appointment as Govemor of this great State. I am sure that all Queenslanders will be proud and pleased to note that this high post is once again filled by a Queenslander—one with an already-established record of great achievement and outstanding service to the State. 526 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

It is a most fitting appointment and honour, and I tmst his time as our Govemor wiU prove enjoyable and rewarding for both His Excellency and for Lady CampbeU. Their close ties with Toowoomba and the Darling Downs over the years are weU known to many of us and this, of course, is cause for greater pleasure over Sir Walter's appointment. I note from a recent press announcement that His Excellency has accepted an invitation to open this year's Camival of Flowers in Toowoomba on Saturday, 21 September, and what a warm welcome he and Lady CampbeU wiU receive from our flower-bedecked camival city! It is a different city, though, from that which Sir Walter and Lady CampbeU knew so well in their younger days, because development in Toowoomba has progressed at an ever-increasing rate over recent decades. It is at the stage at which the city can now justly claim to be one of the leading provincial cities, both from environmental and economic viewpoints, in Australia. In fact in a recent statement, the ANZ Bank's Queensland economist stated that Toowoomba and the Darling Downs could expect a level of economic activity above that of the remainder of the State, and no doubt Australia, during 1986. This statement was based on the already-demonstrated superior performance by Toowoomba and the Downs during the curtent economic difficulties besetting our country. I will be dealing with that factor in greater detaU later in my speech. This performance is, of course, due to the broad agricultural and service industry base which, to a large extent, isolates the area from adverse effects experienced in those other areas that are more oriented towards and dependent upon one industry. My colleague the honourable member for Condamine (Mr Littleproud) has already given a comprehensive account in this debate of progress throughout Queensland during this Govemment's term of office. He has given positive examples of many of the recent major developments in the State. UnUke the member for Lytton (Mr Bums), the honourable member for Condamine gave positive examples of many recent major developments in this State. I was quite disappointed with the speech of the member for Lytton, because it was a knocking speech. It is very easy to take examples in isolation and say that because some announced projects have not succeeded, or succeeded immediately, that indicates a record of lack of success. If the knockers on the other side of the Chamber took an objective view, even they must acknowledge that the record of development in this State during the Premier's term of office is greater than that in the history of any other State. Many of the examples given by the honourable member for Lytton are stiU in the pipeline. If the honourable member behaves himself and continues his laid-back life­ style and his fishing, he might live long enough to see them. Mr R. J. Gibbs: For how long? Mr McPHIE: The honourable member for Wolston knows perfectly well that private enterprise will get most of those projects off the ground, but he should not ask me when the money will be made available. It will be put up when the time comes and the projects will eventuate. The Premier's record is one of great achievement of which all Queenslanders ought to be proud. All Opposition members are benefiting from it, just as is every Queenslander. I will now mention some of the more important developments which have occurted in Toowoomba during my time as member for Toowoomba North or are projected for the immediate future. With a population of about 80 000 people and a similar number in the immediately surrounding country areas, Toowoomba is a major centre for shopping and various Address in Reply 3 September 1985 527 services supporting the mral industry. The large Clifford Gardens shoppingtown in Newtown was opened in March 1983 at a cost of over $20m to complement the other major suburban shopping centres already established in the city. In the centre of the city, initial moves are being finalised for the development of a city mall, a ring-road traffic flow system and a large car-parking station to revitalise the city's commercial heart. Exciting new projects are also being advanced to complement the Heritage Plaza development and the recently commenced Bell Centre development in the centre of the city. Within the next decade, they wUl all combine to change completely the face of the central business district of the city of Toowoomba. Mr Borbidge: The city is well represented. Mr McPHIE: I agree with the honourable member. A recent survey by Choice magazine placed Toowoomba as the cheapest city in Australia for buying groceries. That survey checked 154 stores in 20 cities Australia- wide. According to Toowoomba's energetic Tourism and Development Board, that trend will continue, with more than 750 retail trade establishments in the city tuming over weU in excess of $370m per annum. Industry, too, is on the go in Toowoomba. The Wilsonton Industrial Estate in the westem portion of my electorate has been tremendously successful. To date, 23 separate industrial undertakings have been established there, many of which are of quite some significance and supply interstate and overseas markets. Over 460 people are employed on the estate at present and that number is increasing. The two largest industrial enterprises in Toowoomba have expanded in the past year or so. The Southem Cross Corporation's Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd, which employs about 1 500 people, has commenced a $7.5m reorganisation and update of its manufacturing, foundry and machine-shop facilities with the introduction of a compu­ terised, integrated manufacturing control system. The foundry, of course, is a major supplier to Australian motor vehicle, transport and rolling-stock industries. It is the principal manufacturer of the Southem Cross range of pumping, irrigation and stock- watering equipment, including its famous windmills. It produces quality castings such as those for the State rail electrification program as well as top-grade, machine-finished products. The Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association—K. R. Darling Downs, as it is so well known—expanded its operations significantly during the year by acquiring the right to manufacture and market the J. C. Hutton range of goods in New South Wales and Queensland. As a result, tumover will be well up on last year's figure of $100m. The company employs about 825 people at its Willowbum plant in Toowoomba and a further 600 at its Doboy plant in Brisbane. The hinterland, too, has a number of significant industries supported by the city. Next week, the Premier will be opening the American Ensign-Bickford $5m factory at Helidon. It will provide 60 jobs in manufacturing certain detonating cord and blasting- cap devices. The company's headquarters for Australia and the Pacific area of operation are to be established in Toowoomba. To the west is Elders IXL beef city, a feedlot and abattoir operation established on 560 ha of land. It can carry up to 28 000 cattle at one time, has a killing capacity of 350 beasts per day, employees 310 people, and supplies meat to nine overseas countries as well as to the Australian domestic market. Incidentally, Elders IXL has the largest saleyard in Toowoomba developed from those designed and built at Harristown by my late father. Hector McPhie, in the old McPhie and Company days. Today the yard sells over 2 600 cattle per week. With those cattle yarded by other agents, in aU, 5 (XK) cattle a week are sold in Toowoomba. That makes Toowoomba the leading cattle auction centre in Australia. 528 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

All of that is quite contrary to the record of doom and non-achievement that was spoken of by the honourable member for Lytton. These are some of the positive achievements by the Govemment. Mr Borbidge: He's the greatest whinger in the House. Mr McPHIE: Of course he is the greatest whinger in the House. I note that he has left the Chamber. If he is up to his normal tactics, he is probably pushing the boat off to go fishing. Industry and commerce are not the only facets of development in Toowoomba in recent times. Significant upgrading has taken place on the Warrego and New England Highways within the city, and an energetic program has been undertaken for the improvement of the city's streets, kerbing, footpaths, etc., by the city council. Under the energetic leadership of mayor Clive Berghofer, who is now in his second term of office, the council has developed a network of cycle paths in the city. It has also carried out extensive improvements in the city's parklands, and beautification and landscaping of the city's creeks and waterways. The large water-bird habitat to be developed within the city boundary, as the city's principal bicentennial project, will be a beauty. I am sure that His Excellency the Govemor and Lady CampbeU wiU be quick to note the many additions that have been made to Toowoomba's State schools and private schools, some of which have cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of note is the opening of stage 1 of the Agricultural Studies Centre in Wilsonton, at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars, which will assist senior students from Toowoomba's high schools in agricultural subjects. I am sure that it is the first step towards the estabUshment on adjoining land of the city's fourth State high school. Another development in education facilities close to commencement is a brand new TAFE college on the old showground site in the centre of the city. On current prices, the coUege will cost $20m when completed. In addition, Toowoomba's hospitals have seen development. Last year, at BaUUe Henderson Hospital a $2m therapy centre was completed, and a $5m services block is near completion at the Toowoomba General Hospital. The list goes on. Mention could be made of sporting facilities, the Japanese garden that is being constmcted on a 5 ha site at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, and the excellent job that is being done by a number of State Govemment welfare and employment agencies. The city also has a number of active and progressive church groups and service clubs that contribute to the overall community scene. Of particular interest is the National Jaycees' Convention, which will be held in Toowoomba next month and hosted by the Wilsonton Jaycee Chapter. I tmst that Sir Walter and Lady CampbeU will be able to attend the many camivals held in Toowoomba in addition to the Camival of Flowers. In April, Green Week is held and, in August, the city holds its annual eisteddfod, which, with over 3 000 entries, is probably the largest in the State. In August, Jondaryan celebrates Heritage Week at the woolshed and at Brookvale Park. In September, with over 400 exhibitors, Farmfest is held. In January each year, the McGregor summer school for music, arts and theatre attracts hundreds of participants. Steele Rudd and George Essex Evans Mr Davis interjected. Mr McPHIE: I believe that Steele Rudd is the honourable member's great uncle. Each year a pilgrimage honours both of those great poets of the city of Toowoomba. One festival is held early in the year and the other later in the year. It always gives me great pleasure to attend these events and it would be tremendous if the honourable member for Brisbane Central attended as well. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 529

Mr Davis interjected. Mr McPHIE: I will see whether I can arrange for an invitation to be sent to the honourable member this year. The Department of Primary Industries does excellent work in many mral areas from its headquarters in my electorate, and, if time permitted, I could speak at great length about that. Lastly, I mention the exciting development of the new showground on the westem outskirts of the city. This development, on a 99 ha site of rolling countryside at Glenvale, has fired the imagination of all who have come in contact with it. By moving from the cramped old site in the city centre, the Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland has taken a bold, enterprising and imaginative step to give the city the newest, best and most spacious showground in Australia. The society is to be heartily congratulated. The 1986 show—the city's 122nd—will be held on the new ground from 9 to 12 April next year. Many facilities have been completed already, including the ring, the administration centre, some intemal roadways and the ring-floodlighting, and are now in use. An exceUent greyhound-racing track has been developed round the ring, as have kennel facilities, with the assistance of the Racing Development Fund and wiU be opened on 19 October by the Minister for Racing (Mr Hinze). These facUities will complement the existing racing facilities at Clifford Park, where the Toowoomba Turf Club and the Darling Downs Hamess Racing Club have also received assistance from the Racing Development Fund to provide top-class amenities for the public. So the story goes on. However, the view of many people in Toowoomba of the future is not completely optimistic, because they are very concemed about the direction in which this country is heading. Economic indicators are nowhere near what the socialist Federal Govemment would have the community believe from its deliberately distorted statements. The nation's overseas debt on a per capita basis is three times that of Argentina's. It has more than doubled from $1,571 per head in June 1983 to $3,326 in June 1985. Mr Davis: You don't believe those figures, do you? Mr McPHIE: I do believe them, and it is about time that some of the honourable member's colleagues started to believe them, take notice of them, and take action. In the time that the sociaUsts have been in power in Canberra, the national debt has increased from 14.6 per cent to 25.1 per cent of the gross domestic product. Interest rates are rising. They are already higher than those in the stable westem countries and are outstripping them in their rate of increase. Inflation is on the rise again and gaining momentum. It is close to 8 per cent per annum, which is almost double the rate of our major trading partners. The socialists have a cavalier attitude—if I may use that term in referring to them— towards these problems. They show no signs of wishing to reduce the size of the Federal public service, which was increased by 30 000 to 431 800 in their three years of office. It is the highest public sector work-force in the westem world, accounting for 26 per cent of our workers. Canberra's disdainful treatment of Australian exporters stmggling to increase eamings and penetrate new overseas market areas is to be condemned. Thirty-three per cent of Australia's export eamings are now required to service the Federal Govemment's foreign debt. Yet it should be obvious to the blind drover's dog trying to lead the sociaUst factions in Canberra that reduced Govemment spending and increased export eamings are two essentials if we are ever to get out of our headlong slide towards going broke as a country.

68704—19 530 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

The recent, much-lauded tax summit was a flop; but it was used initially to deUberately deceive the people of Australia with the lure of reduced personal taxes, when in fact its sole purpose was to devise new ways of collecting money from the Australian tax-payers to pay for the socialists out-of-control money-splurging. Thank goodness it failed as such. However, already new Federal taxes are being announced, and more will come in the weeks ahead. The Federal Govemment's handling of industrial matters is equally shocking, with virtually a complete abdication of responsibility as elected representatives of the people in favour of the non-elected, non-representative ACTU. This has already been extensively covered in detail during this debate by other members on this side of the House. In this context, the future is bleak, but I tmst that the resilience of the Australian people and Australian business is such that this can be weathered over the next two years or so and a free enterprise Australia survive long enough for the people to rise at the next Federal election and banish these dreaded socialists from office for all time. Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (12.48 p.m.): I am amazed at the comments of the member who preceded me. He spoke about Australia being in dire straits. The front page of today's Daily Sun sums up very eloquently the dire straits in which the Federal coalition curtently finds itself Where could one find finer headlines that describe the Federal coalition's plight in seven words— "Susan pots her banker" "Libs high noon"? What wonderful headlines! They say it all. In the House today, as is customary for me in this debate on the Address in Reply, I swear my allegiance in this Parliament to the people of the Wolston electorate, that is, those 18 500 people who are enrolled in the Wolston electorate and who support me at election-time. I want to say very briefly that, having read the Govemor's Opening Speech, it is only fair that I should say that I consider it a disgrace. For the Govemor to be put in the embartassing position of having to sit in the chair in the former Legislative CouncU Chamber and be forced to read out that verbal diatribe on behalf of this Govemment, which supposedly supports the Queen and the Crown, makes an absolute mockery of the role of the Crown. On 29 May, I was convicted under the Queensland Traffic Act for disobeying a lawful direction from a police officer. The magistrate, Mr Don Fardon, fined me $400 or 40 days' imprisonment—a record fine under the Queensland Traffic Act. Pardon's comments from the bench were highly political when he said that I am responsible for making the laws of Queensland. I certainly refute that allegation. I do not make the laws of Queensland; the Govemment of the day is responsible for those laws. He went on further to say that he believed that I, as a member of Parliament, had to be made an example of As a member of this House, as a Queenslander and as an Australian, I have always believed that, in the eyes of the law, all members of the public are considered equal. That obviously was not the view held by the magistrate on the day that I appeared before the court. As I said, from comments made by the magistrate that were highly political, it is obvious that in the State of Queensland there is one mle for Labor members of Parliament and another mle for conservatives. It is also worth mentioning that Mr Fardon, who sat on the bench that day, also happens to be the president of the Gailes Golf Club, which is in the centre of my electorate and happens to be a golf club with which I have had a mnning battle for the last three years over its desire to close a road that gives access to patients at the Wolston Park Hospital. Mr Fardon has played no small role in that dispute with me during that three-year period. I was artested at approximately 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 August, and taken to the Ipswich Watch House. Today I wish to make brief mention of the person who has Address in Reply 3 September 1985 531 become knowai as the clown prince of this Parliament, the practical joker himself—the honourable member for Aspley (Brian Cahill). I make the point very clearly that at no time did my wife have any problems in gaining access to the Ipswich Watch House. I have nothing but the highest praise for the officers in the Ipswich Watch House. I have to state that the courtesy extended to me was extended to other prisoners in the watch house. Likewise, the other prisoners were also allowed visits from close relatives and friends who brought them clothes, etc. For that honourable gentleman—I use that term with my tongue very deeply in my cheek—to say that he was responsible for that act is a blatant distortion of the tmth. I can only suggest that it would be one of the few times that I have ever agreed with the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen), who said recently that the honourable member for Aspley is extremely sick. I agree also that he should have been sent home. I sinC/Crely hope that he has sought remedial attention from a doctor, because he is obviously badly in need of it. The conditions in the Ipswich Watch House were appaUing. The Ipswich Watch House has three ceUs. Five prisoners were forced to share one ceU. They were required to sleep on mattresses on the floor. I occupied a ceU with another prisoner. One ceU was left vacant so that people who committed offences on Thursday night could be placed in that cell. The toilet conditions at the Ipswich Watch House are appaUing. I was unable to flush the toilet in my cell. The toilet is flushed, upon request, once per hour when the officer from the watch house comes round to check that people in the ceUs have not hanged themselves. I guess that the authorities fear that there could be a hanging if a toUet chain or something of that nature was provided in the cell. That is an absolutely ridiculous view to hold. The shower facilities were straight out of Noah's ark. In fact, I suggest that those on Noah's ark were probably better than those at the Ipswich Watch House. One is not provided with clean towels on a daily basis. The towels lie on the floor and are used to mop up the floor and to clean the toilet. It is a disgrace that such conditions should exist in the city of Ipswich. I call upon the Govemment to rectify the problem immediately. On 16 August I was transferred to the Brisbane Prison Complex, Boggo Road. Shortly after my arrival I was advised by an inmate and by a warder that I would be there for a short time only. In fact, on the first occasion that I was advised of that, I had been on the premises for approximately three minutes. I was told by an inmate that the word was already widely spread round Boggo Road prison that I would not be in there for more than 45 minutes, as the Govemment and the Minister in charge of prisons did not want me incarcerated for fear of what I would find out. However, in the short time that I was there I was able to find out several things. I was advised that I was required to take a shower. While the following incident did not particularly offend me, as I have no hang-ups about personal nudity, I can appreciate that some persons in the community could be very sensitive. I was forced to remove the towel that I had round me and had to stand up against the wall completely naked with my arms in the air, supposedly on the basis that the prison officer and authorities could identify me from markings on my body, such as scars. When I asked the reason for that, I was told by a highly intelligent person that it was done in case I had a twin. I replied, "With the facilities available these days, with photographs able to be taken, with foolproof methods of fingerprinting—no two persons have identical fingerprints—with voice-prints, palm prints, toe prints and so on, that argument just does not stand up." I believe that that is done deliberately for one reason. As it was done as part of the tactics of the SS during World War II, it is done in Brisbane prisons in an attempt to degrade people, to put people down, to strip people of their personal dignity and to make people feel inferior to the people who are in charge of prison administration. I state quite bluntly that it did not have the desired effect on me. In fact, as I have said. 532 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

I am sorry that the fine was paid. I would not have minded spending the 40 days inside, because I would have shown the Govemment how little it blunted my temperament over that time. Conditions at Brisbane Prison Complex are absolutely appalling. At present, in what is known as the schoolroom area, 15 prisoners are sleeping on mattresses because not enough accommodation is available to house them sufficiently within the prison. A further seven prisoners sleep in what is known as the medical area, that is, the place where prisoners are taken for medical examinations when necessary. However, what disturbed me was that in the half hour that I was there, I was repeatedly approached by prison inmates and told of the very distinct possibility of further riots occurring within the Brisbane Prison Complex. That message was constantly relayed to me by inmates at the Wacol prison. I say unequivocally that the statement by the Minister responsible for prisons, following the recent riots at Stuart prison in Townsville and at Woodford prison, that tear-gas would be used in the future was a totally stupid statement for a Minister of the Crown to make. It was highly provocative. What an attitude for the Minister to adopt to prison reform! On more than one occasion it was put to me that many prisoners are highly volatile and extremely emotional people as a result of the treatment meted out to them and that if riots should occur again, it was highly likely that hostages would be taken and that they could be caused a good deal of discomfort. In fact, at one stage it was even suggested to me that the time I was inside the Wacol prison would be a perfect time for a riot, because that would cause the Govemment extreme embarrassment. As I have said, I was transferred to the Wacol prison after 30 minutes at the Brisbane Prison Complex. I was handcuffed and put into a van. I must say that the prison officer who handcuffed me was most apologetic and found that duty extremely embarrassing. The incidence of bashings in prisons has been well documented in this House on previous occasions. On Wednesday, 21 August, I spoke to a certain prisoner, whose name will be available to the Minister because the superintendent at the Wacol prison is aware of an incident that took place on 19 August when the prisoner was taken to the Brisbane Prison Complex for medical reasons. At approximately 6.30 p.m. he was taken to a location where he was intertogated by officers of the Emergency Squad. Of course, the Emergency Squad is referred to by prison inmates as the SS because of the fear in which they hold the members of that squad. This prisoner was accused of being a courier of messages between Wacol and Brisbane prisons conceming future riots. He denied all knowledge of this, and after my discussions with him I believe that he was telling me the tmth. I qualify what I am about to say by pointing out that I examined the gentleman myself I witnessed the marks on his body as a result of the bmtal bashing that he received only a short time before. The prisoner was also questioned by prison officers about my stay at Wacol prison. He had been seen talking to me and was asked what he had reported to me and whether I had intimated that I would be taking action. He was asked also who else I had been speaking to in the prison, what type of problems prisoners were outlining to me and what action, if any, I had indicated to those prisoners I would be taking when I was released from Wacol prison.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Mr R. J. GIBBS: It is obvious that the points I made prior to the luncheon recess are extremely disturbing to the Minister, because he has now retumed to the Chamber. I spoke about a recent bashing at the Brisbane Prison Complex. I said that the prisoner had been seen speaking to me at the Wacol prison. That is incortect. He had not spoken to me at any time prior to the incident at Brisbane prison. After he retumed to Wacol, Address in Reply 3 September 1985 533 it was mentioned to me that the incident had taken place. I then spoke to the prisoner and was able to gain a first-hand account of what took place at Brisbane prison. At approximately 7.30 on the evening I mentioned, after denying any knowledge that he was involved in delivering messages from Wacol to Brisbane about future riots, and after denying any knowledge of people to whom I had been seen talking in the prison or the incidents that had been reported to me, he was bashed by two prison officers whose names are Roach and Brown. He was punched in the mouth and hit with a baton on at least three occasions. Another prison officer was in attendance, but his name is unknown to me. The prisoner was invited to retaliate against the three prison officers so that he could be bashed a little more. He was wamed that, if he retaUated, he would not only be bashed a little more but would also have charges laid against him for assaulting prison officers. Mr Muntz: Whether or not those allegations of yours are correct, the person has made a complaint, which is being investigated by the police at this stage. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am pleased to know that. My advice to the prisoner was to lay a charge. At the time I spoke to him, he was in absolute fear of the action that might be taken against him by other prison officers on any other occasion that he might be taken to Wacol prison. He was further concemed because the prison officers who assaulted him had said that they would charge him. As he said to me, "I have to live in this establishment. I can't get out, as you can. If I make complaints which are not proven and if those three lay charges against me, I could face extra time in the prison system." Therefore, I am extremely pleased that the prisoner took my advice and reported the incident. In all faimess to the superintendent of the Wacol prison, I understand that he spoke to the prisoner and expressed his constemation. I understand that he is in the process of considering an investigation of the officers at the Brisbane prison. Unfortunately, that is not the only instance of claims of severe bashing by members of the Emergency Squad, particularly during the riots at Brisbane prison. That has been confirmed by media people who were able to attend a number of hearings. I now tum to an issue that ought to be of major concem to the Minister. I refer to an AIDS scare in the Wacol prison. On Wednesday, 31 July, a prison officer received a call from another prison officer—the information has been given to me on a confidential basis, so I will not give names—to the effect that it was understood that a prisoner at the Security Patients Hospital at Wacol by the name of Worrell—I am not sure of the cortect spelling—had died from what was suspected to be AIDS. The first question that ought to be answered by the Minister is whether any investigation has taken place. Has a complaint been made? Members of the public, people in the prison service and I want to know whether that person did die of AIDS. Certainly, it was suspected. It was known that the deceased person, Worrell, was the homosexual partner of a prisoner at Wacol prison. The prison officer who originally passed on the information believed that Wacol prison should know, as there were staff employed in the prison surgery. It is my understanding that the information was then passed on to the administrative section of Wacol prison, whereupon an inquiry was made whether the Govemment Medical Officer should be contacted. I am told it was decided that that should not occur. After a couple of days of indecision, concemed prison officers contacted their union representative, who, in tum, spoke with a Mr McNamara, Deputy Comptroller-General (Corrective Programs), an officer of the Prisons Department. The alarming thing is that people employed in the surgery were never advised that there was a possible AIDS carrier in the prison untU Wednesday, 7 August. On Friday, 9 August, the deceased's homosexual partner was taken to the State health laboratories to have blood samples taken. 534 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Two prisoners who work in the prison dental surgery had been required, in the course of assisting in dental extractions, to come in contact with saliva and blood from the AIDS suspect. Early in the week, the AIDS suspect had been advised to seek dental treatment, and it must be borne in mind that at this time the prison authorities had known for at least five days that the prisoner was suspected of having AIDS. One prisoner complained to me that on the evening of Friday, 9 August, he was wamed that his visit the foUowing day would be monitored, as he was not to mention anything regarding this matter to his wife. On about 14 August, notification was also received at the Wacol prison surgery that the suspected case had passed negative to the AIDS tests. I will now take the interjection from the Minister because I think I know what the Minister is about say: that it was a suspected case, and it proved to be a negative case. Mr Muntz: Negative! Mr R. J. GIBBS: Negative; that is correct. I acknowledge that it was proven to be negative; but the whole point of what I am saying is that a number of alarming aspects emerge from this incident, namely: why was this whole matter kept under wraps when it was not without possibUity that others in the prison were coming into daily contact with somebody who could have had AIDS? Why were prisoners in the prison surgery not advised of the situation prior to their being required to assist, along with prison officers, in the treatment of a suspected AIDS sufferer? The question must be asked whether the Minister for Welfare Services and Ethnic Affairs had early knowledge of this matter and whether, at any time, the Minister for Health had the matter brought to his attention. I beUeve that if the answer to any of these questions is "No" in any instance, an investigation is warranted, because it is obvious that somewhere along the line there has been a bungle and a cover-up. As I said previously, I acknowledge that it was a suspected case of AIDS; but it was a serious suspected case. I regard the whole matter as serious, because the Minister cannot answer the question whether the person who died at the Security Patients Hospital actually had AIDS. Perhaps the Minister will answer that by way of a ministerial statement tomorrow moming. The point I wish to make is that if the person who died had AIDS, and if it was known also that the person in prison at Wacol was the homosexual partner of the original AIDS patient, it can be asserted rationally, within the bounds of intelligent reason and argument, that that prisoner could have been an AIDS carrier. It is not to the point whether or not that person was an AIDS carrier; the question is—Why was the matter hushed up? Moreover, why did such a massive veU of secrecy cover the whole matter within the prison system, and why were not the people who work in the surgery and throughout the Wacol prison—I refer to the prisoners themselves and prison officers—not informed by administrative sections within the Prisons Department, or directly by the Wacol prison administration, that there was a possibility of a person being an AIDS carrier? I believe that the Minister and officers of his department have some explaining to do. In the short time that remains, I wish to make some remarks about what I saw at the Wacol prison. For example, I wish to know why old-style laws stUl apply that denigrate human beings? Why is it that prisoners are still forced to roll their own cigarettes? Why are prisoners not allowed to smoke tailor-made cigarettes inside the prison establishment? Why can there not be an allocation to prisoners within the prison service or inside the prison establishment of taUor-made cigarettes? I can understand the need to check cigarettes in line with policies on security; that is fair enough. Why do the prisoners have to go through the incredible rigmarole of rolling their own? That leads to a massive trade inside the prison where prisoners deal not in money but in Address in Reply 3 September 1985 535 tobacco. That in itself causes incredible problems because there are non-smokers who operate a system Mr Muntz: Why should they have tailor-mades? It is irrelevant. Mr R. J. GIBBS: It is not irrelevant at all, because the system forces them into that position. If the Minister wants to talk about pettiness, perhaps he could answer a question for me. Why is it that a prisoner at Wacol was incarcerated in the solitary confinement area—I stand to be corrected on this point—for what I am told was 20 days—I am not sure of the period—when it was found, after he came back from seeing a visitor and was body-searched, that he was carrying a $20 note in his boot? Apparently it had been smuggled in to him by the visitor. I accept that he breached discipline and that there was a case for some sort of punishment, but I am told that he served 20 days' solitary confinement on half rations. That happened at about the same time as two prisoners were caught openly committing fellatio upon each other in the gardens outside the prison, but that was all passed off as a big joke among the male prison officers. Where are the Minister's priorities? Where are the priorities in the prison system when that sort of thing occurs? Where is the Minister's basic understanding when, in this day and age, people can still be confined in solitary confinement, virtually in a darkened cell, on half rations and at times on bread and water? Those are the types of things that went on in the days of slavery. They are the types of things for which people in this country who are tied up with intemational humanitarian organisations expressed abhorrence when they were committed by the Vietcong against their prisoners during the Vietnam war. Everyone deplores that sort of treatment; even Govemment members deplore it but, when it comes to the humane treatment of prisoners in this State, this Govemment carries out the same sort of practices as those to which I have just referted. Why is such an archiac system retained? Why are people so dehumanised? Floor coverings are not allowed in the cells at Wacol, even though prisoners are prepared to supply their own. Queensland is the only State in Australia Mr Muntz: It is the best system in the world. Mr R. J. GIBBS: What garbage! That went out with Noah's ark. Reference is often made by Govemment members to the rehabUitation programs available to prisoners. At the outset I must say that the reason for many of the incredible problems within the prison system is the massive overcrowding, and that is caused because many of the inmates of Wacol, for example, should not be in prison. They have committed victimless crimes. I met an incredible number of prisoners who were guilty of nothing more than being unable to pay fines. They got themselves into debt and, because they could not pay fines, they went to gaol. I agree with the statement made by my colleague the member for South Brisbane (Mr Fouras) at the week-end that, when people appear before a court and are found guilty, they are not offered the altemative of community service; they are sentenced to prison straight away simply because they come from the low-income-eaming bracket of society. It all comes back to what I said earlier to the Minister, and for which he stands condemned—that there is one law in this State for the rich and the haves and another for the poor and have-nots. This Govemment's stinking legal system is geared to that difference. When one enters a prison, the first thing that strikes one is the high rate of iUiteracy among prisoners. The only attempt that has been made by the so-caUed humane Minister responsible for prisons to help those illiterate prisoners is that a remedial teacher is brought in for three hours every Thursday aftemoon to assist the prisoners. And there is not even a compulsion on the prisoners to attend such sessions. In New South Wales, 60 people are employed full-time by the prisons service to go to prisons to conduct such programs and to try some honest form of rehabilitation. 536 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

In every other State in Australia prisoners are paid at least a reasonable amount for the work that they perform. I worked in the dairy, which, supposedly, is one of the highest-paid areas in Wacol prison, for the princely sum of $1.05 a day. A person who spends 12, 18 or 24 months in gaol, on leaving prison, wiU be handed the measly sum of about $ 150. Very often prisoners walk out with their family lives shot to pieces, no money in their pockets and no chance of employment. The only recourse for many of them is to go back to committing crimes. I strongly suggest to the Minister that prisoners at Boggo Road and Wacol prisons who really want to improve themselves should be entitled, under supervision, to at least one telephone caU a week to their families, to try to hold the families together, to keep an ongoing relationship with their wives and chUdren. With a redesigning of the faciUties, prisoners in the security section at the Boggo Road prison, under proper supervision, should also be entitled to humane treatment and contact visits with their famUies. The archaic treatment to which I have referred is responsible for the boiUng-pot conditions in the Brisbane Prison Complex, which in tum, wiU lead to riots. The Govemment wiU again be confronted with riots if it is not prepared to implement basic requirements. Mr Muntz: And you will be responsible. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I will not be responsible. It is the Minister who is responsible. That "thing" who is going through the door will be even more responsible, because he, above all, is the one who believes that anyone who is not a National Party supporter or a National Party voter should be treated with contempt and trodden on; he believes that those who are not National Party supporters are lesser persons. I reject that totaUy. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (2.32 p.m.): At the outset, I pledge my continuing loyalty and that of the people of the Burdekin electorate to Her Majesty the Queen. In doing so, I congratulate His ExceUency the Govemor, Sir Walter CampbeU, on his appointment as Her Majesty's representative in the State of Queensland. My wife and I, with, I am sure, all the people of the electorate of Burdekin, wish Sir Walter and Lady Campbell a very rewarding and happy term of office. I am sure that by now most people wiU have noted and appreciated the gentle humour and obvious Uking for people that these two very special Queenslanders display as part of their gracious and desirable assets in fulfilling the demands of such high office. I noted in His Excellency's Opening Speech that he indicated a desire to move among the people of the State. I sincerely hope that His Excellency and his lady have an opportunity to visit my electorate. If they do so, I am sure that they will be given the warmest of welcomes as representatives of Her Majesty and as a couple deserving great warmth. I take this opportunity to wish the former Govemor, Sir James Ramsay, and Lady Ramsay a very happy retirement. I am delighted that they have chosen Queensland as their retirement base. It is a sad reflection on Opposition members that so many of them have not seen fit even to mention the Crown, the office of Govemor and loyalty, or even to acknowledge the very special place that the Queen and her representatives occupy in the hearts of most Australians. Mr McPhie: That is what you would expect from them. Mr STONEMAN: That is right. I will note with interest those members opposite who visit Govemment House for the presentation of the Address in Reply. I have noted the consistent paradox of many Opposition members decrying the Crown and, at the same time, virtually breaking their disloyal necks to be involved in any reception or occasion on which members of the Royal family or vice-regal persons are in attendance. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 537

A Government Member: That is what Mr Casey did. Mr STONEMAN: Yes, it is. I will use this opportunity to highlight some of the problems that the State is experiencing and has to overcome, to make some observations relating to my electorate, to comment on some matters that I believe to be of national importance, and to highlight some of the very positive aspects of the State and north Queensland specifically. Regardless of the many problems that are facing Govemments at aU levels and primary and secondary industries, and the problems that must be addressed at the intemational level, one aspect of society stands above the economy, civU liberties, taxation, incomes, social concems and so on, and yet encompasses all of those concems. That aspect is the urgency to somehow or other achieve a situation in which the leaders of tomorrow's society are given the opportunity to prepare for guiding this nation through what promises to be an even more difficult age than we are currently experiencing. I refer to the tragic situation that faces the young people of this State and nation in so many ways. Without youth we have no tomorrow. Without youth there is no future; and yet this country is collectively refusing to acknowledge in real terms that there is a problem. It is refiising to acknowledge that a generation of young people are growing up and beginning the process of moving into a leadership role without having first had the opportunity to gain experience and secure a philosophical base that is vital if reasonable standards and traditions are to be maintained. I hasten to point out that, in speaking of a philosophical base, I do not mean to imply that we should necessarily create a collective, single-viewpoint political philosophy. To do so would be to invite the speedier growth of today's version of socialism into full-scale communism. Many parents throughout the nation must be wondering just what is going to become of their children when they have to take over the reins of life and, in tum, what even more daunting task will confront their children's children. It would be too simpUstic to blame the Govemment of the day—be it a Fraser, Whitlam or Hawke Govemment—but a lead must be given to the community in coming to grips with the fact that many of our youth are being allowed to wither on the vine of academic knowledge before joining the dole queue instead of being assisted to ripen and mature into weU-adjusted and positive adults. It is not enough to simply give young people an increasingly longer education or to assist more and more of them to acquire an academic exceUence for which, in many cases, there is either no practical need or insufficient commercial scope to provide an income base that has a productive economic result. Rather, an environment must be created in which young people can— (1) achieve an academic level sufficient for this desired career path, but not be locked in by peer pressure or society to any set pattem of expectation; or (2) wipe aside the growing belief that, unless one is a doctor, a solicitor, a coUege professor or similar, one has failed; -or (3) recognise that many people who begin successful careers by attending the university of hard knocks and low pay later use such hard-won experiences to carve a fulfilling Ufe out of such a practical base; (4) be allowed to gain knowledge and eperience through seUing their capacities at an acceptable level rather than be denied opportunities simply because some sections of the community are frightened to tum back the clock 30 years to a period when youth unemployment and the dole were unheard of except in rare cases; and (5) above all, be given the recognition that youth does have a significant part to play in society and that young people will not be in any way put upon or threatened by a chimney-sweep mentality that seems to pervade the thinking of union-leaders and members opposite together with their Federal colleagues in Canberra. 538 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

There is no doubt in my mind that a significant step has to be taken in order that these factors can be addressed. The way to do this is to have an employment stmcture that allows a high degree of flexibility during the early post-school years. It cannot be questioned that our young people have been priced off the employment menu and many employers have to employ the mothers of more qualified but less experienced youths, or adopt management techniques that reduce the necessity for human involvement to lower levels, in some cases to a stage at which only one or two button- pushers are able to operate facilities previously manned in the real sense. I am appalled that organisations representing big business and big unions refuse to accept the reality of employers and employees coming together to work out mutually satisfactory conditions—both financial and physical. I refer the House to the editorial contained within The Weekend Australian of 31 August/1 September in which similar concems were expressed. The current crisis facing the owner and employees at the Mudginberri meatworks in the Northem Territory stands as a black mark against those who oppose such a positive and productive operation. I have no doubt that, if picketing is allowed to continue to fmstrate this sort of responsible free enterprise, there is no hope for any of us, let alone the youth of the country. At some later time in this House, I plan to highlight some personal experiences that I believe give emphasis to the Mudginberri debacle but I conclude this section of my speech by issuing a plea on behalf of our jobless youth that they be no longer condemned to being hopeless and flitureless as well as jobless. The experiences of the last several months in relation to the continuing refusal of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council have proved to me that there is a similar problem confronting some of our more mature citizens—mature in terms of age, not intellectual capacity—in that public opinion, community responsibility and economic necessity play no part in their thinking. The situation wherein people like Mr Ray Dempsey and company are still allowed by the leaders of some of the more responsible unions to call the tune and bring thousands of hard-working people into disrepute by association amazes me. The message of the latest attempt to hold the State to ranson by stop-work meetings, strikes and demonstrations—all of which failed miserably because the decent, hard-working majority saw the futility of such actions—does not appear to have sunk in yet. I ask the House, "Can't these people read? Can't they appreciate the message of the many newspaper editorial headlines such as 'Unions risking fate of dinosaur', 'Futile move by unions', 'ChaUenges for the unions', 'Consequences of defeat', and 'No way to end this dispute'?" It seems that these people are reading only the statements of members opposite who continue to make puffing noises that they hope their union masters will hear but the general public will not. Let me assure them all that they are wrong and will continue to be wrong. There is an even more remarkable fact relating to the continuing refusal of people such as Messrs Dempsey, Warburton, Maddem, Bums and company, to accept that the elected Govemment of this State does have the electors of the State behind it. The continuing blinkered approach to reality of the people whom I have named has focused the attention of this nation onto Queensland and what is being achieved by the strong and positive leadership of our Premier. The people of Australia are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. They are starting to see hope for a retum to industrial sanity and they are starting to see a hope that other less-strong but well-meaning community leaders might follow the example and be inspired to make a stand. I am sure that this was not the intention of the TLC and ALP. I am sure they did not wish to have the nation as a whole awakened to see a glimmer of light. I will bet Mr Hawke wished they had just shut up and not stirred the pot of decency to such an extent that we are seeing the Mudginberris arise and the John Leards pay huge sums to stir the conscience of the country. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 539

Mr Cooper: Do you realise that the employees of Mudginberri would be far better off—up to $1,000 a week—under the contract system than under the old taUy system? Mr STONEMAN: I am very weU aware of that. That is exactly the point I am making here. That is a tragedy. Perhaps the fear of the wrath of Mr Hawke was the reason Mr Warburton went missing and Mr Bums went fishing when the Prime Minister came to Brisbane a while back—missing Nev and fishing Tom! Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, on the mUng that you have applied time and time again during this Address in Reply debate, honourable members must be referted to by their cortect titles. Mr Deputy Speaker, last week you mled that way three times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I would agree that it is the policy of the Chamber to refer to members by their cortect political titles. However, if some form of frivoUty is involved I may aUow it to pass. It is generaUy acknowledged that the correct political titles should be used. Mr STONEMAN: I bow to your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker. In a general sense, it was frivolity, but I was making a point. From time to time I have had occasion to travel throughout New South Wales. Over recent years I have been concemed at how that once great State and its people were becoming politically apathetic and physically depressed in so many ways. However, my last two trips have witnessed something of a different story. Once, people used to say, "What's your Premier up to?" and, "You Queenslanders are a funny lot—you must be mad to live there." Now people everywhere are saying, "Gee, I wish we had Joh down here"; "Can you get Joh to stand for Federal ParUament?" and, "I think I'll move to Queensland." Mr De Lacy: Why don't you let him go? Mr STONEMAN: I am interested to hear the honourable member's comment. Opposition members do not like that. Regardless of what the Opposition might say, this State is attracting thousands of people and investors simply because they know that such things as union mUitancy wiU no longer be tolerated. Finally on this subject, I wish to voice my concem that some of our spiritual leaders are similarly not playing as positive a role as they might in the debate on strikes, unemployment and poverty. During the height of the SEQEB dispute I, along with many others I am sure, was extremely concemed to note that some church-leaders were positively supporting those militant few who were attempting to hold the people of this State to ransom. It was not so much their concem for the pUght of the workers who sacked themselves that worried me, but more the fact that there seemed to be more concem for the right to strike in an essential service than there was for the aged, the infirm and those unable to fend for themselves. As well, I did not hear any concem expressed from the pulpit that the losses in economic terms would create tremendous pressures on businesses and their capacity to maintain or expand employment. I doubt whether some of our church-leaders even recognise that the capacity to employ gainfuUy depends on profit and market forces, and the need to strengthen rather than weaken those forces. The way to overcome poverty is not by hand-out but by positive employment and a Christian work ethic. It was with that background that I wrote to the Anglican Primate of Australia (Archbishop Sir John Grindrod) expressing my concem as a member of the Anglican Church and as a member of Parliament. Sadly, Sir John has not seen fit to respond. 540 3 September 1985 Address in Reply even though months have now passed. I assume that he received the letter. Rather than read the letter that I wrote to Sir John, I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Orderi I have not sighted the document. Therefore I am unable to allow it to be incorporated in Hansard. Mr STONEMAN: I will read it at the end of my speech. I do not believe that churches should adopt a party political role, but I do believe that they have a responsibility to assist in supporting the whole community—not just a smaU section who selfishly seek to assert their will on those who have no such capacity. I ask: Can the invalid strike for better conditions? Is an out-of-work person, regardless of age, able to strike for better conditions? Can people at the end of the line, such as small-businessmen and farmers, strike because local or export markets are not sufficient for even basic financial retums? Of course not! Yet we saw the sorry spectacle of some so-called Christian leaders making such statements as, "the right to strike is a comerstone of democracy!" They are not leaders; they are followers of an archaic and simpUstic attitude that cannot tolerate words such as "profit" and "free enterprise"; rather they seek to adopt a Robin Hood attitude to society as a whole, using the modem weapons of assault— the media and high office—to achieve the same end. We hear statements suggesting that this Govemment is trying to tum back the industrial relations clock 30 years. If only we could. It is just 30 years since I left school, and I cannot recall any of my fellow school-leavers at boarding-school who did not have work to go to. I cannot recaU knowing a single person in our local farming district who was on the dole, and I assure the House that this did not mean that 1955 was a boom year for farming. The point I wish to make is that, 30 years ago, youth unemployment was unheard of Thirty years ago the work ethic was a fact of life. Thirty years ago, employer and employee worked in our community as one. Thirty years ago there was the knowledge that if one wanted to succeed, one had to work, and, 30 years ago, if there was a black­ out or a transport or service dismption, it was generally not through disputation but because of some act of God or technical fault. If tuming the clock back 30 years can restore even some of the emotional and community richness that the school-leavers of 1954 enjoyed, it should be done immediately. If an environment can be created in which hope rather than hopelessness is the order of the day, it should be done. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr STONEMAN: Mr Menzies was the Prime Minister in those days. If job creation as weU as job protection can work hand in hand, I say to the Errol Hodders of the world, "Why not give it a try?" because the current industrial environment protects those in work and ignores those who are out of work or who have never had work. Young people must be able to have direct access to employment opportunities without the constraint of approaching an employer who is virtuaUy unable to consider giving them a go because a lack of experience divided by retum gives a minus result that very few businesses are able to contemplate. Undoubtedly, such a system will contain anomalies. However, I ask one and all: Is not the risk of a few anomalies, which no doubt can be straightened out anyway, a far better proposition than the certainty of a snowballing social, economic and national disaster? I would be remiss if I did not comment on the great sugar industry of this nation, an industry that is of vital importance to my electorate and the State of Queensland. In Address in Reply 3 September 1985 541 commenting, I totally endorse the decision of the Premier and Treasurer and of the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Tumer) to seek a response from the industry generally prior to undertaking any State Govemment response or entering into negoti­ ations with the Federal Govemment. I believe that negotiations should only have to be token negotiations rather than the blatant political blackmaU operation that seems to be part of any attitude that Canberta adopts towards this State. I condemn Opposition members, in both the ALP and the Liberal Party, for the opportunistic approach that they are adopting. The call by the Labor Party initially and then by Sir William Knox for a debate on the sugar industry is nothing short of ludicrous. There is no need for a debate in relation to the problems that the industry is facing. The problem is weU known and basic: farmers are in desperate need of financial support in the industry sense and require nothing more or less than a reasonable cash flow to survive. All the debate in the world wiU not overcome that fact. All the reports from all the committees will not change that fact, and all the stalling by having one committee after another will not alter the fact that farmers have known aU along—it is costing them more to produce a basic commodity than retums can cover. The 100-day committee report is a package of recommendations that have to be viewed in totality and, if any amendment is to be made, such amendment must recognise the package as a whole. The people to react to the package, to accept it or throw it out, and to propose amendments, are first and foremost the group most basically affected— the farmers. Parallel with that, of course, must be consideration of the miUers. Both have problems of some commonality, but in my view the farmer is in a more vulnerable position, and therefore must receive prime consideration at all times. For the Opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton), and Sir WUliam Knox to grandstand and demand a debate prior to any broadly based industry reaction is to foUow the Kerin line, which is, "Let's work out what we'U give these peasants and then tell them, 'Take it or leave it.'" That underlines just how out of touch they are and just why they both seek to reduce parliamentary representation of mral people. The feelings of farmers mean nothing to a city centralist. They are simply a number or something to be used as a political footbaU. During my adult life I have experienced two major mral depressions and I know from bitter experience that there is no easy way out of a situation in which the livelihoods of primary producers are at the whim of world markets. During both the wool and beef depressions the Govemment of the day was confronted with a most unenviable situation. However, one basic difference existed in relation to the situations confronting those two great industries. Never at any stage was it suggested, at any level, that the problem of support was either a State or a State/Commonwealth shared responsibility. A great deal of debate took place about what could or should be done, but never was there any debate about who held the purse-strings and therefore who had the ultimate responsibiUty. In fact, the major problem area for the beef industry was northem Australia, and Queensland specifically, because of the almost total dependence this State had and has on export markets. Never at any stage did the Govemment of the day—which changed during the crisis, but was mainly Labor under the infamous Gough Whitlam—suggest that, if assistance were forthcoming, there had to be joint or matching financial input. In the long mn, I believe the major input of the Commonwealth into both the wool and the beef industries was a waste of time and money. The only beneficiaries were the smart alecs and those less in need. The real help for the wool industry came when a floor price was introduced. In the beef industry, when a de facto floor price was inserted via a $10 slaughter bounty, that at least placed a miniature floor into the market, which flowed through to the industry. However, both industries recovered only when world markets recovered. That is the only way the sugar industry will recover. In the meantime, farmers and miUers must be assisted to survive until there is what I believe is an inevitable recovery. The problem is when. I do not believe that it is for a Govemment to decide who wiU and who will 542 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

not be assisted. It is not for a Govemment to point a finger and say, "You shaU go and you shall stay." It is not for a Govemment to say, "You can grow sugar-cane here, but you cannot grow it there." It is not for a Govemment to puU down the stmcture of communities that have taken generations to build up. But it is for Govemment to support the maintenance of those farmers, millers and communities—and this must be done. If along the way, farmers decide that they no longer want to be a part of an industry, as many wool-growers and cattlemen did after their industry depressions, that is a choice and, as much as possible, a timing and a mechanism they must come to terms with. Govemments, in tum, must guide and support those decisions so as to ease the burden on aU concemed. To strive to achieve perfection is a desirable aim in any field but, in the field of primary industry, it is not merely a matter of handing down a Big Brother Govemment decision and it is not a matter of having a raging debate in ParUament and grabbing a few headlines; it is a matter of careful consideration of aU the issues, based on a firm understanding of the issues and effects. Money is what the sugar industry needs—money for survival; money for the support of a basic price from which confidence will retum to enable sales, purchases, loan extension, continuing physical output in the extreme and above aU support of the will to continue so that a great industry will retum to the pre-eminent position it has for so long held. Management, marketing and day-to-day support are largely the domain of the State. Money is collected by the Commonwealth and money is disbursed by the Commonwealth. Let the Commonwealth now acknowledge, as did previous Federal Govemments, that it has the sincerity to play its part without fear or favour. Finally I wish briefly to address the potential of the tourist industry of north Queensland, and specifically that which relates to the Townsville provincial region. For too long the area encompassed by Townsville and a 100-mUe radius round it has been looked upon as the poor relation of the tourist industry in this State. For too long tourists have been fed the menu of Gold Coast and Caims as being the ultimate in destinations. They are exceUent destinations, but there are many other exceUent destinations along the Queensland coast and, as weU, the vastness and beauty of westem Queensland. However, specifically I acquaint the House with the special qualities and potential of the Townsville region as a destination with a series of unique attractions that have all- year-round appeal. Mr WUson, Mr McElligott and Mr Smith would have to agree with that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I have already pointed out that personal names are not generally acceptable to the Parliament. I ask the member for Burdekin to refer to those members by their correct titles—the honourable member for Townsville South, the honourable member for Townsville and the honourable member for Townsville West. Mr STONEMAN: I am sorry. Where else in Australia—or the world, for that matter—could one find within a radius of 100 miles, a city of over 100,000 people, with an intemational airport, intemational hotels, a unique city shopping centre, a casino, the Great Barrier Reef, an entrepreneur such as Doug Tarca, islands such as Hinchinbrook, Orpheus and Magnetic, the rainforests of Paluma, national parks such as Mount EUiot, Cape Upstart and Bowling Green Bay, and a world-famous underwater wreck such as the Yongala? Where else, within 100 miles, would anyone find the swamplands of the Haughton and Lower Burdekin? Where else would anyone find such vibrant sugar-producing towns as Ingham, Ayr and Home Hill? Where else would anyone find coal mines, gold mines and uranium mines in the one region? Where else would anyone find towns such as Charters Towers, Ravenswood and Bowen, or a potential tourist mecca such as the mighty Burdekin Dam? Where else would anyone find tropical fmit and vegetable production that can be found at RolUngstone, Clare and Horseshoe Lagoon? Where else could one fish for mud crabs, reef fish, marlin and barramundi? Where else could one Address in Reply 3 September 1985 543 enjoy horse racing and facilities that range from a bush picnic ground to a first-class professional establishment? An Honourable Member interjected. Mr STONEMAN: Why should I not skite about it? It is a wonderful region. The list of attractions is capable of being expanded, in every sense of the word. Above all, it should be remembered that not only are facilities and services found in an area within a 100-mile radius of the Townsville-Thuringowa region—and I proudly highlight Thuringowa—but also that the region is blessed with beaches, creeks, rivers and waterholes. The region is blessed also with the almost daily certainty of sunshine, and often that is difficult for tourists to find. I call this region the 100-mile wonderland, and I believe that it deserves special recognition as a destination that a tourist should never overlook and as a place that should no longer be looked upon by many thousands of Australians as being a tropical desert. The baU is at the feet of local entrepreneurs to attract and stimulate investment and to expand. Someone once said that parochialism is progress, and that may be so. I believe that, in the case of this region in Queensland, the parochialism needs to be expanded so that the incredible tourism package offered by the area can be appreciated for its tme worth. I commend the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Govemor's Opening Speech on the excellence of their speeches, and I wish His ExceUency and Lady Campbell continuing good health and God's blessing. Mr McELLIGOTT (Townsville) (3.2 p.m.): I begin my contribution to the Address in Reply debate by congratulating Sir Walter Campbell on his appointment as Govemor of Queensland. I extend an invitation to Sir Walter and Lady Campbell to travel to north Queensland when time permits, as, indeed, the previous incumbent did. They will be welcomed warmly. I wish to join with my close friend and colleague the honourable member for Burdekin (Mr Stoneman) in making a bipartisan appeal to interstate and intemational tourists to visit TownsviUe, the sun city of the north. I support the comments that the honourable member made in relation to tourism. However, I cannot support some of his other comments, because he presented the usual National Party propaganda about concem by the Govemment for young people. I point out that not once did the honourable member suggest any meaningful way of solving the problems of youth unemployment. It should be home in mind by all honourable members that although Queensland's unemployment figures are higher than those in any other State in Australia, nevertheless, the problem can be overcome. The honourable member for Burdekin also played around with the matter of industrial relations and made frivolous remarks about tuming the clock back 30 years. If the honourable member seriously recommends that the clock be tumed back 30 years, the Opposition would support his recommendation, because Queensland would then be back in the days when it was controlled by a Labor Govemment. The economic iUs and high levels of unemploynment that exist today would therefore be unknown. If that is what the honourable member is asserting, I, for one, would support him. In Queensland under a Labor Govemment in those days, such economic iUs did not exist. It was not until the National Party won Govemment and continued to govem for something like 27 years that problems of such a serious nature began to arise. As my colleague the honourable member for Lytton (Mr Bums) has said, it is only since the National Party gerrymandered the country electorates to ensure that those areas were continuously represented by National Party members that negative growth occurted in the economic sector, especially in country electorates. Honourable members on the Govemment side have plenty of explaining to do. 544 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

I now tum my attention to the Govemor's Speech and, in particular, to that section in which reference is made to balancing the accounts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the past year. Over the last week-end, it came to my notice that for the months of May and June this year the Prisons Department paid no creditors. If that is an example of balancing the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it suggests to me that the final result wiU be rather dubious, to say the least. I wonder to what extent other departmental expenditures were curtailed so that a balanced Budget might be achieved. As the Govemor pointed out, substantial new works were undertaken in Queensland, as indeed they were in all States, aimed at maximising work opportunities. In my electorate I welcome the new police station at Kirwan, the new Kirwan hospital, which I will talk about later, a fire brigade substation, new police bartacks, a proposed new primary school at Kelso and a proposed new high school at Condon. Those capital works are welcome, and that is the good news. The bad news, of course, is that, to date, the Kirwan hospital has no doctors or nurses and the fire station has no firemen. I hope that, in the coming Budget, the necessary funds will become available to ensure that those facilities provide the services for which they were designed and built. Having mentioned schools in my electorate, I need to say that the problems that have been evident in Townsville for some time have not by any means been eradicated by the promise of an additional high school, and a very grave need stUl exists in the Murray area and the Bohle Vale and Blue Water areas to the north of TownsvUle. Over the last decade or more TownsviUe has suffered from chronic overcrowding in the schools servicing its growth areas, especially the high schools. The Febmary 1985 secondary enrolment figures for Pimlico, TownsviUe, Kirwan and Heatley High Schools were 1 753, 1 267, 1 445 and 998 respectively. Only the Heatley High School goes anywhere near approaching the Commonwealth School Commission's standard for Australian secondary schools, which is a maximum of 900 students. Pimlico High School, which is twice the recommended figure, is excessively large, even by Queensland standards. Although the population growth has occurred in what is known as the Upper Ross corridor in Thuringowah shire, there has been considerable population growth in the southem suburbs of the city of Townsville, in particular the Douglas and Murray areas, together with the outlying dormitory suburbs of Alligator Creek, Mount Elliot and Oak Valley. The provision of what will be Townsville's fifth high school at Condon, although it is a welcome relief for Kirwan High School, is designed to serve the Upper Ross community. As such, it will have no effect on the excessively large enrolments of the Pimlico and Townsville High Schools, nor will it in anyway serve the Murtay area and its surrounding communities. The zoning of the Pimlico High School in 1984 to curb its high enrolment only transferted its overcrowding problem to its neighbouring Heatley and TownsviUe High Schools. Pimlico's reUef will be short-Uved because of the need to take in a growing number of students from the Douglas/Murtay area but what is more significant is the increasing retention rate of students beyond Year 10. In 1981, only 40 per cent of Year 10 students State-wide proceeded on to Year 11. By 1985, that figure had climbed to 63 per cent and, within a couple of years, it is estimated that 80 per cent of students will remain at school beyond Year 10. Thus, Pimlico High School wiU again accelerate towards the 2 000 student mark, and go on spiralling upwards unless immediate relief is provided. Similarly, the growth of population in the dormitory suburbs serviced by the Townsville High School, coupled to high retention rates, will result in increased enrolments at that school. So there is clearly a need for an additional high school in the Murray/Douglas area and in addition there has recently commenced very strong lobbying for the establishment of a high school in the northem suburbs of TownsvUle in the Bohle Vale/Blue Water area. At present about 450 high school students are being bussed into Townsville High Address in Reply 3 September 1985 545

School under conditions that are less than satisfactory, so I certainly support the demands that two additional high schools be built in my electorate. From time to time in this Chamber one hears comments about Federal matters and, at times, quite frankly, I wonder whether this is a State House or a Federal ParUament. But, in keeping with that general principle, I want to place on record the success of the recent Budget brought down by the Hawke Govemment as far as north Queensland is concemed. It does, of course, include a commitment to the completion of the Burdekin Falls Dam, the restmcturing of the TownsviUe airport. Barrier Reef research, all-weather roadworks, a northem defence presence, the South Pacific Festival of Arts, improved mral air services, primary industry cost reductions and higher education expansion through the James Cook University. It is a Budget that provides not only thmst but also a carefully detailed blueprint for youth job training. That scheme has received general endorsement in the north where youth unemployment is a major problem. On the other hand, this National Party State Govemment has contributed towards a reduction of 1 000 jobs in Mount Isa through high raU freights, and now plans to close down at least 100 jobs in ColUnsviUe through a 50 per cent cut in power production. It has also approved staggering increases in motor vehicle registration fees and increases of a minimum 6 per cent in raU fares and freight charges in advance of the State Budget. I come now to the performance of the State Govemment's so-caUed Northem Development Department, which is obviously nothing more than a propaganda show. It consists of little more than a typewriter and a joumaUst in Townsville, whose sole function is to attack Canberra. To my knowledge, the so-called Northem Development Department has no planning staff, no long-term regional-planning studies and no budget for development. As my colleague the member for Lytton pointed out this moming, the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs appears to spend most of his time producing rabbits from the hat in the way of planned or phantom projects that never seem to eventuate. Recently, he made something of a fool of himself by attacking the newly appointed chairman of the Townsville Harbour Board. Following the disgracefiil interference by the State Govemment relative to that position, the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs was critical of the new appointee untU he found out that he was a National Party supporter. The Minister then had the temerity to blame the joumaUst to whom I referted earlier for misquoting him. He then disclaimed the press release that was issued in his name. Commonwealth Govemment funding for Queensland is raised repeatedly in this House. In a ministerial statement on 28 August, the Minister for Health produced figures that, after a very simple calculation on my part, indicated that the total Commonwealth funding to Queensland compares more than favourably with funding given to the other States. The following table sets out the funding given to the States— State $ per head New South Wales 722.10 Victoria 701.32 Queensland 859.03 Westem Australia 995.47 South Australia 1 018.19 Tasmania 1 197.44 That gives a six-State average of about $790 per capita. I emphasise that Queensland received $859.03. It is unknown to me why Tasmania receives about $1 197 a head and New South Wales receives only $722. I suggest it is also unknown to all honourable members in this place. That is the determination made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. 546 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

I suggest to honourable members that, if they genuinely believe that Queensland has a case to put, I will be more than happy to serve on a committee of this Parliament to put together a submission to go to the Commonwealth Grants Commission to try to see that additional Commonwealth funding is provided for Queensland. To date, no such move has been made. As I will indicate later, Queensland's submissions have been criticised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It is mischievous, and even devious, of the Minister to take figures out of the Commonwealth package and try to suggest that Queensland, somehow, is being short-changed. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is the umpire. It was established in 1933 as an independent, expert advisory body for the purpose of making recommendations in respect of applications by States for grants of special financial assistance. Its constitution and functions were broadened in 1973 to empower it to inquire into, and report on, a range of matters related to the level and distribution of assistance to the States, Territories and local govemment. The commission is headed by a judge. It has two other members, one of whom has served for 16 years and the other for 12 years. It could scarcely be described as a body established to support arguments put forward by a Commonwealth Labor Govemment. The commission's basic task is to determine an appropriate set of relativities based on the principle that the result would enable each State to provide a comparable level of Govemment services without having to impose any higher levels of taxation. In determining Queensland's funding relativity, detailed consideration is given to factors which increase the costs to the Queensland Govemment of providing services to its citizens. Such factors typically include the vast area of this State and the problem of providing services to a widely scattered population. The Grants Commission's recommendations are designed to ensure that Queensland and all other States are funded at such a level so that their Govemments can provide services at a level equivalent to that provided by the so-called standard States of New South Wales and Victoria. Whether the Queensland Govemment actually funds services such as education, health and welfare at an equivalent level to New South Wales and Victoria is entirely up to the Queensland Govemment. The 1985 Grants Commission report recommended the following relativities for the States: New South Wales, 1.008; Victoria, 1.000; and Queensland, 1.416. Those relativities determine how much tax-sharing money each State receives relative to the other States. For each dollar of tax-sharing money that Victoria receives, Queensland should get $1,416. In assessing the States' overall financial needs, it is necessary to consider not only the tax-sharing grants produced by the per capita relativities, but also the level of the States' specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth. I am sure that all honourable members understand that the contribution to Queensland under the Medicare scheme was always going to be different from the other States because of the different way in which Queensland provides hospital services. However, having received complaints from the Queensland Govemment, the Commonwealth agreed to refer that matter specifically to the Grants Commission, and the commission found in favour of Queensland, although not to the extent that Queensland sought. The commission recommended that Queensland receive an additional $10m Medicare payment in order to restore Queensland's relative position. As I mentioned earlier, the commission, in considering the Queensland submission, had this to say— "In examining the matter of the financial adjustment necessary to restore Queensland's position, the Commission received little assistance from submissions. The Queensland submission included only indicative calculations based on mechanical comparisons which the Commission considered inappropriate under the terms of reference." Address in Reply 3 September 1985 547

If the State Govemment is serious about making submissions to the Commonwealth for additional assistance under the tax-sharing arrangement, I would be more than happy to serve on a committee of this Parliament aimed at providing a meaningful submission on that basis. Mr De Lacy: Would you say poor economic management is the haUmark of their performance? Mr McELLIGOTT: I must agree with the comment by my colleague the member for Caims. The record indicates that Queensland aUocates less than any other State to education, health and welfare services. In dealing with a number of matters relating to health, I must pay particular attention to the shortage of nursing staff in Queensland hospitals, a matter which has received considerable public attention. The Govemment tries to dodge this issue by blaming the Commonwealth for a shortage of health funds, but the final argument that cannot be refuted is that, no matter where the money comes from, Quensland aUocates significantly less to health services than the other States; it is the Queensland Govem­ ment's own decision that determines how much funding health services receive. It has been established that Queensland pubUc hospital work-loads for both in­ patients and out-patients have increased over the past five or six years without com­ pensating increases in nursing staff establishments. In addition, a detrimental effect on the maintenance of existing services has flowed from the decision to aUocate substantial sections of the Hospital Administration Tmst Fund to interest and redemption payments for capital works. I do not dispute that those capital works were necessary and have been welcome, but I hoped that they would have been followed by or had associated with them a commitment to increasing funds to ensure that those new hospitals and new ward blocks were properly staffed and maintained. A comparison of the allocation of expenditure within the Hospital Administration Tmst Fund in the past five years indicates where the variations have occurred. The 1980-81 aUocation for wages and salaries from that fund represented 67.3 per cent of the total expenditure. In 1984-85, the allocation was 63.5 per cent of the total. In 1980- 81, interest and redemption payments accounted for only 6.2 per cent of the total compared with 10.2 per cent in 1984-85. That conflict of interest within that tmst fund aUocation will continue. I wish to comment also on the delivery of home nursing services in Queensland. It is time that that entire area was subjected to total review. I have had pointed out to me that one patient could be visited by as many as seven different agencies, aU rendering similar services. I realise that each of those agencies is providing a marveUous service, but the demand for home nursing is on the increase. It is becoming more and more obvious that greater emphasis needs to be placed on treating patients in the home rather than on filling very expensive hospital beds. Because of that, the demand for home nursing services is on the increase and they will require more and more Govemment assistance or, altematively, the type of rationalisation that I have mentioned. Health-providers believe that too many illnesses and disabilities are being treated with long stays in hospital. As I have mentioned, hospitalisation is the most expensive form of treatment and really should be restricted to the critically iU. In my opinion, broad agreement may easily be reached about the type of services needed, but which services should have priority for funding and how much service is warranted are much more difficult questions. Community groups would need to be included in any consultative process. As the Minister for Health (Mr Austin) is now in the Chamber, I wish to ask him to make a clear statement of the Govemment's position on the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to tertiary institutions. This matter is causing tremendous concem among nurses in Queensland. In fact, I have been quite amazed at the depth of feeling that it has created. I issue that challenge to the Minister because, in August last year. Cabinet 548 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

agreed to the change, commencing with a degree course at the Queensland Institute of Technology in 1986. However, recently the Minister has attempted again to place the blame for lack of action in this area on the Federal Govemment. The fact is that nurse education has been the responsibility of State Govemments for the past 80 years, so I fail to see how, if the Queensland Govemment is in favour of transferring that education to tertiary institutions, it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the Federal Govemment. The Commonwealth Govemment has quite recently taken the view that, as hospital- based nurse education is currentiy funded by the State and the tertiary education sector is Commonwealth funded, nurse education should involve an element of cost-sharing. I understand that the Commonwealth has offered a grant to the States based on about $1,600 per student. That may or may not be the appropriate figure, but it seems to me that what is required is a firm statement of position by the Queensland Govemment to indicate whether or not it does favour the transfer. That should be foUowed by meaningful negotiations. I am aware that one of the arguments that the Commonwealth Govemment has used is that the State Govemments would effect savings because no longer would they have to finance schools of nursing in the hospital system. In the first three years that would not be so, but I believe that there exists a basis for negotiation with the Commonwealth. However, I think it is important that a statement of position be made and that negotiations be entered into. This is something that is causing concem to nurses and it is affecting morale throughout the hospital system. Another area that is causing concem is the Cabinet decision of 25 June 1985 to amalgamate the Nurses Registration Board of Queensland and the Board of Nursing Studies. I understand that the new board will be called the Nurses Board and wiU have functions that encompass those of the existing boards. It was in 1976, after the release of a white paper by the then Minister for Health outlining the intentions of forming the Board of Nursing Studies, that the profession was asked to comment on such a move. At that time the profession agreed that the formation of such a board would be advantageous to all concemed within the nursing fratemity. Some of the reasons put forward at that time in support of the establishment of a Board of Nursing Studies were that the nurses believed they were being excluded from the decision-making process about nurse education; nursing education was believed to be lagging behind that of the other States in Australia; there had been very little monitoring of nursing courses by the Nurses Board which existed prior to 1976; and there had been no change in the curriculum of nursing courses to reflect the greater complexity of knowledge now needed by nurses. The matter that is causing concem now is that the Nurses Registration Board is dominated by the Health Department. Another concem at that time was that nurses believed that the body that had oversight of nurse education should be separate from both the Health Department and the body controlling education in coUeges. In short, the board that made decisions about the education of nurses should be an independent statutory authority. Those arguments are still seen to be valid arguments against the present proposal to do away with the Board of Nursing Studies. Some of the other objections are that the Board of Nursing Studies is to become an educational subcommittee of the Nurses Board under the chairmanship of an executive officer, but although that executive officer can attend board meetings and report to the board, he or she will not have a vote on the board. There are to be no educators from the general nursing courses. Surely, as the board is responsible for both registering nurses who have completed approved courses and for oversight of the courses, there should be at least one nurse on the board from general nurse education. Furthermore, there is to be reduced input from nursing organisations. We need to be concemed that such a move has been taken without consultation. Although submissions are being invited at present, the general feeling within the community is that the decision has been made and that, no matter what submissions come forward, it is unlikely to be altered in any way. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 549

Earlier, I referred to the hospital at Kirwan in my electorate. I believe that the Govemment has made a blunder of monumental proportions by its decision to build a women's hospital at Kirwan in Townsville. The people of Townsville have been hoping for many years that a new hospital would be built in the westem suburbs of Townsville, but they believed that it should be nothing other than a general hospital, including, in particular, casualty and out-patient sections and, hopefully, some recuperative beds for those who live in that area and who have, for example, undergone major operations. However, the decision has been taken to establish the hospital at Kirwan as a women's hospital. My information is that free-standing women's hospitals have been discredited in other parts of Australia and throughout the world. The most obvious example is the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, which began as a hospital for women only and later had to be changed because of the difficulties that arose. The new matemity section at the Bundaberg Hospital has an excellent intensive care section that is not being used at the moment because staff are not available. That shortcoming can be overcome by using the intensive care section that is only about 50 yards down the corridor of the old section. At Kirwan, the Govemment and the Health Department will be faced with the possibility of either staffing the intensive care section properly or making women and babies in need of intensive care face the prospect of a 30-minute drive by ambulance to the facUites available at the Townsville General Hospital. That is one area that in time will show itself as a reason for not proceeding with a free-standing women's hospital at Kirwan. In the short time available to me, I wish to refer to the procedures for dealing with the admission of psychiatric patients to Queensland health institutions and the need for a review of the operations of those institutions generally. I am sure that the Minister is aware of one incident that was referted to me recently. A person was admitted to the Barrett Centre at Wacol for diagnosis and treatment by his family after what I am assured was a very difficult and emotional decision. The parents of the young person in question advised the staff of that centre that the patient was potentially dangerous and had issued threats to the family. To their horror, having been in the centre for only one day, the patient was placed in an open ward, and he subsequently absconded. He has not yet been found. Having made the very difficult decision to place their son in a place of safety, the family are very concemed that that institution is not a place of safety. They feel that the possibility of a repetition of that incident should be of concem to the community at large. In the time that I have left, rather than go on to a couple of other health matters about which I intended to speak, I will mention briefly a criticism that I have of the Department of Industry Development. It goes back to the time of the SEQEB industrial dispute when, as honourable members will recall, the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) made a considerable amount of noise about offering financial assistance to businesses that were inconvenienced financially by that strike. The proprietors of a coffee lounge in Townsville have informed me that they have had approved a loan of $1,600 for loss of profits arising from the dispute. However, the conditions of that loan are, in my opinion, totally unreasonable. It is required to be repaid over a period of three years, with the first two years interest-free. The principal is payable by equal half-yearly instalments, interest at 7 per cent calculated and payable half-yearly, with the principal payment commencing two years after payment of the loan. However, the department requires the following securities to support the loan of a miserable $1,600: a biU of mortgage over property owned by one of the partners, which, I understand, is valued at approximately $22,000; a bill of sale over the plant and equipment in that coffee lounge, which, I understand, is valued at approximately $8,000; and a personal guarantee by the husband of one of the proprietors of the coffee lounge. In addition to first mortgage security and a biU of sale security amounting to approximately 550 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

$30,000, a personal guarantee by the family of one of the owners is required, all for a miserable $1,600. I have appealed for the department to be reasonable in that case. I believe that it is overkiU in the extreme. If the Govemment was serious about providing assistance to small business operators who suffered from the effects of the electricity strike, it would not make it so difficult for them to obtain a loan. Mr NEAL (Balonne) (3.32 p.m.): I have much pleasure in supporting the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply so ably moved by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and seconded by the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper), and I pledge my support and that of my constituents in the electorate of Balonne to Her Majesty the Queen. On behalf of my constituents, I convey my sincere congratulations and best wishes to His Excellency The Honourable Sir Walter CampbeU on his appointment as Govemor, and also to his good wife. Lady Campbell. I am confident that His ExceUency wiU carry out the duties of his high office with dedication and distinction. My constituents and I look forward to his forthcoming visit to parts of the Balonne electorate. I also pay a tribute to Sir James and Lady Ramsay for the very commendable manner in which they carried out their duties when Sir James held the office of Govemor. There is no doubt in my mind that that office was enhanced by Sir James's tenure, during which time the people of this State were able to appreciate and respect the close ties that Queensland has with the monarchy. I read in today's newspaper that ALP members wiU not stand up for the royal anthem when it is played. That is their decision. For some strange reason, ALP members seem to think that by showing some respect for Her Majesty the Queen, they are less Australian. I congratulate the service clubs on the manner in which their members pay respect to the Queen by standing for the royal anthem. I refer to the Lions, Rotary and Apex Clubs. Quite a number of sporting organisations also play God Save The Queen and show their respect for Her Majesty by standing while the anthem is being played. For many years, the Australian economy has been beset by economic iUs. The stewards who have been elected to oversee the overaU mnning of the nation have failed to come to grips with the root cause of the problem. They have not had the intestinal fortitude to make the hard decisions so necessary to get the country back on a stable base. Let no-one be deluded: the nation is going down the financial gurgler at an alarming rate. Neither pmdence nor effort is being fairly rewarded. Big Govemment is simply spending more and more, dipping deeper and deeper into the pockets of those who are the generators and producers of the real wealth. As big Govemment digs deeper for its tax rake-off, it further destroys incentive and pushes the weaker businesses to the wall, thereby creating a need for further Government spending and taxes. Australia is fast approaching the status of a banana republic. Honourable members do not need to take my word for that. The facts are contained in a Daily Sun report of 27 August 1985— "The Federal Govemment's economic strategy came under concerted attack yesterday on two vital fronts—tax and foreign debt." The report continues— "An unexpected and independent warning that the Intemational Monetary Fund (IMF), which usually supervises only 'banana republics', may be alerted to Australia's foreign debt problem." Australia's overseas interest obligations and debt repayments have risen from $7.3 billion, or 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product, five years ago to $52 bUlion, or 33.6 per cent of gross domestic product, this year. The warning has been given that— "Overseas debt growth was rising so alarmingly IMF intervention was becoming more of an eventuality Address in Reply 3 September 1985 551

Who made that statement? Was it John Stone? No, it was none other than Professor Fred Gmen, part-time ALP adviser and head of the Australian National University's centre for economic policy research. What makes the figures so alarming is not just the total annual interest and redemption bill of $52 billion but the fact that it accounts for 33.6 per cent of gross domestic product. Put more simply, it means that the ALP Govemment in Canberra has permitted the country's national debt to increase to such an extent that every man, woman and child in our nation is responsible for interest and redemption repayments amounting to approximately $9.50 a head a day, or $3,466.66 a year. Mr Keating has brought down another mini-Budget. He has introduced the May mini-Budget and the August mini-Budget. The bitter-pills Budget is shortly to be brought down. The nation has witnessed accord, consensus and heaven knows how many summits. Each in tum has been an up-market gabfest, talkfest—call it what you will—culminating in a white paper and tax summit—the have-a-chat summit. Unfortunately, the Federal ALP Govemment has not demonstrated any understanding of the basic principle for making the economy strong, which is to encourage the creation of wealth. It is hell-bent on redistributing wealth and, in so doing, is strangling those who have the capacity to pull Australia out of the economic morass into which it has been allowed to slip. The ALP Govemment is determined to stifle primary industry. To say that it has a lack of awareness of the importance of mral industries is far too simple a statement. It simply does not care, and has shown it. The ALP has failed to make changes to improve the export competitiveness of primary industries; it has failed to assist the sugar industry; by allowing militant trade unions to openly defy the courts of our land, it has failed to stand up for the mle of law; it has failed to reduce Govemment expenditure, which will increase 1.3 per cent in real temis, allowing for inflation; and it has failed to bite the bullet on spending and is relying on income growth to reduce the deficit. Welfare payments alone this year wiU increase by $1.2 biUion to a staggering $19 billion, or 28 per cent of Govemment outlays. I cite the following statement— "Govemment continues to grow with an increase in Govemment capital expenditure and manning levels. The Department of Administrative Services budget has been increased by over $200 million. These figures clearly give the lie to Mr. Hawke's promise to the Canberra rally in July that 'I give you this undertaking that we will prepare a package in that budget context which will significantly reduce the cost impact on farmers'." Growth in income has been brought about not by greater productivity but by devaluation of the Australian dollar. The effects of devaluation will be eroded eventually by inflation. The Federal Labor Govemment's Budget hinges on wage discounting in awards made in the national wage case and the inflationary effects that will flow on from devaluation of the Australian dollar. Because of those factors, the Federal Govemment's Budget is a mbbery Budget, and the Prime Minister knows it. As Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin is nothing short of an abject failure. It has been claimed that he understands mral industries; yet he has failed to win support in Cabinet for assistance for primary industries. It should be noted that the Minister for Primary Industry has been travelling round the countryside saying that he does not believe in the imposition of a capital gains tax. Last Friday, he said that the assets test contains inequities that discriminate against people who live in mral areas, and that comment is a matter of record. That is an example of the claims that are made by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, but that Minister has not yet been able to convince his Cabinet coUeagues to accept his point of view. By failing to order Commonwealth meat-inspectors to inspect export meat at Mudginberri, the Federal Minister for Primary Industry has given a blessing to illegal 552 3 September 1985 Address in Reply interference, in the operations of the abattoir, by the Australiasian Meat Industry Employees Union. For a period of two and a half years, primary industries in Australia have suffered because the Federal ALP Govemment slashed incentives for primary industries, such as tax deductible income equaUsation deposits, option conditions under the tax-averaging schemes and deductibiUty procedures with respect to the clearing of land, and the wiping out of investment allowances. There has also been a 10c hike in the price of fuel this year alone, as well as the elimination of the fuel freight rebate. Apart from the incentives that have been eUminated or slashed, the Federal Labor Govemment has increased the prices of basic commodities. For instance, a scheme of indexing fuel prices and a sales tax on lubrication oils have been introduced. In addition, the assets test has been introduced. There has been an increase in meat inspection fees and a reconstmction plan has been devised for the dairying and beef industries. I shoiUd point out that neither industry wants that reconstmction. Moreover, the Federal Govemment has increased the level of contribution made by the States to the National Disaster ReUef Fund. Whereas Queensland once had to pick up the tab on the first $4m drawn in respect of disaster relief, that basic sum has been increased to $9m before any worthwhile assistance is provided by the Federal Govemment. In respect of fuel prices, it will be noted that the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) has very generously removed the remaining excise of 2.4c per litre on diesel fiiel, provided that it is used for the purposes of either farming, fishing or forestry. The Federal Treasurer said that that reduction wiU save $25m for the year 1985-86 and is expected to amount to $35m over a fuU year. However, it must be remembered that that scheme does not come into effect until 1 November. The Federal Govemment has also removed the 15 per cent tariff on imported header equipment. I do not suggest for one minute that that has not been of some benefit to primary producers and, as I mentioned earlier, it is expected that measures adopted by the Federal Govemment wiU reduce farm costs by $25m in the year 1985-86 or approximately $147 per farmer. However, the decisions made since May this year, prior to presentation of the Budget, increased costs for each farmer by approximately $302 or $51.5m on an overall basis. It can be seen that the Federal Govemment has taken from primary producers with both hands and has magnanimously retumed a small tip, a little pin-money, a tidbit. That Govemment has failed to understand the importance that a contribution by a virile and profitable farming sector can make to the economic well-being of Australia. Farm incomes per family for the year 1984-85 averaged $12,000, and that is far less than the adult minimum basic wage. For the year 1985-86, it is predicted that that average income will be even less. Farmers are faced with increasing farm costs and the continuance of high interest rates, in addition to the declining profitability in terms of trade. The ALP has ignored the welfare of the mral sector, but has shown a ready willingness to grant pay rises to Australian workers—rises that they have not eamed. The ALP is not game to buck its real masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The farming sector can simply no longer afford to pay the wages of employees and meet escalating costs while the prices it receives for the commodities it produces continue to fall in real money terms. The member for Townsville (Mr McElligott) spoke about the National Party gerrymander that has been chasing people out of the westem areas. He said that that has happened only since the National Party came to power. I have never heard such a load of codswallop! It is abolute garbage! If the honourable member has a look at the history of the population grovrth of inland areas he will find that the inland areas were Address in Reply 3 September 1985 553

cut up into substandard living areas and people were sent out onto those substandard blocks and expected to make a Uving. They could not, because they were starvation blocks. The end result was simply that those who survived bought out those who did not, and there was an amalgamation of areas into what wound up being viable living areas. In addition, in that day and age the land was developed by hand by means of the use of axes, horses and so on, whereas today one sees machines that clear hundreds of acres for cultivation in a day. No longer does one see ring-barkers, ringers or station- hands on many properties, simply because machines and chemicals have been developed to do more easily the work that they once did. That change has not been confined to Queensland; it has happened in every other State. When one gets down to tin tacks, the facts are that Queensland is the most decentralised State in Australia, and that has happened under the National Party Govemment. The financial treatment of this State by the Federal ALP Govemment is nothing short of an attempt at financial subjugation, and Medicare is a classic example. The member for Townsville has just finished citing figures in an attempt to cover up for his Federal colleagues. Road-funding is down by about $20m in real terms. I want to refer to a recent article dealing with roadworks. It is headed, "More Federal Funds for Queensland roads". The article states— "Queensland's local roads will be boosted by a Federal Govemment approval for a further $993,797 for roadworks. The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, has announced that additional funding for two new and 242 previously approved projects was being provided through the Federal Government's Australian Bicentennial Road Development Programme." Mr Morris said that that additional amount would be allocated to 99 councils. That works out at an average of $10,000 per council. I am sure that they will do a tremendous amount of roadwork with that amount. The article continued— "Local roads will be getting nearly 6 per cent more money from the Federal Govemment next year than this year." That wiU not even keep up with inflation. The article continued— "National highways will also get over 5 percent more next year, while state arterial roads will receive a slight reduction. Altogether, total federal spending on Queensland's roads next year will be $258 million—only $ 1 million less than this year." As I said, it will not even keep up with inflation. Mr Fouras: It is 85 per cent of what you spend. Mr NEAL: The honourable member has been caught short; it is as simple as that. The member for South Brisbane needs a couple more sandwiches to become a picnic. Let me tum to Senator Gareth Evans. He once said that the section of the Australian Constitution dealing with grants of moneys to the States was the ideal vehicle by which Govemments of a different political persuasion to a central Canberra Govemment could be brought to heel. That is exactly what the ALP Govemment in Canberra is trying to do to this State. What is the ALP in this State doing about that? Not one damed thing! The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Invisible, and his gaggle of misfits and union drop­ outs stick up for Canberra and try to convince the people of Queensland that we are getting more than our just entitlement. The Minister for Health exposed the Medicare funding arrangement for the deceit that it is. The Queensland Govemment's general purpose grants are down, yet the Leader 554 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

of the Opposition claimed otherwise. He cannot even come to grips with the statistical records presented by the member for Mount Gravatt. He does not know how to equate them with our percentage of the overall population. We have heard much about unemployment. The other day the member for Lytton told us that the claim that people are coming to this State was not tme. In the past three years, a total of 13 005 people on the dole migrated to Queensland in search of employment. That is equivalent to 85 people every week for the past three years. Large numbers of unemployed people are fleeing from the higher-taxed southem States because their prospects of finding a satisfactory job are dismal. Department of Social Security figures show that in 1982-83, 28 717 people on unemployment benefits moved into Queensland while 23 078 moved out of the State. That means that a net gain of 5 641 people on the dole had to be absorbed into the Queensland labour-force. The comparable net increase for 1983-84 was 5 156 and, in the 11 months to May 1985, the total was 2 208. In 1983-84, 63.7 per cent of Queensland's net interstate migration gain was made up of people receiving unemployment benefits from the Social Security Department. Official figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirm those provided by the Social Security Department. The 1983-84 intemal migration survey showed that 23 723 unemployed people moved into Queensland and 13 265 left the State, which means that during the year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 10 458 unemployed people from interstate began searching for work in Queensland. Those are some of the facts that Opposition members are knocking time and again. Mr De LACY: I rise to a point of order. As those figures contradict the Govemment's working party report, I ask the honourable member to table the article from which he is quoting. Mr NEAL: I have no objection. The honourable member is only wasting my time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I do not accept the honourable member's point of order. If the honourable member for Balonne wishes to table the document, that is his decision. Mr NEAL: Time and time again, we have listened to Opposition members knocking the State and condemning the Govemment for not directing sufficient money to schools, roads, hospitals, police and a whole range of other Govemment services. The only way in which I have been able to spend more money has been by personally eaming more money. The ALP is clearly advocating an increase in taxes. That is simply the long and short of it. Contrary to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the Opposition is claiming that Queensland is not a low-tax State but is, in fact, the highest-taxed State. I intend to present a few figures Mr De Lacy: Are you going to quote where they are coming from? Mr NEAL: Yes. They are Bureau of Statistics figures. They are available to the honourable member. Taking all State Govemment and local govemment taxes levied—Queenslanders paid an average of $617.18 per capita during 1983-84. That compares very favourably with the all-States average of $787.43. The State-by-State break-down is as foUows— State $ Per Capita New South Wales 876.68 Victoria 876.84 South Australia 650.97 Westem Australia 716.89 Tasmania 563.71 Address in Reply 3 September 1985 555

In his Opening Speech, His ExceUency the Govemor gave an indication of the Govemment's direction for the coming year. He indicated also that the Queensland Govemment Development Authority approached the highly competitive EurodoUar and Swiss franc public markets and achieved terms and conditions that placed Queensland at the top of the world credit rating—and, I might add, above New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Westem Australia. It is interesting to hear the gabble from Opposition members about the Queensland economy. When one considers the high credit rating that the Queensland Govemment has on the highly competitive Eurodollar and Swiss franc pubUc markets, it is amazing to hear such criticism. Those markets have not been known to throw good money after bad. The top credit rating has been awarded to Queensland because this State has been Uving within its means. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) cannot have it both ways; either he is wrong or the operators of those money markets are diUs. The forthcoming Budget will be balanced. At the close of the financial year, the Consolidated Revenue Fund was in surplus to the tune of $166,000, the Loan Fund was in surplus by $88,000 and the Tmst and Special Fund was also in surplus. The State wiU continue with its large-scale development, and one has only to look round to see what is happening. The ever-changing skyline of Brisbane and its environs, the development taking place in cities and towns in the State, the new roadworks and bridges, the electrification of central Queensland railways and others, and the new grain facilities at Fisherman Islands are good examples of the whole host of projects that add up to progress. In addition, coal production and exports are at record levels. Recently I had the pleasure of travelling extensively throughout New South Wales. New roadworks and bridges were practically non-existent; that is a far cry from the activity in Queensland. I did not go to Newcastle, Sydney or WoUongong, but I was informed by a number of people in inland New South Wales that, for the Wran Govemment, "NSW" stands for Newcastle, Sydney and WoUongong, because that is where all the money is spent. In the Address in Reply debate, a number of honourable members have spoken about unions. There is no doubt in my mind that the average Australian has had the proverbial gutful of militant trade unions and strikes. That message comes through loud and clear wherever one goes; people are just plain sick and tired of strikes. Union-leaders make claims about the right to strike, but rank-and-file union members and others are calling for the right to work. Union-leaders are out of step with their grassroot members who expect a right to work unfettered by union thugs and heavies and are prepared to accept their responsibilites towards their fellow-man. Union-leaders have paid scant regard to that, but it is about time that they did. Their abdication of responsibility towards their fellow-man precipitated the legislation that was introduced into this House earlier in the year. Opposition members claim that Queensland is a police State—that freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate are denied. The honourable member for Port Curtis (Mr Prest)—the drone behind the ALP throne—denigrated the police officers who were carrying out their duties at the opening of this session of the Parliament. Many other Opposition members have done the same. What they faU to understand is this: if one disobeys a lawful poUce direction, one is liable to be arrested. The honourable member for Port Curtis should have a discussion with the honourable members for Wolston, Windsor and Kurilpa about that. I am sure that the police officers who were on duty at the opening of Parliament would rather have been carrying out their regular duties. Unfortunately, a bunch of ratbags—friends of the honourable member for Port Curtis and other Opposition members—decided that they would dismpt the official opening and, in the process, break the law. They were arrested, and that is exactly what should have happened to them; the police did an extemely good job. 556 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

In my few remaining minutes, I wish to touch on one matter that has been the subject of widespread debate, namely compulsory third-party insurance premiums, which will be increased from 22 October. No-one likes to see any increase in a charge that he has too pay. The Govemment gets not one red cent out of compulsory third-party premiums. Compulsory third-party insurance is funded in much the same way as any other class of insurance; that is, premium income must equal claim expenditure plus operating costs. A significant fact is that all insurance companies, with the exception of the State Govemment Insurance Office (Queensland) and the FAI Insurance Group, vacated the field of third-party insurance many years ago, for one reason. They could see that, to be viable, they would have to increase premiums greatly and that losses that they were not prepared to bear could be incurted. There used to be 62 insurance companies accepting third-party insurance in this State; now there are only two. Why is that so? I thank the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for information that he has supplied in this matter. Premiums are related to the accident rate, the level of damages determined by courts, and interest eamings, all of which have changed in different ways over the years. However, the figures show conclusively that compulsory third-party insurance today involves no greater financial strain on most motorists than it did 15 or 16 years ago. The single most important fact is the rapid increase in damages awards. For example, four years ago the largest single claim on the SGIO was $330,000. It has since paid, or has outstanding, $71m plus in claims. The fact is that, in Queensland, third-party premiums will still be lower than those in Labor States. A comparison of the largest vehicle class, that is, private motor vehicles, shows that in Queensland the premium wiU be $168; New South Wales, $174; and Victoria, $177. What the comparison does not show is that, whereas Queensland is providing adequate reserves for claims incurred and yet to be paid, this is not the case in New South Wales and Victoria. Vast accumulated deficits are occurring in the reserves of the southem States' funds, which are now totally inadequate to meet future liabiUties. If the southem Labor States were fair dinkum and set their premiums on a funded basis with proper reserves for future pay-outs, the premiums for private motor vehicles in New South Wales would be $280 and in Victoria, $260, where the actuarial shortfall is now $ 1,000m.

Mr WILSON (Townsville South) (4.3 p.m.): In this debate, let me say how pleased I am to hear that the new Govemor intends to move among the people to leam and hear the thinking, the opinion and the concem of the people. May I suggest to the Govemor that he move amongst the trade-unionists—the workers—for that is where he will find the real men of the nation and leam about life from them. That will put him in a better position to understand why he should not give assent to any further draconian industrial laws that the National Party Govemment may introduce into this House— unlike his predecessor, who gave assent to the draconian industrial laws goveming the electricity supply industry, which have no place in the democratic society the Govemor talked about, as they are more in keeping with Nazi, fascist and other totaUtarian forms of society. Those draconian, fascist laws will be repealed immediately after the Australian Labor Party takes office. I have read in the media that Mr McLachlan of the National Farmers Federation has said that his association will rid the country of militant trade unions within five years. Although Mr McLachlan is supposed to represent the farmers, I understand that he is on the board of directors of Elders IXL. A man cannot serve two masters, and the farmers would do well to understand that it is the processor of their produce who robs them. The destmction of the trade unions and a reduction in wages will do nothing to assist the farmers. Should wages be reduced in factories, the processor will not pass on that benefit to the producers by increasing the prices paid to them; he will merely put the difference in his own pocket. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 557

Further, with the lowering of the wages and living standards of workers, and the reduction in the purchasing power of the consumer, demand is lessened. If demand is lessened, prices are lowered. If prices are lowered in the market-place, the processor, to maintain his margin of profit, will lower the price to the farmer and the farmer will continue to miss out on a fair deal. It would do well for the primary producers to understand and remember that to make the maximum amount of profit, it is the processor who seeks to exploit both the primary producer and the worker. The lowering of workers' wages will do nothing to assist the farmer. What is required is orderly and controlled production, distribution and exchange brought about by a tme democratic society, not by draconian laws that will work only for the processor, the landed gentry, and make peasants of a few small farmers. I intend now to refer to the sugar industry. However, I would like to deal first with a little history in primary industries. Let us look at the wool industry and what took place in the middle 1950s that brought about the disaster that hit that industry. What I have to say I will leave to the thinking primary producers to ponder over and to analyse for themselves, free from any political bigotry. In the years after World War II and prior to 1956, wool fibres were the mainstay of the textile industry. A shortage of wool caused the price to sky-rocket. The grazier received as much as £1 a pound for wool, which created a boom in every westem town. Every person in those towns benefited from the spin-off. For the first time since the Great Depression, graziers were out of debt. No longer were the agents vetting their grocery orders. No longer did the grazier have to take his cheque to be countersigned by his agent to make it good. The grazier, a proud man at any time, was able to stand on his own two feet. Danger was looming and those in the wool industry failed to recognise it. It was in the form of synthetic fibres. Science had made them possible and multinational big businesses had the know-how and the ability to produce, but did not have the market. The multinationals had to get a foot in the door of the textile industry. Their real enemy was the wool fibre and its value to the textile industry. Something had to be done, so the multinationals seized on the animosity that existed between the grazier and those who worked in the shearing industry. They had to cause industrial trouble in industry, but how? The industry was flourishing, the shearers had never been better off, and the graziers were laughing all the way to the bank. They found the answer in the grazier's traditional animosity against or hatred of shearers and somehow got the graziers' organisation, the United Graziers Association, to apply to the arbitration court for a reduction in shearers' wages. The graziers were making good money—they had never been better off—and some of them paying as much as 17s. 6d. in the pound in tax. The application to the court was successful and the shearers' wages were reduced from £7.14s. per hundred to £6.18s. per hundred. The shearers refused to accept it and went on strike. The synthetic manufacturers had got what they wanted. All they had to do was keep fueling the fire, bringing about what was almost the destmction of the wool industry. Many graziers were forced to walk off their properties. During the strike I asked a grazier, who was looking for a gang of shearers to shear his sheep at the old rate, "What would be the difference in wages between the old rate and the lower new rate to shear your flock?" Without hesitation, he answered, "£100." He then added, "As I pay 17s.6d. in the £1 tax, the real difference is £25. Should I be unable to shear my sheep this year, next year I will have to pay double fleece, and that would be £13.16s. at the new rate." It is quite possible that in the ensuing year Mr Booth: You've lost me. Mr WILSON: The honourable member for Warwick does not want to know, because history has proven that the graziers were used to destroy their own industry. 558 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

It is quite possible that in the ensuing year the quality of wool would be affected, thereby reducing its value. That was not good business in any shape or form. At least that grazier had the nous to know what was going on in the industry. I could say much more. However, suffice it to say that the graziers themselves were used to destroy their own industry. The lowering of wages did nothing for the graziers, the industry, this State or the nation. It is also very interesting to note that it is the only occasion since the war on which the Australian Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has reduced wages. Further, the then secretary of the United Graziers Association had his sheep shom at eight months, just prior to the court's decision. One can only wonder at the decision of Mr Gunn, now Sir William Gunn, to apply to the Industrial Commission for a reduction in shearers' wages. It certainly was not in the best interests of the shearers, the wool industry or the small westem towns. I cite what happened in the dairy industry when some scientists said that butter was not good for people because it contained too much cholesterol. The margarine manufacturers came out with, "Eat margarine; it is low in cholesterol and contains no animal fats." They then applied to be aUowed to colour it to look and taste Uke butter, thereby getting a good market at the expense of the real thing—butter. Even though it has been proven that margarine has as much cholesterol as, and in some cases more cholesterol than, butter, it still enjoys a market at the expense of the dairy industry. I tum now to the sugar industry. All honourable members know that the sugar industry is in real trouble. Up to this point, the only contribution that the Queensland Govemment has made has been to scream that it is a national problem and that the Federal Govemment should meet the whole of the cost of keeping the industry buoyant until it is once again in a position to look after itself The Queensland Govemment is being hypocritical. It refuses to recognise the Federal Govemment simply because it happens to be an Australian Labor Party Govemment. I say at the outset that all sugar produced in Queensland and New South Wales becomes the property of the Queensland Govemment, and CSR Ltd is the sole selUng agent. Honourable members might well ask, "What is wrong with that?" There is nothing wrong with it, provided everything is going all right. However, five years ago and longer, when both CSR and the Govemment knew that the sugar industry was in trouble and headed for worse trouble, CSR continually called on farmers to grow more cane over and above their assignment when it could not sell all the sugar produced from the assignment, let alone any extra. That has meant additional expense to the grower without compensation for the added costs. Right up to the present, CSR Ltd and other millers have urged farmers to grow additional cane. One can only ask why. Although this National Party—formerly Country Party—Govemment claims to represent the farmers, it does not. Some time ago, I mentioned in the Parliament that the Premier and Treasurer has forsaken his farmer friends and gone mining. That is tme of the whole of the National Party, though the Premier is the most guilty. Less than five years ago, when the sugar industry in Queensland was in trouble and the farmers were in great difficulty, the Premier gave his full support to a sugar industry on the Ord River in Westem Australia. The sugar-farmers in Queensland would do well to remember that. They can well do without that sort of representation. Less than five years ago, the Premier made representations to the Federal Govemment to build the Burdekin Falls Dam, just after CSR took over the Invicta mill at Gim. In other words, the National Party which claims to represent the farmers, took 23 years after gaining office to make representations to the Federal Govemment for funds to build the Burdekin Falls Dam. Although that dam is of vital importance, the Govemment made representations only after the CSR company took over Invicta mill. Everybody knows that Gim is in a dry area, which produces high ccs. It is mmoured that CSR is not interested in growing cane itself Farmers from the wet, low-ccs areas would possibly Address in Reply 3 September 1985 559 be able to transfer their assignments to the Gim area, assuring the Invicta mill of a harvest at the expense of other north Queensland areas. Several questions demand answers. As the Govemment and its seUing agent, CSR, knew of the world market sugar-selling problem five years ago, why was something not done about it? Did the Govemment think that the problem would go away, or did CSR Ltd see that it would work in its interest in the future? Did the Govemment decide to allow the industry to mn without help, knowing that that could benefit CSR? Why is Australia unable to sell its sugar when Fiji has a guaranteed market for its sugar for the next four years? Why is there a glut of sugar on the world market? Is it because the EEC countries, as a result of advanced technology, have surplus sugar available for export, whereas they used to import sugar for their domestic needs? Is the world market surplus caused by the production in the United States of America of com sweeteners to replace sugar? Have the Queensland farmers and general public been made aware that the new process of extracting sugar from beet makes it possible to extract twice as much sugar from a given amount of beet at half the cost? That is why the EEC countries are exporting sugar. I feel sure that the Govemment is well aware of that. With the Victorian Govemment backing the growing of sugar-beet on the Murray, and with the climate of Tasmania lending itself to the growing of beet, if those two States embark on the production of sugar from beet based on the technical know-how and advances made in European production, what effect will that have on the Queensland industry? Will the Premier give the establishment of a beet-sugar industry in those two States his support, as he did with the Ord? We ask ourselves: Why has the United States of America embarked on the production of com sweeteners, when ample sugar has been available on the world market? Was it made necessary by its interference in the intemal affairs of Cuba, a supplier of sugar for which the United States was the main buyer? Was it because of the trade sanctions imposed on Cuba that the United States allowed the experimentation in and subsequent manufacture of substitute sweeteners? When success was achieved, were the American people subjected to the same kind of propaganda as they were subjected to in the case of butter? Were they bombarded with campaigns such as "Sugar is bad for your health"? I think so. All would agree that the primary producers are experiencing problems, but it must be remembered that those problems will not be solved by farmers allowing themselves to be used as a force with which to fight the trade union movement so that a reduction can be brought about in wages and living standards. I think I have proven the reverse to be the case, because the primary producer or farmer and the workers have a common enemy in the form of the processor which seeks to exploit both sectors for monetary gain. There is a clear indication that the Sugar Board, this Govemment and especially its selling agent, CSR, are guilty of failure by not carrying out a full and detailed program of market research for which they are responsible. The Govemor's Opening Speech refers to an employment-generating program. If there is such a program, all I can say is that it is a dismal failure. The fact that unemployment rose in this State and fell in all other States is an indictment of the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Govemment. Every time the Premier and Treasurer comes out with the news that something new by way of industry is going to happen, we hear the magical figure of 1 100 new jobs that will be created. Of course, it never happens. Queensland has the worst unemployment rate of any State in the Commonwealth. The figures show there are a thousand more unemployed now than there were a year ago. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton), in his speech last week, set out a list that quite clearly shows that 31 000 jobs were lost in different areas of employment. That means that, although the Govemment claimed that it would create 40 000 new jobs, the figure was actually 30 000. With a loss of 31 000 jobs, the number of unemployed rose by 1 000. That is not a success story, by any stretch of imagination. 560 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

We hear calls through the media by the National Party Govemment in Queensland and its leaders in the Federal Parliament, along with the Liberal Party and its leaders, throughout the nation demanding a lowering of wages paid to youths. Such caUs are based on the claim that youth wages are too high and are the cause of youth unemployment. Nothing could be further from the tmth. No employer would want to put on three youths to do the work of two, even if youth wages were reduced accordin^y; and if the employer did, what would happen in a very short space of time once the lower wage for youths had been established? The employer would sack one of the youths, claiming that there was only enough work for two youths and that the third was not needed. The lowering of wages for youth will not make more jobs available for them. The only way to lessen the unemployment of our youth is to create more jobs. The lowering of wages will not improve the position. For a long period youth wages have been a percentage of the adult wage according to age, and still are. Any change in wages for youth is in money terms only and not on a percentage basis. In real terms, the wages of youth today are no different from what they were in yester-year. The other night I was Ustening to a reply to the Federal Budget by that lyre-bird, the leader of the Liberal Party (Andrew Peacock), in which he made all sorts of wild and false claims. He called on the youth of Australia to fight against union-leaders, as he claimed that trade unions were the cause of youth unemployment. That is a damned lie; nothing could be further from the tmth. Union-leaders, as well as all good trade-unionists, have the welfare of our youth, their own sons and daughters, at heart and will fight not only to see that our youth are gainfully employed but also to ensure that their sons and daughters are not exploited by unscmpulous employers and tory politicians. One also finds that the National and Liberal Parties are calling for the scrapping of the award system of wages and its replacement with a contract system. Let me wam aU workers throughout this country, regardless of their political persuasion, not to faU for that three-card trick, because all it will mean is a lowering of wages, living standards and working conditions. It will do away with the arbitration and concUiation system under which workers' representatives can apply to an impartial adjudicator and produce evidence that will bring about an impartial verdict. What will happen is that the employer or his agent will draw up a contract setting out his terms and conditions of employment and the employee will be given the opportunity of accepting it. Employees will not be given any say in the compilation of those terms and conditions. Should an employee accept the terms and conditions of a contract set out by the employer, it will not be long before he is asked by the employer to accept lesser wages, and that will be done by industrial blackmail. The employer will draw up another contract with lower wages and worse conditions and get some unemployed worker to accept and sign it, believing that what he has signed reflects the terms and conditions under which other employees are working, when in fact it does not. The employer will then go to the first employee and ask him to accept those worse conditions. If he does not, he will be sacked and replaced by the second person, who in tum will meet the same fate. I ask: Is that the type of employment- generating program the Govemor said his Govemment was embarking upon? If it is, it certainly will not generate more jobs, but it certainly will generate a lot of industrial trouble. The Govemor also referted to the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program, which my leader adequately dealt with. If one looks at the main-line electrification scheme, one finds again the magical figure of $600m. The point is: Is that a coincidence of fact or a figment of the imagination, like the magical figure of 1 100 more jobs that the Premier is always mentioning? Address in Reply 3 September 1985 561

In the area of housing, one can only wonder what is meant by "major initiatives" Is it that Queenslanders wiU see a major increase in the provision of low-rental houses and pensioner units? If that is so, I sincerely hope that there is a huge improvement in that area. Or is that just a reference to 5 000 living units under rental and home- ownership schemes for people on modest incomes? If this Govemment has its way, aU workers will receive modest incomes. It is also interesting to note that the Govemment intends to build apartments for sale to aged persons who are not eligible for Housing Commission pensioner units and who cannot afford the high costs of building or renting in the private enterprise area. For those people who cannot afford the private enterprise policies of the Govemment, what is urgently required is a huge rise in the constmction of pensioner units to meet the needs of our aged citizens. At present there is an 18-month to two-year waiting period. Those underprivUeged pensioners who cannot afford to buy the economical apartments the Govemment talks about are forced to pay ridiculously high rents to unscmpulous landlords, often for accommodation that is substandard and should be condemned. It is planned to have the whole Great Barrier Reef declared a national park by 1988.1 am at a loss to know why the reef is being declared a national park in a piecemeal fashion. Surely it could, and should, have been done as a whole. Any problems could have been solved while the reef was under protection. The area yet to be declared is StUl open to abuse, rape and plunder, and will be so until 1988. It is proposed that many new pre-schools and early education facilities will come into existence to give infants their first leaming experience. That is an excellent proposal if it is carried out in the shortest possible time, and in a proper manner, not to provide perks for the areas represented by National Party members. Prior to my election in 1977, the Govemment promised that a pre-school would be built at Oonoonba. Eight years later, after many representations from me, the parents and citizens association and schoolteachers, I am happy to say that the pre-school is almost completed. Over the years, we received many excuses from the Minister. Perhaps he finally ran out of excuses. One excuse was that 150 pupils at the school was insufficient to warrant it and the fact that Oonoonba is something of an isolated suburb could not be considered. However, during that period, a pre-school was built in the National Party electorate of Hinchinbrook, near Abergowrie, for 84 pupils. I have read the Govemor's Opening Speech. I find that it contains a number of items that are the prerogative of the Federal Govemment, or are federaUy funded. To name but a few, I refer to the 24 bridges to be replaced on the Bmce Highway, the building of the Burdekin Falls Dam and telephonic communications. Other items are either nearing completion or are pie in the sky that may, or may not, create employment. I certainly hope that the State Budget, when it is presented, is more favourable and that it contains more positive and definite schemes to create employment, housing, health facilities and schools. Mrs CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers) (4.33 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to support my colleagues the honourable members for Mount Gravatt and Roma, the mover and the seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. Mr Davis: The boring member for Pine Rivers. Mrs CHAPMAN: I do not intend to take any notice of the honourable member for Brisbane Central. Firstly, I assure His Excellency of the loyalty of the constituents of the electorate of Pine Rivers to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and I convey the warmest congrat­ ulations of the people of Pine Rivers to His Excellency, Sir Walter Campbell, upon his appointment. I take this opportunity to wish Sir Walter CampbeU and his good lady weU.

68704—20 562 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Davis: You only represent 40 per cent of them. What are you talking about? Mrs CHAPMAN: I did not intend to answer the honourable member, but at least I will say that we have great respect for Her Majesty—at least we stand up for Her MajestJ'—which is more than I can say for the honourable member's coUeagues. The most satisfying facet of a parliamentarian's duties is being able to reflect upon past achievements in the electorate, in the knowledge that his or her practical input has effected a concrete result. Foremost in my hopes for the Pine Rivers area is my ambition to cater better for the transportation demands of this rapidly growing area. I believe that the provision of the proposed railway station at Bray Park will be announced when aU the money is available to build it. My attitude is different from that of some of the honourable member's colleagues, who have leaked it. An access road on to the northem freeway via Lawnton Pocket Road would help to achieve this. Because the Pine Rivers electorate has about 17 schools, and because youth unemployment is one of my main concems, the provision of the best possible educational facilities has been, and will remain, a high priority. My current most important project concems the acquisition of a music block for the Pine Rivers High School. Mr Davis: Why do you spend so much time at Dayboro? Mrs CHAPMAN: If the honourable member knows that, I can only say that he does not spend much time in his electorate. At this point, I pay special tribute to the late Ron Westaway, former principal of Strathpine West State School, who always worked extremely hard and was devoted to his family and profession until he was forced to end his teaching career Mr Davis interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: Is it not possible for the honourable member for Brisbane Central to keep quiet for five minutes? I pay special tribute to the late Ron Westaway, who was forced to end his teaching career because of a terminal illness. Shortly after leaving the school, Ron passed away. In the months preceding his death, teachers from Pine Rivers rallied round the family, taking tums to drive his wife Wendy to the hospital and offering their unfailing support. Teachers would not do that in many parts of today's world. Their dedication should not go unrecognised. I extend congratulations to the Strathpine West p. and c. association, which is currently building a covered area in Ron's memory. Indeed, I offer my thanks to all p. and c. associations for the often unrecognised time and effort that they devote to schools in Queensland. Given the multitude of initiatives undertaken by the visionary National Party Govemment to ensure economic stability, growth and democratic freedom in this progressive State of Queensland, it is with a great deal of confidence and pride that I address the House today. Undoubtedly, the Govemment's most positive step to date has been the introduction of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act, which has given workers the right to choose union membership and has established the right to protection from harassment Mr Davis interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: Such harassment is similar to that which I suffer from the honourable member for Brisbane Central every time I speak in this place. The Act protects workers from harassment if they choose not to join a union or participate in illegal strikes. While the public applauded the Govemment's action, the Address in Reply 3 September 1985 563

unions advocated Federal Govemment financial and other discrimination against Queens­ land. The unions took selective action against the State to identify and act against National Party Govemment supporters. These actions cannot be tolerated and, to the Queensland Govemment's credit, they have not been tolerated. For some years, sections of the trade union movement in AustraUa have acted as a law unto themselves, foolishly believing that industrial might is right. In my electorate of Pine Rivers, I have received countless calls from terrified South East Queensland Electricity Board workers who have been too frightened to return to work because of threats that have been made against them and their families by union thugs. In response to that situation, the legislation abolished compulsory unionism for electricity industry workers. The insistence of the trade union movement that an employee is under an inescapable obligation to join a trade union denies one of the individual's natural rights. Henry Dempsey's gang is still clearly labouring under the misguided belief that the employment of these stand-over tactics will ensure a measure of success. Mr De Lacy: Who is Henry Dempsey? Mrs CHAPMAN: That just goes to show you! All of the blokes on the Opposition benches listen to Mr Dempsey, but do not know his first name. That goes to show how much notice they have taken of him. Mr Dempsey does not like being caUed Henry; that is why I am caUing him Henry. The union movement is victimising those workers who are proud to have a SEQEB job by illegally advertising their names at major road intersections and branding them as scabs. Thuggery will not be tolerated by the community. My electorate office has been flooded with calls by people who are only too willing to tear the signs down. On 14 April 1985, the Sunday Sun editorial stated that union members in certain key industries, which affect everyday living standards of the whole population, had too much power and were prepared to use that muscle selfishly and irtesponsibly. Opposition members should realise that the tide has tumed. Mr Bailey: The tide has gone out for those SEQEB employees. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is exactly right. Mr Bailey: They are out on the sand. Mrs CHAPMAN: They are right out on the rocks, and there will be no getting back. People should make no mistake: it is power lust that drives the now broken-down union cart, which would be doomed to rejection by the Queensland people if it ran into the prospect of a democratic election. Is it any wonder that Queenslanders have reaffirmed their confidence in the National Party Govemment? Mr Davis interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is much to the dismay of leaders of the Labor movement. The Morgan Gallup poll of 16 July, which showed an increase of 4 per cent in National Party support, demonstrates only too clearly public rejection of a party led by the nose by unions—that is, rejection of the Labor Party. Stability cannot exist where there is no unity. The Trades and Labor Council strike committee is tom apart by factional infighting and is constituted by faceless men who hide behind the skirts of Henry Dempsey. Unshakeable Govemment action is clearly welcomed by the electorate.The Gov­ emment's legislation has stopped unions indulging in community-bashing. When leaders 564 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

of the Electrical Trades Union urged their members to defy three orders and six recommendations Mr Prest: Who wrote that stuff for you? Mrs CHAPMAN: Govemment members write their own speeches. We do not need unions to write our speeches for us. I will repeat what I was saying. When leaders of the Electrical Trades Union urged their members to defy three orders and six recommendations of the State Industrial Commission and to use their tactics of industrial blackmaU to pull the plug on electricity generation, they cared not one iota about the consequences—the suffering of the sick, the elderly, the young and the disabled, and the detrimental effect that it would have on small business. According to the chairman of MIM Holdings Ltd, Sir Bmce Watson, that company's loss of $ 18.3m in the last financial year was directly attributable to irresponsible industrial action. What was Henry Dempsey's response to that? Blame it on the Govemment! Mr De Lacy: Blame it on the union bosses. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is right. Now the honourable member is cooking with gas. Mr Bailey: I am pleased to hear some common sense coming from you, Mr De Lacy. Mrs CHAPMAN: Exactly. At last the honourable member for Caims is talking sense. That reaction from Dempsey was not surprising. LeveUing blame and hiding from the tmth is all his type know. The people of Queensland, the business community and the Govemment have not tolerated being held to ransom. Clearly, the Govemment has illuminated the State's right to continuity of electricity supply. The Govemment will act further to re-establish the fundamental principle that employment is an agreement between a worker and his employer. Mr Bailey interjected. Mr Prest interjected. Mr Davis: I can't hear the honourable member for Pine Rivers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Menzel): Order! There is too much cross-firing in the Chamber. It may be correct that the honourable member for Brisbane Central cannot hear the honourable member on her feet, but he is just as bad as other members. I ask all honourable members to keep quiet and listen to the member for Pine Rivers. Mr Prest: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! While I am speaking, the honourable member will remain quiet. I will have no more cross-firing. I ask the honourable member for Pine Rivers to proceed. Mrs CHAPMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis) is absolutely addicted to my speeches. With 60 per cent of Australians employed by small business, the Govemment has a very real obligation to deregulate the labour market, that is, to make it possible for small business to opt out of the State industrial system by signing employment contracts outside of awards. Creation of employment in the private sector is the most important step towards the creation of real wealth. While it is subject to some of the radical and ridiculous conditions that apply under the out-of-date regulations set by unions, smaU business cannot achieve that goal. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 565

In a Small Business Development Corporation proposed scheme, which is curtently under review, individuals would have opportunity to work and be assured of being paid no less than the State minimum wage with usual entitlements. It will not do away with awards but create jobs in situations that awards were not designed to deal with, thus giving an opportunity to someone who would appreciate the chance to negotiate a job himself Mr Davis: Do you prefer commission rates? Mrs CHAPMAN: I prefer the free enterprise system.That is something that the honourable member for Brisbane Central is against. With over 90 per cent of all new economic growth industries starting out as a smaU business, there is a crying need for progressive initiatives to free small business from the shackles of the central wage-fixing system. Individual enterprises would be able to opt out of State awards if 60 per cent or more of the employees and the employer agree to negotiate directly. If the unions feel threatened by such a proposal and think that they can scurry off to their mates in Canberta to seek protection under a federal award, they can think again. Under section 6 (3) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1976, the Govemor in Council, by Order in Council, can declare that the Act does not apply to any person or class of persons specified in the Order in Council. It should be the market that finally determines what employees in different industries should be paid. For some time my Govemment has recognised that the wage fixation system is hampering development. The small business area has become increasingly unionised simply through pressure on individuals from union organisers. Most employees in this area would prefer to resolve employment conditions directly with their employers. What better proof of this fact is there than what is now happening at the Mudginberri abattoir in the Northem Territory? Many employees also object strongly to the funding of political parties from union contributions. Approximately 72 State awards currently regulate wages and conditions in small business areas. Small business is forced to pay wage rates that are determined without any consideration of its capacity to pay. There is no doubt that many employees, if given the choice, would opt for continuity of their employment rather than obtain an increase that would break their employer. Legislation to this effect would ensure that market forces govem the employment of labour in the small business area, thus furthering the scope for reinvestment whilst administering a system in a fair and equitable manner on behalf of employees. It would create employment opportunities for youth when juniors could be employed at a lesser rate than is currently the case. It would allow the employment of casuals to meet peak work-loads without the requirement to pay unrealistic casual penalty rates. This fact is supported by the Business Council of Australia. A recent study indicated that penalty rates add approximately 6 per cent to the total wages bill. How many extra people could that 6 per cent employ? In undertaking case studies of firms in the hospitality, retaiUng, restaurant and manufacturing sectors, evidence was provided that firms would employ more people if penalty rates were reduced. With market forces applying to the entrepreneurial end of the labour market, not only would smaU business become more competitive and employees able to achieve an almost infinite degree of flexibility as to their employment options, but also virtually everyone contemplating the establishment of a new business would seriously consider setting up in Queensland before looking anywhere else. People in other States have not had the intestinal fortitude to take the unions on. Queensland would become the entrepreneurial land of opportunity. I endorse totally a proposal that will project even further the Queensland economy to a position of increased real wealth and security. Admirably, in the six months to June 566 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

1985, 26 per cent of aU jobs in Australia were created in Queensland. This result was achieved despite Queensland having the highest population growth rate, with intemal migration for 1984 being 9 000 persons, intense union action and failure by the Com­ monwealth Govemment to implement fully the Grants Commission's recommendations. Queensland has the lowest annual inflation rate, the lowest State local govemment charges of all mainland States and has ended the year with a balanced Budget and an accumulated surplus of $ 166,000 in consolidated revenue. Mr Davis: And the highest unemployment. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is not right. The Queensland Government has mounted a comprehensive attack on the unemployment problem. In Pine Rivers I have witnessed successful results of the self- employment venture scheme which provides unemployed youth with the opportunity to develop their own business, and the innovative employment and training program that has provided grants to enhance the employment readiness of unemployed youths. Apprentice statistics have indicated strong growth in apprentice aUotments, and the introduction of traineeships will provide 1 250 to 1 500 positions in 1986. Traineeships will provide industry with a better trained and more adaptable work-force. Young people wiU acquire broad-based skiUs of a consistent standard that wiU allow them to better cope with stmctural and technological change. It is noteworthy that the concept of traineeships, as recommended in the Queensland Govemment's submission to the Commonwealth's committee of inquiry into the labour market programs (the Kirby report) was not only adopted but also formed one of the key thmsts of the committee's report. Another undoubted contribution to Queensland's attractiveness is that it still has by far the lowest workers' compensation premiums, with premiums in other States mnning as high as six times the respective Queensland premium. The facts support the resounding success of our actions. However, it is not unexpected that honourable members opposite cannot grasp the facts when their own leader claimed on ABC State news that "Queensland has not fared as badly at the Premiers Conference (of May this year) as Sir Joh claims". This at a time when Queensland faced a $65m reduction in tax-sharing grants, an $87m shortfall in Medicare, in addition to Queensland being the only losing State not to receive some form of special compensation to offset the commission's new formula for allocation of grants! Queensland is definitely on the losing end of that one. I have spoken today with acute emphasis on employment, particularly that pertaining to creation of opportunities for our young, for investment in our youth is an investment in our future. In my involvement in the high-growth area of Pine Rivers, I have become well acquainted with the changing and increased pressures that face the youth of today, our greatest natural resource. Special recognition should be afforded to the establishment of the State co-ordinating committee for Intemational Year of Youth in 1985 and to the untiring efforts of the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Muntz) towards this worthwhile cause. I also take the opportunity to commend the efforts of a group of industrious, enthusiastic young people who have established the Pine Rivers Intemational Year of Youth Committee under the chairmanship of John Triplett and wish them all the best in their endeavours. They can be assured of my full support and practical assistance, as can my local Community Youth Support Scheme committee. I commend Ralph Hunter for his assistance in placing so many young people in the work-force. Mr Prest: Haven't you got any girl guides there? Mrs CHAPMAN: If there was a company of girl guides, I would be a member; but if there was a scout group, it most certainly would not take the honourable member for Port Curtis. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 567

The Intemational Year of Youth is well placed in following the Year of the Family and preceding the Year of the Parent. It highlights a three-year emphasis on the importance of the basic foundation-stone of society—the family unit. With the confidence of the people, the National Party State Govemment will continue to protect and preserve this basic foundation, ensure an economic cUmate of growth and protect our democratic freedoms. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (4.55 p.m.): I listened intently to the Govemor's Opening Speech. I found it to be not as full of trivia as other Opening Speeches. If the procedure normally adopted in previous Opening Speeches had been followed, the mention in the Speech of 24 bridges to be replaced between Caims and Rockhampton would have been spelt out in detail and made sound like junior Gateway Bridge projects. Mr De Lacy: They build them every year. Mr PALASZCZUK: The Govemment promises every year to build them. I refer to some of the points made by the Govemor. As a former schoolteacher, I shall comment on that section of the Govemor's Speech dealing with education. I note that new TAFE colleges are to be built at Emerald and Kingaroy. One does not have to be a Rhodes scholar like my colleague the member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill) to understand why Kingaroy is benefiting from a TAFE college. Some months ago I drew the attention of the Minister for Education (Mr PoweU) of the need for a TAFE college to be built at Inala. Inala students presently wishing to attend the nearest TAFE college, which is at Bundamba, are at a distinct disadvantage because the bus/rail connections are so poor. With Inala youth unemployment rising to 55 per cent during some months of the year, a TAFE college would be ideal as a training base for those youngsters. The building I suggested to the Minister is the former St Mark's Leagues Club, which is not now being used at all. It is centrally located and is an ideal position for the purpose. Now that he has retumed to good health, I ask the Minister to reconsider the proposition. The Govemor's Speech did not speU out any Govemment plans to help the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. Perhaps some details will be spelt out in Thursday's State Budget. Mr Newton: They are looking at job creation. Mr PALASZCZUK: I ignore the comments of the member for Caboolture. The matters I have to present to the House are far too important for me to be distracted by him. The Federal Govemment has done a marvellous job in reducing unemployment. However, youth unemployment in my electorate is a problem. In the June quarter, 829 teenagers were registered at the Inala CES as unemployed. In the 20-to-24 age group, 630 were unemployed. Those figures are an indictment of the Queensland Govemment and totally reflect its failure to diversify industry and bring sustained economic growth to the Queensland economy. Morever, youth unemployment in Archerfield could be addressed by providing meaningful education policies. In such a context, a TAFE coUege at Inala must be commenced immediately. The Queensland Govemment has an incompetent approach to TAFE. Per capita, it spends the least on TAFE of any State in Australia. As a result, TAFE participation rates in Queensland are very low. In 1983, in the 17-to-24 age group, Queensland had a TAFE participation rate of 99 per 1 000, compared with a national average of 160. In the 25-to-60 age group, the rate is worse—21 in every 1 000 in Queensland, compared with the national average of 42. The State Govemment is fundmentally responsible for TAFE funding, but has abdicated its responsibUities. It alone decides the priorities. I hope that the Minister sees fit to make the TAFE coUege in the Inala district a major priority in the next few years. 568 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

The recent Federal Budget has given the Queensland Govemment every incentive to devise an education system that will provide maximum opportunities for our young people. In 1985, the Govemment talks about Education 2000 when it has demonstrably failed to deliver a suitable education system. It now has that opportunity through the Federal Labor Govemment. Since the Labor Govemment came to office, the capital program for TAFE, 70 per cent of which is funded by the Commonwealth, has operated at record high levels. The States are responsible for 85 per cent of the recurrent fiinding for TAFE. In 1985-86, the Commonwealth's capital program will provide $1,700 for each 13-week training period for each TAFE trainee, which is equivalent to $5,100 for one place for a full year. The Community Employment Program is doing a fine job of creating employment opportunities while, at the same time, making possible the completion of worthwhile community projects, but that program is being abused by the Queensland Govemment. I was astounded to leam that the State Govemment was using funds allocated to that program to paint schools situated in National Party electorates. I point out that that was not what CEP funds were meant for, and I would be interested to hear how the Queensland Govemment justifies taking such action. The problem of youth unemployment wiU not be solved by having schools painted. I noted also that the Govemor's Opening Speech mentioned that 5 000 Uving units would be provided during this financial year. I would be interested to hear the breakdown of that figure into the categories of rental accommodation in the form of houses and pensioner units. I again draw to the attention of the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) the need for more pensioner units in my electorate. Mr De Lacy: Hear, hear! Mr PALASZCZUK: The Queensland Housing Commission has some excellent sites available, as the honourable member for Caims would have seen from his many visits to the Skylark Street office of the late Kev Hooper. The Housing Commission has constmcted a block of 16 units, which has been an outstanding success. The site, which has room for the constmction of several more blocks, is situated close to a shopping centre and is close to a bus route. In the vicinity of the Inala Civic Centre, land is also available. Pensioners who presently live alone in their family homes are prepared to move into a unit, but they do not wish to move away from familiar surroundings. The Govemor's Opening Speech mentioned also that the Department of Industry Development has opened in Brisbane an innovation centre that is intended to encourage entrepreneurs to market new products and services. That project is very admirable; unfortunately, the Govemment has missed the boat. Honourable members wiU have noticed that when a local firm is taken over by southem business interests, the Brisbane firm is almost invariably closed down or, at best, is retained as a distribution centre. Over recent years, the manufacturing process has been transferted to the south, and jobs have been created in Sydney and Melboume at the expense of the availability of job opportunities in Brisbane. The honourable member for Lytton (Mr Bums) has cited many instances of that kind that have occurted in his electorate. To highlight the point I am making, I invite honourable members to accompany their wives to supermarkets and take note of the places in which most of the basic foodstuffs have been manufactured. It is amazing what such a great primary-producing State as Queensland does not produce. This fact was brought home to me in a very forceful way when I examined the contents of my children's sample bags that were obtained at the Brisbane Exhibition recently. Mr Davis: It is a joke. Mr PALAS2XI!ZUK: Yes, it is. Without exception, the sweets and knick-knacks came from Sydney or Melbourne manufacturers. For example, in the sweets bags, the Address in Reply 3 September 1985 569 bulk of the sweets came from either Lane Cove in Sydney or Campbellfield in Melboume. It is surely not the case that the production of sweets and Ucorice is beyond the capabUity of Queensland manufacturers. After all, Queensland is the sugar belt of AustraUa. I suggest that the Enterprise Queensland campaign and the Govemment-sponsored trade missions that wing their way to exotic places such as Dubai in the Gulf of Arabia would be better occupied in the southem States in an effort to persuade southem manufacturers to set up their businesses in Queensland. Mr Davis: What about a trade mission to the Royal National Association? Mr PALASZCZUK: That might be a good idea. I was under the impression that a sample bag was designed to give people samples of products made by Queensland manufacturers. However, that is not the case. While I am on the subject of basic products, I will tum my attention to the move that is afoot to introduce frozen food into more hospitals in Queensland. Mr Campbell: Shame! Mr PALASZCZUK: Shame, indeed! Recently, I found it necessary to wam the residents of Warwick about a move to introduce frozen meals into the hospital there. Such a move would have resulted in the loss of employment by staff in the hospital kitchen. After members of the staff and residents of Warwick had thought about that move, a stop was quickly put to the idea. Other towns should take note. Last week, the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Harper) commented on the Bond take-over of Castlemaine Tooheys. The Minister said that he hoped—and I emphasise the word "hoped"—that Mr Bond would retain the Castlemaine corporate stmcture in Queensland. Later, I watched Mr Bond on The Carleton/Walsh Report, and it was obvious that Mr Bond wiU do what is in his own best interests. Mr Davis: It will go over to Westem Australia. Mr PALASZCZUK: I agree with the honourable member for Brisbane Central. Mr Bond is not overly concemed about the pious hopes held by the Minister. I wish to raise a matter that concems a former constituent of mine who recently passed away. I refer to Mrs Chicken of Columbus Street, Inala. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Hear, hear! Mr PALASZCZUK: I am aware that the honourable member for Wolston (Mr R. J. Gibbs) knew a great deal about Mrs Chicken. As a long-time resident of Inala, I have knovm Mrs Chicken, as has the member for Wolston, for a number of years. Honourable members will recaU that, about four weeks ago, Mrs Chicken was taken to hospital following a severe injury. What made that event news was the fact that Mrs Chicken weighed 350 kg, or 55 stone. Although confined to bed for the last 18 months, Mrs Chicken was still very mentally active. She was a highly intelligent woman who was a great contributor to talkback radio from the confinement of her bed. Her ability to take on board an issue of public importance and to pursue it to a satisfactory conclusion was a gift not possessed by many people. Mrs Chicken's size created problems when the time came for her to be taken to hospital. I pay tribute to the workmen from the Queensland Housing Commission who acted promptly and removed part of the bedroom wall so she could be moved to hospital. On her arrival at the P*rincess Alexandra Hospital, the medical staff very properly kept her away from the gaze of the usual stickybeaks. Her privacy was respected. What has angered me is the treatment of Mrs Chicken's problem by a Daryl Somers on his television program Hey Hey It's Saturday on Channel 9 on Saturday, 17 August. Mr Somers's remarks were not funny in the first instance, but when one considers that 570 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Mrs Chicken had died on the previous Thursday, his remarks were downright offensive. It has always been my opinion that a comedian who has to get a laugh from other people's misfortunes should seriously consider changing his occupation. What makes the matter worse is that people such as Mr Somers do have an influence on young people; the young speak his language. In a world in which an attempt is being made to integrate the disabled into normal society, such comments are quite inappropriate. We all have to be part of this world of ours as members of the human race; but, unfortunately, only some fall into the category of human beings. By his comments, Daryl Somers does not. All honourable members are aware that the young are greatly influenced by television, in that they engage in active role-playing after watching their favourite stars in action. It is about time a stand was taken by the authorities to rid television of people such as Mr Somers. I hope that Mr Somers and the executives of Channel 9 have the decency to apologise publicly to the family of the late Mrs Chicken for his tasteless remarks. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You would caU upon him to make that apology? Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, I am calling on him now to make that apology. The launch of the first domestic satellite, Aussat 1, will bring television to large areas of mral Australia. I am sure that country members will agree with me that, after seeing programs such as the one to which I have just referred, one begins to wonder whether the cost is worth while. I particularly wish to bring to the attention of members the price of mUk in Queensland. In Archerfield, the population of which includes a large percentage of children, the residents are finding the financial going very difficult at present. Two years ago, Archerfield consumers were paying 12c a litre more for milk than consumers in other States. The situation today is Uttle changed. The cost stmcture in Queensland is high because of mUk-quota-stripping and the greedy anti-free-enterprise franchising arrangements engaged in by the National Party and its leading lights. Under the franchising system operating in Queensland, a dairy co-operative is allowed to process only a certain percentage of its mUk. For example, in Beaudesert, which is in the electorate of Fassifem, the co-operative is allowed to process only 5 000 litres of milk a day. Mr Lingard: Jimmy Egan has been feeding you. Mr PALASZCZUK: I was waiting for an interjection from the honourable member. For his information, I point out that I have had numerous telephone calls from dairy- farmers in different areas exhorting me to present this case in the House, and I am doing that now. Mr R. J. Gibbs: The honourable member is not known as a milk-drinker in his electorate. Mr PALASZCZUK: I have heard that. Mr R. J. Gibbs inteijected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I have also heard that remark made about the honourable member for Fassifem. The co-operative is allowed to sell only 5 000 litres of milk a day. That means that it can collect the regulated processing fee of 21c a Utre for its market milk. However, the Beaudesert co-operative produces far more milk than that. In fact, it produced 83 per cent more than that. It is forced to sell 15 000 litres of milk a day to the giant, metropolitan-based Queensland United Foods. QUE then picks up the 21c a Utre processing fee simply for putting Beaudesert's milk into cartons. I might also mention that, curtently, QUF supplies the whole of the Brisbane market. It fully owns the Sun Address in Reply 3 September 1985 571

Coast Dairy on the Sunshine Coast and it owns 40 per cent of Gold Coast Milk, which is a subsidiary of the South Coast Dairy. Indeed, QUF controls 62 per cent of the south­ east Queensland market milk and 51 per cent of the market milk for the whole of Queensland. I might add that, under the curious franchising system, the Beaudesert co-operative is forced to seU 6 200 Utres of mUk a day to Gold Coast Milk. It, in tum, coUects the 21c processing fee. However, Gold Coast MUk already seUs 65 000 litres of milk per day. From 1 October, the supply side of the Queensland milk industry is to be deregulated, which will mean that suppliers will have to give only 28 days' notice of their intention to cease supplying milk to a co-operative and they may then leave. There are no prizes for guessing that the larger processors offer a first-up attractiveness to dairy-farmers. That will mean that the smaller mral co-operatives wiU be disadvantaged. Mr Ahern: The dairy-farmers' organisation asked for it. Mr PALASZCZUK: I remind the Minister that aU this is being done under the National Party, which is supposed to stand up for country people. Mr Ahern: I was the Minister. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is right; the Minister was in charge at the time. I remind the Minister that, at about this time last year, I spoke of the cheap, shoddy souvenirs that came from the sweated labour shops of South East Asia. I note that the Minister took my comments on board and instigated an Oscar system. I should like to be the first person to present one of the Oscars because they were my idea, and the Minister stole the idea from my speech. Country towns such as Beaudesert will be disadvantaged, not because they are less efficient, but because the franchises in Queensland are not equal. The absurdity of Beaudesert's case is amplified by the fact that the South Coast Dairy, which intends to take over Beaudesert, is incapable of processing the extra milk that it will receive. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I point out to the honourable member for Fassifem that I have here a letter from Mr Blair of QUF to a Mr HolUndale of the South Coast Co­ operative Dairy Association, offering to purchase 5 milUon litres of manufacture milk should any amalgamation occur. I will read this letter into the record. It is in these terms— "Dear Mr HolUndale, You have advised us of the possibility of amalgamation of Logan & Albert Co-operative Dairy Association Ltd with South Coast Co-operative Dairy, leading to the avaUabUity of a quantity of manufacture mUk. Should the amalgamation eventuate, Q.U.F. Industries Ltd would be prepared to purchase up to 5 miUion litres of manufacture milk per annum at a price which, under the Queensland price stmcture for manufacture milk, as at May, 1985 would enable you to pay your suppliers $3.30 per Kilogram butterfat. We would be prepared to receive the manfacture milk in such combinations of cream/skim milk concentrate, cream/skim milk powder or whole milk as may be convenient for both supplier and purchaser from time to time. Yours faithfuUy Q.U.F. Industries Ltd. (signed) W. H. Blair General Manager" 572 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Why would QUF offer to purchase the milk before any transfer takes place? Why would QUF be so generous if the South Coast Co-operative Dairy Association could process the milk itself? The whole deal smacks of collusion. It is another example of the political pay-offs for which the Queensland National Party is famous. This whole one-sided deregulation is a pay-off to the powerful National Party interests in Queensland. It is also a cynical attempt to get rid of the Beaudesert dairy, which has long been a thom in their side. Mr Davis: Where is that co-operative? Mr PALASZCZUK: It is in the electorate of Fassifem. Mr Scott: The local member is in it up to his ears. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will bring that point up in a moment. The threat to country co-operatives is undeniable. The president of the Queensland Dairymen's State CouncU (Mr Rowley) has said that he would like to see only five co-operatives in Queensland; curtently there are 13. One of the co-operatives to benefit from the deregulation will be the one mn by Mr HolUndale, who, as honourable members will recall, was Mr Hinze's choice for chairman of the Queensland TotaUsator Administration Board. Mr HoUindale and Mr Charlie Holm, senior vice-president of the National Party, do very well out of the Queensland dairy industry. Both are well connected with the Gold Coast, an area that is very influential in National Party affairs. In fact, the Gold Coast has been referred to by joumalists as the home of the mafia of the National Party of Queensland. I have been informed that the Gold Coast dairy has avoided paying its correct amount of levy to the Commonwealth on dairy products. The Gold Coast dairy produces about 500 tonnes of skim milk powder, which, in the 1984-85 financial year, attracted a levy of $474 a tonne. Over a 12-month period, the levy totals $237,000. If the dairy's failure to pay its levy has been going on for a number of years, the Commonwealth could be owed as much as $lm. I call on the Federal Department of Primary Industry to investigate fully the Gold Coast dairy and Mr HolUndale to determine whether the correct amount is being paid. I can see no reason why an efficient country co-operative should be allowed to go to the wall so that a person such as Mr HoUindale can gain a stranglehold on dairying in Queensland. Mr Lingard: Fancy being Jimmy Egan's mate. Mr PALASZCZUK: I fail to understand by his interjections how the honourable member for Fassifem can sit idly by and allow 20 famUies in Beaudesert to lose their bread-winner to the unemployment queues. Residents in the Archerfield electorate do not benefit from the high milk prices that inevitably result from the high cost stmctures that have been built into the dairy industry. The matter demands a full investigation. Indeed, it is about time a royal commission was held to investigate the dairying industry in Queensland. It is the only way in which justice for dairy-farmers and the hard-pressed consumers in my electorate can be done. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (5.18 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly and to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. I express my loyalty and that of my electorate to the Crown and thank and congratulate His Excellency the Govemor on the Speech with which he was pleased to open the present session of the Parliament. I wish His Excellency and Lady Campbell a long, pleasant and satisfying term of office, and I congratulate Sir Walter on his Address in Reply 3 September 1985 573 appointment to the very high office of Govemor of this State. I also wish Sir James and Lady Ramsay a long and happy retirement. I will raise a number of matters today, including the question of janitor/groundsmen in some of the State's smaller schools. Queensland has a quaint system of determining whether a school can have its grass cut or its grounds maintained. It seems to depend not on the number of hectares that have to be maintained but on the number of schoolchildren that attend the school. The situation becomes farcical when looked at logically. It is largely the parents who have to raise funds for ground maintenance and for additional educational equipment. Therefore, the impost on the parents of children at smaller schools is obviously greater because the larger schools have more children and, hence, more parents to carry the load. A number of times I have put forward what I believe to be a satisfactory solution if the Govemment cannot, in its wisdom or in its capacity, fund the janitor/groundsmen for schools with large areas of land. In my electorate I have schools with 5 ha and 6 ha of land which, because they have fewer than 200 children, have to purchase the necessary tractor and equipment, on subsidy. In addition, many of the fathers have to spend their week-ends grass-cutting. However, schools in adjacent areas with much the same area of land—some have smaller areas—but with more than 200 children do not have to place on parents the responsibility for maintenance of the grounds either by way of direct physical effort in manipulating lawn-mowers and other equipment or by way of financial contribution. Something is wrong and I hope that, when the Budget is framed this year, some relief might be given. In the first instance, in some of these areas I would like to see a flying squad comprising a tmck, the necessary equipment, a senior person and probably a junior. It could be a labour-intensive scheme. It would relieve many parents of much hard, week-end work. They could spend their time to much greater advantage. I do not think that it is the role of parents to have to do grass

speciaUsts be provided to visit those schools that are not class I schools but nevertheless have children who are anxious to leam music. The issue of no funds/no teachers is a catch-22 situation. Obviously the department will have to examine the matter of training music specialists or obtaining them from where it will, because I believe that our children certainly deserve that provision. The Liberal Party raised the matter of the 100-day report or the sugar report. Today I noticed that the honourable member for Burdekin (Mr Stoneman) mildly chastised the Liberal parliamentary leader because he tried to have this matter discussed before the sugar industry was able to teU the Govemment what it wanted to do. When any industry is in crisis,- it is the responsibility of this House to debate the matter to see what can be done. The cmshing season has commenced. I have been through the sugar industry. The people are in a state of uncertainty and will remain in that state untU some final decision is taken. The Govemment appointed a committee. Surely it did not appoint a committee of fools; it appointed persons who it felt had the capacity to be able to analyse the situation. The Govemment appointed a chairman of great integrity and competence who could prepare a report and lead the committee to advise the Govemment genuinely on what it believed to be in the best interests of the industry and in the best interests of the

Mr Stoneman: Do you know what the Labor Party wanted to do? Mr LICKISS: I am not worried about what the Labor Party wanted to do. If the honourable member does not want to discuss the matter, I am not terribly concemed what he wants to do. I am concemed that this is a matter of great importance to Queensland. It is not only of vital importance to the growers, who are one component, and it is not only of vital importance to the millers, who are another component. It is of vital importance to the economy of this State. It is of vital importance to the sugar towns, to the sugar areas and to the eastem seaboard from south of the New South Wales border through to Mossman.

Mr Stoneman: You want to go and talk to the farmers and millers. They wiU teU you that they don't want to debate it until they can discuss it. Mr LICKISS: I can understand that they do not want a debate. We happen to form the Pariiament of Queensland. It is not the prerogative of the honourable member's party, the Liberal Party or any other party; it is the prerogative of this Parliament to discuss matters of great importance. When the sugar industry is in crisis, as it is now, the honourable member can please himself when he discusses it. As far as I am concemed and as far as my party is concemed, we will discuss it as and when we can. If the Govemment prevents us from doing that, we wiU let the public know that. The members of the Liberal Party see the crisis. We intend to discuss it and to do something about it. If there is one thing that annoys me more, it is when a Govemment appoints a committee with a competent chairman, a report is issued and the first thing that happens before anyone sees it is that the committee is mbbished by the Govemment. That is a disgusting attitude. If that is the way the Govemment treats people, any future committee v/ould think twice before it contributes its time and expertise in endeavouring to advise the Govemment. The sugar industry is vital to this State. It is one of the great mral industries that Queensland has been able to foster over the years. It is an industry of which all Queenslanders can be proud. Mr Lee interjected. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 575

Mr LICKISS: I have probably grown as much cane as a few of the National Party members, and I believe that, over a period, I have acquired a more intimate knowledge of the industry than many Govemment members. The air should be cleared. It is about time that, when Queensland's mral industries or any other industry faces a crisis, the Govemment saw to it that something is done about it and ensured that what is done is done properly and expertly. The fiiture of the sugar towns and the people who live in them rests on what does or does not happen to the sugar industry in the future. I would have thought that, rather than be criticial of members of the Liberal Party for what they are trying to do, the Govemment would have accepted the advice in the spirit in which it was put forward and that it would be pleased to have the assistance of the Liberal Party in trying to reach a unanimous decision on how to best look after the interests of the sugar industry and to do so at the earliest possible date. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (5.32 p.m.): I support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply so ably moved by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and seconded by the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper). Mr Fouras: This will be real mixed up. Mr SIMPSON: The Opposition is already starting to react. Why does the sovereign head of State open the Parliament? It is because the Speaker sits in his hallowed position in the Parliament as representative of the Crown by tradition, from the days when kings used to govem. With the Magna Carta came parliamentary mle-making, with the sovereign head of State being the enforcer of those mles and the defender of the people. Yet Opposition members have forgotten all that. They no longer show any respect for the Crown, the sovereign head of State or the head of this Parliament, and they no longer stand for the national anthem of any country, including, more recently, the royal anthem of this country. Mr Scott interjected. Mr SIMPSON: As honourable members have already heard. Opposition members favour the changing of these traditions—even changing the national anthem of Australia at a garden party! That is not very democratic. Honourable members opposite should hang their heads in shame when they think of it in those terms. Many members of the Labor Party no longer respect the flag, although they Uke to have it fluttering when they are campaigning. They favour a change of flagalso . I have noticed a number of Opposition members wearing Eureka flag badges—a symbol of revolution. Mr Scott: You haven't got the Australian flag on your coat yourself. You're a hyprocrite! You're an utter and absolute hypocrite! Mr SIMPSON: I am not a hypocrite. The honourable member for Cook obviously supports a change to the flag. I do not support a change to the Australian flag. Mr Scott: You must support it yourself; look at what you're wearing. Mr SIMPSON: I wear also the flag of allegiance to this State, of which I am a representative in this Parliament. The honourable member for Cook obviously does not hold his position in any respect, otherwise he would not be condemning it. I support the Govemor and the office that he holds. I put on record the respect of the constituents of Cooroora for the Crown, their allegiance to the Crown and their thanks to the previous Govemor for his dedication and the wonderful job that he did. I feel sure that the new Govemor, Sir Walter CampbeU, and his wife will foUow in the footsteps of their predecessors and do a good job. I have already met the Govemor on duty. He is friendly and approachable in his role as the sovereign head of our State. 576 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

The State's road toU is of great concem. The cry has gone up from a number of people for the so-called random breath-testing that is carried out in Victoria and New South Wales. It is said that it is one method of reducing the road toU. Mr Davis: One of them. Mr SIMPSON: Yes, I agree, but there are those who suggest that it is the complete answer. Mr Davis: Nobody from this side of the House has ever said that. Mr SIMPSON: I did not say that. Mr Davis: Yes, you did. You said "some people on the Opposition side of the House" Mr SIMPSON: No, I did not. Hansard will prove that. Mr Scott: You are floundering again. Mr SIMPSON: No, I am not floundering. Hansard will record that I was not referring to the Opposition. I said that some people claim that the so-caUed random breath-testing is the answer to our high road toll. Mr Davis: Do you support random breath-testing? Mr SIMPSON: So-called random breath-testing was introduced in Victoria. In spite of the terminology, the system used is really a screening of all drivers in a road-block to ascertain whether any has a high alcohol reading. The system that is used in Queensland, on the other hand, could more correctly be called random breath-testing, because the police select at random people who, they think, may not be in control of a vehicle. Be that as it may; the figures show that the introduction of the so-called random breath-testing in Victoria has not reduced the number of accidents or deaths any more than the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat-belts, the demerit points scheme and low-alcohol beer. That highlights the need for an education program aimed at safety on the road. That is the common denominator. Drivers must be mindful of the dangers on the road and the need to be careful because 97 per cent of road accidents are caused by driver error, V/i per cent by mechanical defects and the remaining IVi per cent by road surface. In Victoria, 75 per cent of the population lives in the capital city. In New South Wales the figure is 66 per cent. In Queensland, however, the figure is 40 per cent. The effectiveness of road-block testing is greater in the city. It is much more difficult to set up that method of testing in smaller towns. Mr Davis: It is no trouble at all. Mr SIMPSON: To be effective, it is. That being so, obviously road-block testing would not be of the same benefit in Queensland. In Victoria, road blocks are made known to hotels by spotters. The patrons are tipped off about the locations of the road blocks and "booze buses" Mr Davis: That does not happen. Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member for Brisbane Central denies that that happens. Mr Davis: Have you ever been down there? Mr SIMPSON: I will put the honourable member for Brisbane Central into the picture. I have seen that happen, and I have also had reports from the police which Address in Reply 3 September 1985 577 indicate that in fact it does take place. The honourable member is now on record as having contradicted what is already evident, because that kind of thing does take place in Victoria. The road toll is extremely regrettable, and I point out that deaths caused by road accidents have one common denominator throughout Australia. I refer to alcohol being consumed, and the effect of alcohol on a person's capacity to drive a motor vehicle. That factor, above all other factors, is responsible for the greatest number of deaths. The diminished capacity of a person to drive because of alcohol is highlighted by the statistics that indicate that young drivers, who probably gain most of their driving experience on the road, account for more than 50 per cent of the total number of road accident deaths. The significant causative factor in that high percentage is alcohol. When the statistics are divided into age group categories, from 18 to 25 the incidence of death caused by road accidents increases substantially to the figure of 70 per cent. Moreover, when the statistical categories are separated into male and female components in the 18 to 25-year-old group, almost 85 per cent of road accident deaths are attributed to males in the same category of age. Apart from causing grave concem, those figures have iUustrated the need for research into the habits of young people with relation to alcohol consumption, and that need has been responded to by the Queensland Govemment. The State Govemment has taken steps to introduce new programs that will alert young school-leavers to the grave dangers associated with alcohol and driving, and to the risk, particularly for young males, of wiping out not only themselves but also other people. It is interesting to note measures adopted by other countries in the field of road safety. In Japan, under a blanket requirement everyone must complete an awareness course before driving licences can be renewed. That has had the instant effect of reducing the number of licensed drivers by 10 per cent, because people did not bother to get their licences renewed. Mr Kaus: Is it tme that drivers in Japan must obtain a parking space for their cars before they even buy a car? Mr SIMPSON: That applies in certain prefectures, but not throughout the whole of Japan. That provision is applied prefecture by prefecture. A far more stringent requirement for driver-training is imposed in Japan through the schools system. In many instances, car-parking areas have been taken over in factory and shopping-centre areas. These spaces have been marked out so that driving tests can be conducted in them, and the tests are conducted after hours and during week-ends, etc. When I visited Japan approximately seven years ago, it cost about $1,000 to $1,500 to obtain a driver's licence. That cost included driving lessons over the period it took drivers to become proficient. I can inform honourable members that the Japanese are very good drivers. Whilst I was in Japan, I drove with some of them and I was very impressed. The roadway is marked so that the lanes are much narrower than they are in Australia. Whereas in Australia there is approximately 12 feet of space in which a car can be driven, the space in Japan is nine feet, and the width remains the same irtespective of whether a driver is passing a tmck, for instance. However, in Japan, the vehicle is driven slower than in Australia. Because of the reduced width of the lane, a person must be a very good driver to be able to cope. I found that the parents of families would say to the younger, licensed members of the family, "You will drive", because the younger members of the family were better drivers. That trend is increasing in Japan and, as the number of road-users increases, so, too, will the benefits to be derived. It is also interesting that the speed limit on freeways in Japan is slightly higher than it is in Australia. However, in many of the areas, as is the case in parts of America, Europe and London, the density of vehicle traffic tends to reduce the speed. That is particularly the case in the built-up areas of London. There are not as many fatal 578 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

accidents in those places, because the traffic is not travelling nearly as fast as it does in Australia. I want to highlight the labour relations legislation introduced by this Govemment and the introduction of contract employment as has occurred at Mudginberri in the Northem Territory. Under the contract entered into there, the workers and the abattoir- owners are better off because slaughter prices per body are a third of the normal price. Yet the union has come in and tried to stop that obviously sensible system being continued, even though it is far more efficient than the tally system. The Federal Govemment could act under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, but it will not do so even though the union is in conflict with the legislation. Everyone knows why. The union told the Federal Govemment to remove those sections of the Act. Legislation was passed by the House of Representatives, but, fortunately, it was not passed by the Upper House. The National Farmers Federation and the abattoir- owners are fighting the union, and so far they are winning. However, the pickets are still operating and preventing meat from being exported. One of the problems in this country is the attitude of the socialists to work and productivitly. It is extremely disappointing. A crisis has arisen in the sugar industry. Reference has been made to rationalising the sugar industry and to its becoming more efficient. However, no reference has been made to rationalising employment in this country, even though the nations with which we compete are endowed with far more productive work-forces than Australia's. AustraUan farmers have become very efficient and innovative by world standards; in fact, Queensland cane-farmers lead the world. The sugar industry has faced similar crises in the past. In 1966-67 the sugar industry borrowed $23m and paid back $32m, thus enabling the AustraUan tax-payer to make a profit. At the moment all the industry is asking is that it be granted similar loans. The Queensland Govemment believes that that is a Federal Govemment responsibUity. Earlier in the debate, it was suggested that the problems of the sugar industry should be debated in this Chamber now. Such a debate would pre-empt talks that the industry is having at a grower level. I believe that the prime responsibility is Canberra's and that any debate should be conducted there. In fact, there should not even be a debate; the Federal Govemment should be getting on with the job of saving this great industry. It saved the wool industry with the floor price plan—I have been through that—and also the beef industry. The Federal Govemment also provided a great deal of assistance to the car industry and the steel industry. To hesitate now is to cast aspersions on the great sugar industry and Australia's capacity to produce and be profitable. I reiterate that this country is in debt overseas to the tune of $70 billion. Why would the Federal Govemment act to increase that indebtedness when the sugar industry has the capacity to reduce it, be it only by $500m or $ 1,000m? That would be far preferable to moving into greater indebtedness. Australia's overseas indebtedness is already higher than Mexico's and is comparable to that of many other Third Worid countries. It is almost unthinkable that that should be allowed to occur when the sugar industry is prepared to work to improve the position. In the Nambour area alone, when the industry is in full stride it pours almost $80m a year into the community. The actual value of sugar produced is just in excess of $20m. Mr D'Arcy: What is Queensland's indebtedness? Mr SIMPSON: Indebtedness in what? Mr D'Arcy: In the amount you have given for Australia. Mr SIMPSON: I will continue with the sugar industry. In a year, Nambour produces sugar to the value of $20m. The multiplier effect is about four or five to one. To sacrifice or cut back the industry in the situation in which Address in Reply 3 September 1985 579 a mill stands alone, as does the Moreton MiU at Nambour, would mean that there was no way in which the cane-growers could deliver their cane to another mill, because the nearest mills are at Maryborough to the north and Rocky Point to the south. The Moreton Mill supplies sugar to the refinery in Brisbane, which helps to meet Brisbane's needs. The mill is efficient in terms of the placement of sugar. In my opinion, the Federal Govemment and Kerin are not fair dinkum about the sugar industry. Mr Scott: You couldn't say Mr Tumer was fair dinkum about the sugar industry. Mr SIMPSON: Of course he is fair dinkum. He went down to Canberra with the Premier and said, "Don't be conned by an inquiry. We know that this industry wants money and a floor price." However, they were conned by a 100-day inquiry. Kerin came back here and said to the Minister for Primary Industries, "Here is the report, but do not tell the growers, because I want to talk to you about the below-reasonable floor price of $220, $215, and $210 paid too late." That was no good, but Kerin tried to get the Minister caught up on the sticky paper. The Minister would not be a party to that, because that would have meant letting down the Queensland industry. Rightly so, the Minister did not agree to Kerin's subterfuge. He waited for the industry to come to a resolution, and the industry is doing that now. It is quite obvious that the growers want financial support and that they want it now. Now is the time to apply the fertiUser for the plant cane and the ratoon crops for next year. The Federal Govemment, in good common sense, should play its usual role in support of this major AustraUan primary industry. However, it is not doing that. It has the perverted idea of trying to get rid of primary producers in Queensland. An Oppostion Member interjected. Mr SIMPSON: I ask the honourable member to wait and see if that is not the tmth. We already have it on good authority that Kerin is not prepared to support the industry, and he is certainly not prepared to support it across the board at a price of $240 a tonne, which the industry claims is the absolute minimum. The honourable member knows that that is so. Kerin is the man who said, on a television program, when confronted about the unions stopping work at Mudginberri, "Yes, we reaUse that the unions are breaking the law, but we are not prepared to do anything about it." He did not tell the tmth and say that he and the Labor Party tried to get rid of that legislation so that the unions would not be outside the law. Opposition members should hang their heads in shame. That is typical of Kerin's performance. He is great on rhetoric, but he is very weak on performance. He is not fair dinkum about the sugar industry. If he was, he would quickly support the floor price. We know the history of the contribution by the State Govemment, that is, $2 for every dollar from the Federal Govemment in supporting individual primary producers in the sugar industry to try to help them through the awkward times of low world prices. The subsidised EEC overproduction is responsible for the low world prices, because the excess sugar has been dumped on world markets. AustraUa should once again approach the EEC, but the Federal Govemment and Kerin are not doing that. The approach should be made at the highest level, by the Prime Minister. AustraUa should be discussing another intemational sugar agreement. As was done in the past, Australia should be represented by the highest level of leadership. Mr Prest: Who? Mr SIMPSON: Doug Anthony, Sinclair and McEwen. In the past, those men have put together for the sugar industry agreements that have been every effective. 580 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

However, the present Federal Govemment does not want to help the sugar industry because it does not like Queensland. That is a shame. It makes good sense to support an industry such as the sugar industry, which is efficient. Many of the recommendations of the 100-day committee are very cosmetic, and it is known in the industry that they will do little to improve the viability of the industry or reduce the cost of production. Some recommendations wiU be helpful because they free up the current regulations, but they should not be a requirement to save this industry on which many towns rely and on which much of this great State's infrastmcture has been built. Queensland has tremendous tourist potential. The natural beauty of my electorate is very attractive but, if a few outstanding tourist attractions were tagged through brochures, more tourists would be attracted to the area. Australia should co-ordinate its resources generally to attract as many overseas tourists as possible. Of the 300 million intemational tourists travelling the world, Australia attracts only 1 per cent. If that figure could be increased to 2 per cent, the economy of this State would improve immensely. If a new airline agreement were made, that increase could be possible tomorrow. However, the restraints that are placed on travel to this country are unfortunate because they restrict the number of tourists who can get here. People catch the travelling bug and want to go to places they have not been before. Most of the world's travellers live in the northem hemisphere and, although it is dearer for them to travel to Australia, it is on their list and eventually they wiU come. However, they need to be attracted by brochures. Australians know that our beaches, rivers and other natural attractions are better than those anywhere else in the world, but people overseas do not know that. There is only one Eiffel Tower and people go to see it because it is the only one. That is what we must do here in Australia; we must highlight our unique attractions. For example, near Yandina is the world's largest ginger factory; it is also the only one in the southem hemisphere. Australia is the only country to have lung fish, and that should be promoted as a tourist attraction. Those are the Idnds of things that Australia should put on its tourist brochures and tag them as being unique to this country. Such attractions are of interest to the package tours that bring intemational tourists to Australia. Expo 88 will be a great opportunity for Queensland to advertise its attractions. Tour-operators in Queensland should get their act together now, because the packaging and selling of tours for Expo 88—which will be a tremendous boost for this State and AustraUa—should be done now. Travellers will already be looking as far ahead as 1988 in their holiday-planning, especially if they must come from the northem hemisphere. More people in the Australian tourist industry are presenting Australian tourist attractions with more expertise. However, overseas help and advice are still needed so that we do it even more effectively. The tourist industry still depends very heavily on interstate tourists. Almost 85 per cent of travel in Australia is done by road so the roads in Queensland must be improved. Fortunately, Sunshine Coast roads are improving but, for safety reasons alone, the main highways need to be upgraded. Because of the sad loss of life through road accidents, divided highways and proper interchanges are needed. Improvement in road design as distinct from road surface wiU definitely help. Queensland has a great future, and it has a good Govemment. That future wiU be even brighter if everyone sets out to do his bit to make it better. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m. Mr PRICE (Mount Isa) (7.15 p.m.): In joining in the debate, I wish to address my comments principally to northem development, especially in my own electorate. Last Thursday, Mount Isa Mines Holdings Ltd ended its financial year back in proft and is eageriy awaiting a retum to the black over the current full year. The tum-round in its fortunes heralds the success of a large cost-cutting exercise and the devaluation of the Address in Reply 3 September 1985 581

Australian dollar. The cost-cutting included the seUing off of some of its assets, including oil and iron ore interests and, unfortunately, a reduction in total staff numbers by about 14 per cent. The Mount Isa workers were called upon to do their bit in an attempt to reverse the accelerating decline in the local mine's fortunes. The State Govemment was called upon to assist in fairly taxing the mine by adjusting its royalty payment formula to equate an income tax—that is, by allowing royalties to reflect the fortunes of the mine. It was also approached to do the same with rail freights. That raUway line has carried the wealth of Mount Isa—quite precariously at times—to the east coast and the world. That line has spurted the growth of the State's second largest city—Townsville. It is the first profitable Une in the history of Queensland's railways. It is a line which, in my opinion, should be directed more regionally to the Gulf of Capentaria. On that line the freight charges have suppressed growth and caused the retrenchment of workers. Out of all that, the workers responded the best. They excelled themselves by cutting the cost of producing copper by 15 per cent. They increased production, despite their depleted numbers and brought the company back onto financial line. The State Gov­ ernment, hurting because of its own financial ineptitude, refused to act. The Premier and Treasurer would not even listen to the pleas of the State's wealth-producer. He told it to get out of its trouble the best way it could. AU honourable members would remember his saying that here in the House. On the day that he did that, he criticised the company's management. Additionally, Mount Isa Mines Holdings Ltd applied, as is its right as a producer of copper ore, for a variation of the rate of royalty, which all miners feel is not relative to real market situations. Section 50 (2) (d) (iv) of part VI in the royalties section of the Mining Act regulations states— "A deduction of 20 per centum may be allowed against the royalty payable if the particular mineral is extracted by underground mining methods and is sold in market competition with open-cut mines." The Govemment could see that the mine at Mount Isa was bleeding and it had an opportunity to save jobs. It was the first time in the company's history that it had asked for relief following what it described as four years of generally poor prices. Royalties from the mine at Mount Isa totalled about $30m and the relief applied for would amount to only about $2.5m. Mr Miller interjected. Mr PRICE: The mine at Mount Isa falls into the category of a mine mentioned in that legislation. I stress that the company was not applying for a concession. Mr Miller interjected. Mr PRICE: If the member for Ithaca (Mr Miller) would like to rejoin the ranks over here, representations will be made by all parties. Perhaps he should be on this side, anyway. I stress again that the company was not applying for a concession when it made this application. In recent years, increasing proportions of copper are being mined by the open-cut method—in particular, in Chile and Pem, where foreign exchange has such a high priority. The Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr I. J. Gibbs), in an unprecedented move, nominated the company that had applied for the reUef Generally when this relief is applied for, the name of the company is kept secret. Obviously the disclosure was done in an attempt to embarrass its management. As a follow-up to what the Premier had previously done, he was obviously out to embartass the management of Mount Isa 582 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Mines Holdings Ltd. He then confirmed his Cabinet's decision by hypocritically saying in The Sunday Mail of 21 July 1985— "I can't see why we should lower royalties in times of low world market prices. After all, we don't increase them when prices for minerals are booming." I suggest that the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) go into a huddle with the Minister for Mines and Energy. The Mining Act speUs out in no uncertain terms that, under the royalty regulations, the State Govemment's royalty formula is an escalation clause only. There is no fall clause, only a rise clause. Can the Minister explain to me the rationale behind Cabinet's decision, or shall I ask Mr Hielscher, the real Treasurer of Queensland? He might have a less confused outlook. While on the mining scene, I tum my attention to the topical mineral in mining and technological circles today Mr Miller: When did you know of a fall in production costs? Mr PRICE: Had the honourable member Ustened earUer, he would have heard that I explained that the miners of Mount Isa responded to the call by reducing the production costs of copper by 15 per cent in the last six months. There is the fall in costs that the honourable member is asking about. While on the mining scene, I would like to refer to a particular mineral that is perhaps the most topical in mining and technological circles today—siUca. It is silica in mining but fibre optics in technology. With the advent to telecommunications networks via digital telephone systems and satellites, a new technology has arrived that promises not only to meet future demand but also to increase it. SateUite technology has been available and has been applied to both national and intemational telecommunications for many years. It represents a technology that has application particularly in the Australian outback. It is the most cost-effective known technology capable of overcoming the tyranny of distance of the vast outback and other regions of this continent, enabling communication of many kinds to be available. The highways for industry and commerce that the satellite can provide can be compared with the economic benefits of highways made with bitumen and cement. Optical communication is already making its presence felt in such wonders as the ability to carry perhaps 10 000 simultaneous telephone conversations on pairs of ultra- thin glass fibres without the need for kilometres of bulky and expensive copper cables. I am not opposed to copper-mining. I point out that the technological substitute for copper that is obviously the in mineral is unexploited in this State—fine glass fibres of exceptional purity and even quality. They are very efficient information-carriers with the unusual ability to act as highly accurate sensors that monitor temperature, liquid levels, displacement current, voltage and dozens of other things. In a world made smaUer and mutuaUy interdependent by communications and trade, a cheaper or better product soon establishes a new equiUbrium in the market-place. It promises to be cheap, because it is made of silica—that is, sand. Everyone knows how much sand there is in Australia, particularly in Queensland. The first cab off the rank in this venture will be the exceptionally pure sands—the exceptionally pure silica that also comes in the form of quartz. The coarser, dirtier sands are marketable for abrasives, and easily so. The potential size of the technological industry was expressed to me recently by a manufacturer on the Gold Coast. He said that it was predicted by the industry that in 1990 the technological industry would be worth $1 biUion billion world-wide. If it reaches that size, it will be the largest industry ever known to man. The purer silica deposits in Queensland are lacking exploitation. Cape Flattery, which is mn with Japanese interests, exports all that it can produce to Japan, to New Guinea and even to New South Wales and Victoria, which have treatment plants— something Queensland does not have. There are just no treatment works in Queensland. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 583

Mr Miller: Why? Mr PRICE: That surprises me, and that is the question that I would like to put to the Government. Why does Queensland not have a silica-treatment plant? Mr Scott: They are hopeless as a Govemment. Mr PRICE: It certainly appears that way. I believe that it has not even been looked into. A few weeks ago the State Govemment announced the curtailment of electricity production in Queensland. CoUinsville Power Station is to cut its production by half, and the tremors mnning through that town at the moment have to be seen to be believed. However, the anomaly is that Mount Isa Mines received a grant of $ 14.5m, or perhaps $16.5m, towards the expansion of its power station. That amount was handed over by the electricity authorities for the expansion of that particular unit. Both places have the capacity to produce oodles of electricity and Mr Miller: Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to the handing over? Mr PRICE: I am not opposed to the production of electricity. What defeats me is the need for the cut-back. Both places have the capacity to produce this electricity and, believe me, electricity is what is needed in the production of silica. Previously all of the silica produced in Australia has been used in iron and steel production. The production of fibre optics provides a golden opportunity for getting into a market for the silica deposits in Queensland. This State does have particularly pure deposits of both silica sand and silica quartz. The Mount Isa region contains large deposits of exceptionally pure silica quartz. Prices for 99.5 per cent pure silica or better are good on the export market at the moment, even without treatment. It is being shipped out of Cape Flattery both cmshed and whole, untreated, to places such as Japan and New Guinea so that they can have the down-line production of the mineral. That plant is being neglected. What has this Govemment done to encourage the establishment of a plant to manufacture fibre optics in Mount Isa, CoUinsville, Townsville or, for that matter, anywhere else in the north? What help is available to producers? Why has the Queensland Govemment not exploited the fibre optics industry? Where is the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter)? Mr Scott: Where is Mr Ahem, you might say? Mr PRICE: Where is the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem)? In mentioning fibre optics and communication, I must allude to the sateUite in the sky. It is certainly a great thing for the people of Australia. I believe that it is the greatest thing for the outback since the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and perhaps in years to come it will receive the ultimate of accolades, that is, have a TV soap opera named after it. I am proud to be involved in the area singled out for educational health and other experimentation in this great plan to lessen the isolation of the outback. With its pilot program, worth $7m, the Queensland Govemment will certainly be to the fore in the use of the satellite by the introduction of Q-Net. I will plagiarise from a document that landed on my desk this aftemoon and is titled The Aussat Satellite and Social and Economic Development in Australia, by Douglas M. Rowell. It is particularly clear about the services that wiU be provided by Q-Net itself 1 will mention a few of them because they affect my electorate probably more than anywhere else in Queensland. 584 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

In my opinion, the most exciting part of it all is telemedicine Mr Scott: There would be a concem, of course, that Telecom could do these things more cheaply. Mr PRICE: If the honourable member for Cook wiU bear with me, I will put those things to the Govemment. Mr Miller: At least the Queensland Govemment is prepared to do something and put its money up. Mr PRICE: For the purpose of the record, I wiU take that inteijection because I will be answering it a little later. Telemedicine is a trial centred on Mount Isa with interconnections to Doomadgee, Momington Island, Burketown and Normanton. If in those centres—if Doomadgee has a hospital, which is another matter—this telemedicine facility is provided, people wiU be able to use a TV camera to show the injury. People wiU not have to be supersleuths or superskilled to operate the camera as the cameras wiU be fairly simple to operate. The camera wiU focus on the injury and experts either at the Mount Isa Base Hospital or in the Brisbane general hospital wiU be able to look at the injury in colour. The best specialists in the State will be avaUable to make a diagnosis on the basis of the picture, determine the treatment necessary and relay it through the facsimile machine. That is tremendous. It is the best thing since the flying doctor. The second test appUcation is by the School of the Air. Everybody is familiar with that, because it has received the most publicity. A trial wiU be centred in Mount Isa, involving students in the surrounding region. The quality and productivity of leaming so delivered are expected to improve dramatically through better student/teacher contact and faster response. River-monitoring will be avaUable. The Gulf has perennial rivers, which some honourable members probably have never seen. The Lawn Hill Gorge, which is on one of the north's perennial streams, is soon to be opened to the public. River data wiU be sent direct to Brisbane via the satellite. There is a need to provide on a regular basis continuing educational offerings to update the skills of nurses. Recently Mount Isa encountered numerous problems because of the need to send trainee nurses to Maryborough to complete their training. It is hoped that the need for much of that will be obviated. The joint use of the computer, the telephone and television sets has made possible the development of an interactive data base storage and retrieval system caUed videotex. Can honourable members believe that finaUy, by the assistance of the satellite, it will be possible to know the time at which trains will arrive, without passengers having to wait for them to round the comer? Direct communications with the train will make it possible to tell when a train will arrive. Mr Miller: Who is paying for it? Mr PRICE: I am coming to that. Queensland will follow the American experience of schools with no waUs. Lessons will be capable of being taken in the Australian outback by two or three people who have enrolled in, say, a foreign language, carpentry, butchering, advanced mathematics or other courses provided by the University of Queensland, an institute of technology or the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. The result, of course, will be nothing short of absolute wonder and excitement. Mr Miller: Provided by the Queensland Govemment. Mr PRICE: I will never question the provision of these services; but it would be remiss of me if I did not ask some obvious questions: As the State Govemment Q-Net Address in Reply 3 September 1985 585 arrangement with Aussat is a pUot program, what happens at the conclusion? Will the outback lose its services if the money should mn out? Are there altematives to Q-Net for the Queensland Govemment's communication needs? Could Telecom, for example, duplicate the services to the remote services that are to be served by Q-Net? Could it be done more cheaply, remembering fibre optics? Can the State Govemment compete with Telecom? Although the concept is marvellous, I sense a confidence trick for propaganda purposes. Mr Miller: By whom? Mr PRICE: Perhaps the member for Ithaca is a party to it. Certainly he will be in the same ranks as the member for Aspley (Mr Cahill) if he keeps it up. Strangely enough, I cannot recall any involvement by the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter). Where was he when aU of this was being formulated? Where was he this year, for instance, when Mount Isa experienced trouble? The Minister for Northem Development is never there. ExtraordinarUy, the Govemor's Speech not only ignored the heart-break being experienced by our northem sugar regions; apart from the sateUite connection, it made no mention of the north at all. Northem Queenslanders have every reason to feel aggrieved. The money generated by the railway to Mount Isa is used to buUd beautiful highways and commuter rail links in the south-east comer of the State. The monstrously large northem development department, with its staff of one, exemplifies the lip-service paid to balanced State development by the Govemment and highlights the limited ability of the incumbent Minister. Action must be taken to reduce the influence of the National Party's preference for the south-east comer. The Australian Labor Party has recently announced its poUcy to promote decentralisation through regional development. MIM Limited promotes decentralisation through its policy of preferential purchasing. That plan directs funds into the north-west area of the State through businesses that have operations in Mount Isa, which encourages firms to establish themselves in the north-west region. Private sector administration would be excited by an inducement to decentralise by way of example if the State Government were to decentralise its own highly centralised administration. I wish to give an example of the problems that are being encountered. Recently, a regional inspector, who had been permanently estabUshed in Mount Isa, was withdrawn by the Industry and Commerce Training Commission. In spite of the rantings of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester), I cannot see why he would take an inspector out of a provincial city in the circumstances that I wish to outUne. I feel that it must be an attempt by a public servant to save money and impress the Minister. Submissions from interested parties and community groups were made to the Minister about the withdrawal by the Industry and Commerce Training Commission of that inspector. Those submissions were placed under review, and they have been under review for eight months. During that period, the region has been without an inspector for six months. In the meantime, 750 apprentices in the north-west region have been left out on a limb. Occasional visits by an inspector from either Caims or Townsville are not acceptable. Such visits will not provide the assistance that is necessary for employee and employer groups, as laid down by the Industry and Commerce Training Act, nor will they encourage employers to employ apprentices for training in the light of the knowledge that no independent back-up support will be forthcoming. The Mount Isa region has 114 employer groups, and it has another 26 employer groups that have a possible involvement in employee and trainee programs. 586 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Miller: Is the honourable member for Mount Isa saying that all of the employers in that area vote Labor? Mr PRICE: If the honourable member for Ithaca would listen, probably he would leam. Without the services of a full-time training inspector, the Mount Isa Regional Advisory Committee will be impeded in its efforts to encourage employers to take on new apprentices or trainees. The people in my electorate are concemed about the development and support of the young people of Australia. Employer groups have shouldered their share of that responsibility, despite the economic mess into which the Queensland Govemment has led the State. I point out that a town such as Gladstone, which has 600 apprentices, has one inspector; Maryborough/Bundaberg has 700 apprentices, and two inspectors are located there; yet Mount Isa, with 750 apprentices, does not have an inspector. I will now list the duties that an inspector, who should be providing assistance to young people, has to carry out. I ask all honourable members to multiply this work-load by 750 and then try to tell me that this Govemment is not abdicating its responsibilities. This is what an inspector has to do: he has to ensure that technical and further education classes are conducted regularly; he has to check on and counsel apprentices who have been absent from the work-place; he has to interpret and administer the Act and its regulations; he has to check rates of pay and conditions of employment; he has to ensure that the work­ place is safe and facilitates training; he has to undertake log-book inspections, apprentice transfer arrangements, disciplinary action of apprentices, placement and accommodation for apprentices; he has to ensure that the apprentice-training complies with the require­ ments that are laid down in the Act; he has to maintain personal contact with the apprentices on an individual basis (and that is an Industry and Commerce Training Commission Rule that must be observed twice a year); he has to promote apprentice trainee programs with prospective employer groups; he has to undertake the role of arbitrator in employer/employee disputes; and he has to administer and plan training programs. That is the list of duties that must be carried out in respect of each and every apprentice in the field. Mount Isa has 750 apprentices but it has no inspectorial representative. How could an inspector who is a visitor to the region perform those duties effectively and efficiently whilst delivering the services that the young people are entitled to and deserve because of their own commitment to training? Mr Miller: Prove they are not getting it. Go on, name one case. Mr PRICE: I would not ask for the replacement of that inspector if there were insufficient cases to justify it. The Govemor neglected to mention the 1986 North Queensland Games. They will mean the greatest mass movement of people the top half of the State has ever seen. Only a few weeks ago a Minister of the Crown tried to sabotage the Games. He tried to torpedo them by not allowing the Railway Department to provide a train to carry people from Townsville and other towns on the coast across to Mount Isa. Fortunately, through the help of the head of that department and various State politicians, a train will now be provided to relieve the pressure on the roads for that period. Last year in Townsville the inaugural Games attracted 6 572 competitors and 32 550 spectators. Next year those numbers will be surpassed. With the expertise of volunteers who mn the city's Rotary Rodeo, the third-largest in the world apart from Calgary in Canada and Cheyenne in the United States of America, the mnning of the Games will be precise and the atmosphere electric. Formed to encourage participation in sport, this biannual event will bring friendship and competition to isolated communities that have been neglected in that sphere for a long time. Only those who live in such communities will know what I mean. Present in the Chamber this evening is the original convenor of the North Queensland Games Foundation. I salute the member for Townsville (Mr McElligott). He can stand and take Address in Reply 3 September 1985 587

a bow. I salute him for knowing what isolation is all about and what lack of competition in sport is all about. Mr Milliner: I bet you wouldn't get any support from the member for Ithaca. Mr PRICE: I certainly would not get any support from him. He has no idea of those problems or the strain of outback living. Bom out of isolation and neglect by a Govemment that knows little of remoteness and its strains, the Games will engender a spirit that city dweUers would envy and that few experience. We welcome you all, even this Govemment and the Govemor who forgot to mention us. Incidentally, the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter) is again conspicuous by his absence in the Games promotion. Not satisfied with the neglect of Queensland's remote regions, not satisfied when even its speech-writers omit mention of them in the Govemor's Speech, this Govemment oppresses the north west with the nation's highest electricity charges. Not even satisfied with that, it discriminates by alleviating some of the burden for sections of the community and not for others. Five separate tariffs are offered to mral users, and I wish them luck. But domestic urban dwellers receive only one relief tariff, and that is the same charge. Certainly consumers get a discount on their accounts, but only if they tum off their power supply during certain hours. Big deal! This is all done under the sacred banner of standardisation. In reaUty it is over a drive to hold back solar power. I would love to elaborate on that subject as well. This draconian Govemment has reached the peak of the public's abUity to pay. The electricity authority in this State has become a monster. It owes $3 billion—half the national deficit for one quango—aU for the rationalisation of power charges. The north west enjoyed one of the cheapest sources of power in the State before the passage of the Electricity Act and the Premier's promise of cheap power and standardised rates. Mr Miller: You guessed right—and what other charges? Mr PRICE: That is something the honourable member knows nothing about. The introduction of the authority added over $3m a year in tariffs to consumers in my region. Even the State's sugar regions know when standardisation and regulation have to be dismantled, and they accept flexibility. But not this authority; it goes on blindly until our future citizens will be burdened with the highest per capita pubUc sector debt in the Commonwealth. Queensland is out in front with the highest electricity charges in the nation despite Queensland having, in its own back yard, some of the world's largest coal deposits to fire the authority's generators. Last week, in answer to a question from the member for Warwick (Mr Booth), the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr I. J. Gibbs) challenged me to speak out against uniform tariffs. Mr ALISON (Maryborough) (7.45 p.m.): In taking part in the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, firstly, and properly, I affirm my loyalty and that of the people of the electorate of Maryborough to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia and Queen of Queensland. I also record my appreciation and that of my electorate of the tremendous service given to this State by the former Govemor, Sir James Ramsay, and his good wife. Lady Ramsay. I am sure that many Queensland people were very sorry when they heard that Sir James Ramsay was retiring. I am sure that we all wish him and his good lady well in their retirement. Mr Borbidge: They chose a good place for their retirement. Mr ALISON: I understand that they retired to the very beautiful Gold Coast. I add my words of welcome to the new Govemor, Sir Walter CampbeU, and Lady Campbell. Quite obviously. Sir Walter is a man of tremendous achievement in the legal 588 3 September 1985 Address in Reply profession and the armed services. He is a man with great warmth and feeling. I am sure that he will do a wonderful job as Govemor of this great State. I now direct some remarks to the worst economic problem in this great country of ours conceming the well-being and standard of living of all our people. I refer to the rigidities in our wage-fixing system, which has evolved from the system of Great Britain. Until we get deregulation of the labour market, at least in the small-business area, that is, businesses employing up to 50 employees, we will continue doddering on economically, watching the standard of living of our people drop back and generally go into decline. Unfortunately the centralised wage-fixing system in Australia has become an albatross hanging round the necks of all Australians. Our system of wage-fixing belongs to an era of perhaps 50 years ago. It has no place in modem society when no country can insulate itself from the economic and market forces without. In particular, no country can insulate itself from the competitive sources of other countries. The inflexible, centralised wage- fixing system that we have in Australia and the intransigence of union-leaders, as well as the weakness of business-leaders and most Govemments, are the main problems in Australia at the present time, and have been so for many years. If we do nothing in Australia over the next five years other than tackle this problem successfuUy and deregulate the labour market, at least in the small-business area, that is, in businesses with up to 50 employees, wherein lies the area of greatest potential for job creation, we will have done a good job for the people of Queensland and of Australia and served Queensland and Australia well. Our present centralised wage-fixing system and the plain blockheadedness of most union-leaders, combined with the weakness of business-leaders and Govemments, have made Australia absolutely non-competitive in overseas markets, and completely non­ competitive against goods imported to this country. The system has also created unemployment the likes of which we have not seen since the days of the Great Depression. The inbuilt demarcation nonsense in industries, as a direct result of unions being selfish and stupid about their powers, has made industry throughout Australia inefficient. Mr Paul Keating, the Federal Treasurer, has deregulated to some extent the financial system, particularly with reference to banking and the floating of the dollar. Those were good moves. I give Mr Keating credit for having done that. However, we now have the stupid situation, the completely unworkable situation, in which, on the one hand, the financial system is deregulated to some extent, which means that Australian companies now have to face what other countries think of our economic performance through the value of the Australian dollar, while, on the other hand, the main costs generally to businesses, that is, labour costs, are fixed through our completely out-of-date wage-fixing system. It does not work, it has not worked, and it will not work in the future. Mr De Lacy: What you forget is that it is working. Mr ALISON: I can only say to the honourable member that if he reckons it is working Mr De Lacy: The economy is improving. Mr ALISON: The honourable member really understands very little. Perhaps he may care to enlighten the House on why he thinks our industries have become completely uncompetitive on the world market. Mr Borbidge: The honourable member is obviously quite happy to accept the present level of unemployment in this country. Mr ALISON: That is a very good point. Obviously that is the case. I suppose the honourable member would consider it quite acceptable to have 8 or 9 per cent of the work-force unemployed. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 589

Mr De Lacy: The Australian economy is growing. The only way we will get employment is through growth, and we have growth. Mr ALISON: I will put the honourable member right. I know that Mr Keating is very happy to say that the Australian economy is growing. The only places in which the Australian economy is growing is the public sector and the overseas debt. The honourable member should read the statistics and not waste any more of my time. If he wants me to explain them to him in detail later, I will. The union-leaders are so thick-headed that they cannot see this or so frightened of losing power that they will not see this. I have no doubt that the mood of the electorate is ripe for a change. The people of Australia realise that the system is not working and must be changed drastically. Those political parties that do not come up with the answers for deregulating the labour market, particularly in the small business sector, will have to face the electors at the ballot-box as being out of date and irrelevant to today's problems, as the ALP and its platform are. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr ALISON: That is a good question. I wonder what the opponents of deregulation are scared of It may have something to do with maintaining power over the workers. Earlier this year, the Queensland Govemment demonstrated that it is possible for Govemments to stand up to union abuse of power and that was the first step in cutting back on union power and moving towards deregulating the labour market. According to the unions, the issue was all about whether the South East Queensland Electricity Board had the right to employ contract labour. The next battle in this move for change is at Mudginberri in the Northem Territory. Completely voluntarily, the workers entered into an agreement with the employer at the abattoir on the basis of payment at particular rates for work done. This agreement was approved by the court. The union expelled the workers. That is really looking after the workers! Mr Borbidge: The union is based in Melboume. Mr ALISON: That is correct; the union is based in Melboume. It would not know much about what goes on in Mudginberri. Under this perfectly legal agreement, wages range from $700 to $1,000 per week, which is not a really bad salary. No doubt the workers at the Mudginberri abattoir have to work hard, and no doubt they earn their money. However, they are working hard voluntarily and are eaming an excellent salary. By expelling them, the union did not take a great step forward. Apart from the greatly increased eaming of the workers, the direct result of this agreement between the workers and the abattoir is that the costs of the abattoir have decreased to about one quarter of what they were under the tally system. I know that it is a little hard for honourable members opposite to understand, but, in tum, those lower costs put the employer in a more competitive position with overseas products. The direct consequence of that is that he may pick up more contracts and, as a follow- up, he may be able to create employment. Mr Borbidge: That is against ALP policy. Mr ALISON: It is. ALP policy is to keep the worker down, shut him up and keep him under control. That is what the ALP considers to be looking after the worker. What this issue is really all about is the tally system versus contract labour; the people and the law representing the people versus the anarchist union-leaders. Mr Hawke has not been of any help. He does not want to know of the problem. If he had any guts 590 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

or intestinal fortitude—if he could stand up to the ACTU—he would make those meat- inspectors go back to the meatworks and allow this firm to export its meat. Mr Hawke should stand up for the law and for the people of AustraUa and not keep knuckling under to the unions. He should bear in mind who put him in office. On second thoughts, probably the unions did put him there and he has some deal going with the ACTU. As a matter of fact, it would be correct to say that, at present, there is a coalition in Canberra—a coalition of the ACTU and the ALP, with the ACTU the dominant partner. Mr Borbidge: The majority party. Mr ALISON: Yes, the ACTU is the majority party. I wish to refer briefly to an article in The Australian of Friday, 16 August, which probably sums the matter up and indicates the blockheadedness of some of these union- leaders, particularly in this dispute. The subheading is— "Meatworkers will min anyone rather than have contract system." I wonder why? It would be very interesting to get the real facts of why they oppose a contract system and why they want to keep everyone on the tally system. From the same page of that newspaper I quote the following— "The Territory's Chief Minister, Mr Tuxworth, told The Australian he was 'absolutely shattered' by the economic effects of the four-month-old dispute. He believed that it was the AMIEU's ultimate aim to close aU meat-processing works in the Territory. 'It is my opinion the meatworkers wiU go to the waU on this and min anyone they can—rather than see the contract system introduced.' he said." That is the sort of nonsense that honourable members opposite in the socialist Opposition stand up for. Instead of standing up for the people of Queensland, they stand up for the unions and union power. That is what it is all about. This battle must be won by the employees, the people of Australia and the owners of the Mudginberri abattoir. That is what it boils down to. If it is lost, the battle to change the nation's out-of-date wage-fixing system will be put back years. Mr De Lacy: Why did they go off the contract system? Mr ALISON: I am sure the honourable member will have an opportunity to tell the House all about that. At the same time he can tell us where he stands. Last week Mr John Howard, the Deputy Opposition Leader in the Federal Parlia­ ment, announced that a Liberal Govemment in Canberra would legislate to aUow businesses employing fewer than 50 people to make their own deals with employees on pay, penalty rates and working hours. Mr Howard is also reported as saying that deregulation of the labour market was the first priority of a coalition Govemment. Mr Vaughan: He won't have a say. He's on the outer. Mr ALISON: Whether or not Mr Howard has a say in the future, he has stated the policy of the coalition. I congratulate Mr Howard and the Federal Liberal Party on this very important step in the return of a coalition Govemment in Canberta and on a very important step in the right direction to deregulate the nation's labour market. I urge my National Party colleagues in Canberra to get right behind Mr Howard in this matter and develop a similar policy to complement Mr Howard's efforts in this regard. Mr Howard is also reported as saying that complementary Federal/State legislation should be passed for the small-business sector to have the choice of operating outside the arbitration commission, with employers and employees striking their own deals. I do not know why honourable members opposite would object to that little bit of freedom. That is what has happened at Mudginberri. Mr Borbidge: Could it be that the union heavies would be on the outer? Address in Reply 3 September 1985 591

Mr ALISON: That is correct. They would lose power, which is what it is aU about. Everybody on this side of the House knows that. I believe that honourable members opposite know it, too, but they dare not accept it. Mrs Chapman: Why should they have rights? They aren't elected, are they? Mr ALISON: That is quite right. They are elected by only about 3 per cent of their members. They are the only ballot-papers allowed into the boxes. The opting provision for small businesses would be a radical altemative to the existing system and would give a significant boost to the most vibrant area of the nation's economy. This strong change to the industrial relations system would require protection for people who went outside the system from intimidation, picketing and abuse from unions—the sort of thing that is seen in Queensland at the present time against SEQEB workers. All the SEQEB workers want to do is to work. What about the right to work as well as the right to strike? Abundant evidence exists throughout the world to prove that those countries that have led the world in recent years in terms of economic performance and job generation have flexible labour markets. The facts are there. The United States is a prime example. Wage indexation is simply inflation indexation. Wage indexation simply perpetuates inflation. The Prices and Incomes Accord, the six-monthly national wage cases, adjust­ ments for the CPI and the battle to gain shorter working hours are all completely irrelevant to what is required to regenerate the Australian economy and to create job opportunities. The troglodytes in the trade union movement and the ALP will not accept that, because any deregulation of the labour market would reduce the power that trade unions have over the work-force. Unfortunately, Labor Party members will not be allowed to accept such a proposition, because the Trades and Labor Council will not let them. Make no mistake; we are headed for big changes in Australia, particularly in the labour market. If the trade union leaders will not accept that and will not adjust their attitudes, they will be swept aside as the total irrelevancies that they are. As I move round my electorate talking to blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and people from all walks of life—small business people and so forth—I am convinced that people accept that there is something dreadfully wrong with the way in which union- leaders are acting and have acted over the past 20 years and the support that they receive from the ALP, and that there is also something dreadfully wrong in the wage- fixing system. They might not know the answers, but they are certainly looking for answers. I am sure that they will recognise the answers when the answers are put to them. Unfortunately, over the past 10 or 20 years, the people of Australia have been let down by weak business leadership and an unhealthy alliance between big business, big Govemment and big unions. They all deserve each other, but the people of Australia do not deserve what has been dished out to them. Big business and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have a great deal in common. It is interesting to note that both the Confederation of Australian Industry and the ACTU condemned Mr Howard's proposal for a coalition Govemment in Canberra in relation to deregulation of the labour market in Australia. Let us now examine the performance of the Confederation of Australian Industry, particularly during the last week. The CAI, apart from condemning Mr Howard's proposal, has a proposal of its own. The CAI apparently proposes abandoning fuU wage indexation and calling for annual, instead of six-monthly, national wage cases and less reliance on the Consumer Price Index in determining wage movements. Either the CAI cannot see that Australia's centralised wage-fixing system is kiUing industry and, in tum, killing off jobs, or it has not the intestinal fortitude to pick up the challenge and back any move to deregulate the labour market, at least in the small business area. 592 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

One could be excused for believing that there really is a club atmosphere between big business, big unions and big Govemment, and to hell with small business. Somewhere and somehow the CAI and other business organisations must develop a backbone and stand up to the unions and stand up for what is best for Australia, not for their positions of power and influence. The issue confronting Australia today is simply this: is Australia to be allowed to use its brains to become as efficient as possible and, therefore, be in a position to increase wealth and employment overall, or is it to be condemned to staying with an out-of-date, inefficient system more suited to the wom-out industrial system of the old world? I know where the Queensland Govemment stands on this important issue. I believe that it will have to work in with Mr Howard's proposals when the coalition Govemment is elected in Canberra at the next Federal election. There is no altemative if Australian businesses are to compete successfuUy with overseas businesses and thereby create employment opportunities. I tum now to the sugar industry and the terrible plight it is in at present. Mr De Lacy: Let us see whether you keep on with your deregulation theme, or whether some inconsistencies creep in. Mr ALISON: Every honourable member—even, maybe, the honourable member for Caims—knows the difference between what somebody said earlier and what somebody said last week. I doubt whether the honourable member knows the difference between sugar and shallots. The sugar industry is in a dreadful plight, owing almost entirely to the great drop in the world price of sugar. Although my electorate is not affected as badly as other electorates, it is affected. There are large sugar-growing areas in my electorate. I read with great interest the 100-day committee report. The committee did a very thorough job. However, a number of matters concem me. There are only three matters to which I would like to refer tonight. The committee made a recommendation that the existing system of assignments and peaks be replaced by a system of farm-peak entitle­ ments to the No. 1 pool, which would be divisible and freely transferable in whole or in part between and within mill areas. I am concemed about that part of the recom­ mendation that relates to the proposed farm peak entitlements being transferable freely between miU areas. That is what concems me, and next week I will be speaking to industry-leaders in my area. Another aspect of the recommendations relating to the farm peak entitlements being freely tranferrable within the mill area does not seem to cause any problems. It is probably a good thing. The transferring between mill areas is the part that concems me. I tum to the price support scheme recommended by the committee. Of course, the committee recommends that the Federal and State Govemments bring in a price support scheme on the basis of $220 per tonne for No. 1 pool which, the committee says in its report, will cover cash operating costs, including growers' own labour, for approximately 43 per cent of the growers. What about the 57 per cent that it will not cover? It staggers me that the committee has come up with a base figure of $220 per tonne for the current year, with the suggestion that, in the 1986 season, it drops to $215 and that, the following year, 1987, the payment be dropped to $210. I cannot understand that at all. The industry has said often enough, through its leaders, that most of the cane-farmers require approximately $235 to $240 per tonne just to stay in business. Mr Vaughan: You are inconsistent in your argument. Mr ALISON: I will take that interjection. I presume that the honourable member for Nudgee is referring to my previous comments about deregulating the labour market. One of the problems, of course, is that the sugar market is deregulated. Our export market is facing the pressures of overseas competition. I do not know why the honourable Address in Reply 3 September 1985 593 member for Nudgee says that I am inconsistent. I am perfectly consistent. UntU the labour market is deregulated, Australia wiU continue to go backwards. I really do not know why the 100-day committee report started off at $220 per tonne at all. As I have said, I will be speaking to industry leaders in my area, as weU as my Govemment colleagues, about that matter. The third matter that I refer to is the miUs paying the ftiU cost of the freight of the raw sugar from the miU to the terminal. I believe that that is grossly unfair and, again, I wiU be talking to industry leaders in my area about that. Next week my colleague the Minister for Education (Mr Powell) and I wiU be meeting with the cane-growers and millers at Maryborou^ and bringing back their comments to the Govemment. It will be taken from there. Obviously the industry must improve its efficiency and restmcture, but it must be given time to do so. I caU on the Hawke Govemment to honour its commitment to a price maintenance scheme starting off at at least $235 per tonne for the curtent season. Mr Hawke cannot walk away from that. He is on record as promising that to the cane-farmers of this State and northem New South Wales. I believe that Mr Hawke and his cronies are hedging for time. The name escapes me, but a well-known member of the Federal Labor Govemment made the comment that the Hawke Govemment does not get too many votes out of the sugar industry. I beUeve that that is really what it is all about. It would suit Mr Hawke to see the sugar industry decimated. Mr Borbidge: The Deputy Prime Minister said that we should be buying sugar from overseas. Mr ALISON: That is correct. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Bowen) is on record as saying what the honourable member for Surfers Paradise has just stated. I believe that that is what it is all about. I believe also that the Labor Party does not get too many votes out of the sugar industry. Therefore it will suit Mr Hawke to let the sugar industry dangle, and the more cane-farmers that are forced out of the industry, the better. The Queensland Govemment wants as many cane-farmers as possible to stay in the sugar industry. It wants then to be given time to restmcture and improve their efficiency. Mr Borbidge: They treat BHP a bit differently. Mr ALISON: That is quite right. It is not just BHP that is treated differently. In the past, primary industries such as wool and wheat have been treated differently. Therefore, Queensland expects that Mr Hawke and his Govemment wiU honour their commitment to the sugar industry for a price-maintenance scheme. I now refer to the greatest scourge ever to world health, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS. It is the greatest threat to community health since the plague hit Europe in, I think, the seventeenth century. Mr Kruger: Tell us what you are prepared to do for the sugar industry. Mr ALISON: I do not know what the honourable member for Murmmba is waffling about. Mr Kruger: I know what I am waffling about; you don't. Tell us what your Govemment is prepared to do. Mr ALISON: Perhaps the honourable member would like to support me in my call to Mr Hawke to honour his commitment to the sugar industry. Is that what his interjection is about?

68704—21 594 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

There is no known cure for AIDS. Medical advice that one has AIDS is tantamount to the death sentence. It is to be hoped that our medical scientists soon discover a cure—the sooner the better. I read that the disease is spread principally through homosexual activities, sexual intercourse and blood transfusions, although they are not the only ways. They are certainly the principal means of its transmission. Homosexual activities are seen to be the original source of the scourge and the principal means of its spread. In my opinion, homosexuality should be completely banned. It is illegal in Queensland. Unfortunately, States under ALP control have legalised it. For the edification of the House, I shall refer to the ALP policy on "Justice, Legal & Constitutional Affairs and PoUce" Anyone who is interested might read clause 9.6 on page 13, which deals with "Other Specific Measures" This shows where so-called honourable members of the Opposition promote homosexuality by seeking to legalise it— " . a Labor Govemment will, as part of its general approach to citizens' rights:—

(v) Introduce legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexuality in employ­ ment, education, housing, public accommodation (hotels, motels, hostels, board­ ing houses), public entertainment and recreation (theatres, restaurants, sports grounds, parks, etc) and other areas of public access. (vi) Give equal rights to homosexual couples in terms of State taxation probate benefits, ownership and transfer of property, pensions, superannuation and other fiscal benefits. (vii) Ensure that peoples' sexual rights are not denied in such places as convalescent homes, hospitals, prisons, etc." Apparently the Opposition wants to allow homosexual activities in those places. Hon­ ourable members opposite should hang their heads in shame. Mr Vaughan: It's going on now. Mr ALISON: But Labor wishes to legalise it. Nobody denies that it is occurring, but Labor seeks to promote it through legaUsation. The member for Nudgee should hang his head in shame. Subclause (viii) is an interesting one— "Immediately release from detention all held under anti-homosexual laws, and ensure that all fines be refunded to them and others previously prosecuted under such laws." It is a disgrace that a political party should have such a provision in its policy. It simply promotes homosexuality, which in tum will serve to spread the dreadful AIDS disease. Mr De Lacy: I give blood. Do you? Mr ALISON: I certainly would not want the honourable member's blood; I assure him of that. Homosexuality ought to be made illegal across Australia. Those who insist on committing homosexual acts should be banned from our society. I realise that the bleeding hearts will call for compassion. I agree that there should be compassion for those people. Every effort should be made to encourage them to seek the psychological or other medical advice required to get them back to a non-deviant life-style. Homo­ sexuality is not an altemative Ufe-style, as is claimed by some members of the ALP and others in the community. It is unnatural, deviant and a terrible threat to the entire world. Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (8.15 p.m.): In this Address in Reply debate, I rise to record my thoughts on the performance of this Govemment over the past 12 months. With some amazement, I have listened over the last few days to Govemment members who, one after the other since the debate began, would have me believe that the debate Address in Reply 3 September 1985 595 concemed some other State. One could also be forgiven for beUeving that every problem that exists in Queensland is the fault of the Federal Govemment. I waited to hear a few facts from each Govemment member but, unfortunately, facts were not considered to be important enough or, if they were considered important, they were presented in a very confitsed and misleading manner. I refer to the industrial chaos that presently exists in Queensland, the worst unemployment record by far of any State in Australia, the sickest economy in Australia and the 3 800 taxes and charges that have been either imposed or increased over the last 12 months, some having been increased up to 20 times the rate of inflation. The people of Queensland are also faced with the unkept promises of the Queensland Govemment, such as the 40 000 extra jobs that were promised by the Premier and Treasurer when the Budget was presented last year. In addition, of course, workers in Queensland receive the lowest wages paid in any State in Australia. AU of the issues that I have mentioned were either not mentioned by Govemment members or, if they were, they were misinterpreted or were presented in a misleading or confiised manner, to say the least. The tme position is that, over the last 12 months, Queensland has gone backwards, in so many ways. Over the last 12 months, more than 1 000 full-time jobs have been lost whereas every other State in Australia showed improvement in the levels of unemployment. So much for the 40 000 extra jobs! Mr Borbidge: TeU us how many new jobs have been created. Mr McLEAN: For the information of the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, I point out that 1 000 full-time jobs have been lost. At this time last year, the Premier and Treasurer presented the Budget which contained a promise of 40 OCiO extra jobs. The extra positions have not been forthcoming, and it makes me wonder whether honourable members will be presented with the same kind of promise this year. I remember that promise quite clearly and I am sure that all other Opposition members remember it. It would be remembered that $600m was to be provided for a Special Major Capital Works Program, and it was designed to create more job opportunities. At that time, the Opposition pointed out that the plan was nothing more than a giant publicity sham which, using the kindest possible terms, could only be described as deceitful. The opinion of Opposition members has been home out, and the same kind of deceit can be expected when this year's Budget is presented later in the week by the Premier and Treasurer. I tum now to examine in detail some of the points that I have raised. Queensland has the lowest average wages of all the Australian States. In Queensland, the adult male earns $403.20 or, to put it another way, $26 below the Australian average and an adiUt female cams $324.10 or $12 a week below the Australian average, yet Queenslanders are asked to pay the highest charges for Govemment services in AustraUa. The Queensland Govemment claims that electricity is an essential service when it is dealing with employees, but the cost to the consumer for electricity in Queensland is higher than it is anywhere else in Australia. The average Queensland famUy pays $520 a year for electricity in comparison with a family living in Sydney that pays $344 a year, and I point out that the difference is $ 176. In addition, 3 800 taxes and charges have also been either increased or imposed. The worrying factor in the overall economic problems that presently exist in Queensland is that the Opposition is aware that the Govemment has no answer to the problems except to blame the Federal Govemment, the workers and trade-unionists. That point of view has been expressed by member after member on the Govemment side. Whenever the Govemment is criticised about the overall problems, its only answer is that it is all the fault of the Federal Govemment or the workers. In the opinion of the Queensland Govemment, workers eam too much money and are not competitive. 596 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

The Govemment's latest proposal for contract employment has been touched upon by other speakers. It is proposed that such a system be introduced into the small business sector in Queensland. That is a typical example of the Govemment's response to such problems as industrial relations, and I wiU retum to that aspect later. The present industrial situation in Queensland demonstrates the inability of the National Party Govemment to come to grips with reality. Over the last six months or so, the Queensland National Party Govemment has displayed complete contempt for workers, for basic rights and for every accepted principle of justice and faimess. In fact, it is the climax of the worst right-wing attack on the basic rights of workers that Australians have seen since the tum of the century. I ask: who will suffer if this Govemment is allowed to continue on its merry way Avith no direction apart from a bUnd hatred of oiganised labour? To answer my own question: once again, aU Queenslanders wiU suffer. To date, industry has been sadly set back; workers have been affected; the Govemment has been affected; businesses have been affected; and, of course, famiUes have been affected. In fact, in some way every Queenslander has felt the results of this Govemment's irrational attack on the trade unions. One must ask why. I guess that there are several right-wing reasons one could come up with, but the first that comes to mind is that it is probably to satisfy the fetish of the Premier, who at last has the opportunity to implement some of his warped obsessions and right-wing hatreds. He has a free hand and is using it very well in the area he knows best. If at this stage anyone needs convincing that there is a need for an ALP Govemment in this State, all he needs to do is trace the history of the current power dispute. The conclusion is clear. Unless this fascist Govemment is removed from office, there will never be industrial peace in this State. Without industrial peace, the economic problems that are so evident in this State will remain and, in all probabiUty, worsen. This Govemment has deliberately inflicted upon the people of Queensland untold economic damage by engineering the power dispute for its own twisted reasons. That leads me on to the main instmment of that orchestrated performance by the Government, Mr Wayne Gilbert. Gilbert is the industrial mercenary used by this Govemment. He is the person who has carefully orchestrated and implemented the whole plan of conflict. That plan has been in operation for a long time at the hands of Mr Gilbert. He is the ideal Govemment tool. He has told lies; he has cunningly pleaded; he has shown no regard whatsoever for decent, accepted principles; and he is probably the most treacherous and evil individual the trade union movement has ever encountered. I say without doubt that he will go down in history as the most vicious anti-working class stooge of his time. The Govemment pretends that it is being tough with unions, but there is a point where strength of purpose ends and sheer stupidity begins. I am afraid that the National Party in Queensland crossed that line many years ago. Yet the Govemment carries on its merry way unconcemed about the long-term damage it is doing. It has spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money on propaganda campaigns on TV and radio and in the newspapers to spread lies about its industrial laws. A typical example was the advertisement in which the Premier claimed that power workers still had the right to strike. Mr Alison: They do. Mr McLEAN: Yes; but the Premier added, "If they exercise that right, they will be sacked." So it is a great right! That is the type of deceit that passes for logic in the National Party, and that is exactly what I am getting at. The Premier has made no secret of the fact that he wants to extend the new laws to other industries. If he succeeds in that aim, the Govemment will be in the position to dictate its own terms and conditions of employment: longer hours, less pay and the abolition of other long-standing entitlements. The latest proposal of contract employment is the first step. The implementation of such a proposal will generate an open-slather Address in Reply 3 September 1985 597 approach to the fixing of wages and conditions, and the plan will create a job auction with jobs going to the lowest bidder. It is a recipe for industrial chaos, and will undoubtedly result in the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the exploiters getting stronger Mr Alison: Here we go! Mr McLEAN: Exploiters like the member for Maryborough. As I was saying, it will result in the defenceless and handicapped being further ripped off. This proposal is probably the most ill-conceived of all the extremes of this Govemment. I wish to quote from a very good article conceming the Govemment's proposal. It appeared in the Small Business World, which describes itself as, "The Eyes, Ears and Voice of Small Business" The article appeared in a special edition headed, "Contract Jobs Fantasy" It reads— "Queensland's small business community has been unwillingly exposed to what could be potentially the most devastating industrial upheaval in the history of this State—devastating financially to both smaU businesses and employees. What is so incredible in the issue is the fact that this time-bomb situation has been created by the so-called 'watchdog' for small business, the State Govemment Small Business Development Corporation. Howls of disbelief and, in some quarters, laughter, went up when the August 4th edition of The Courier-Mail headlined the announcement by chairman Jim Kennedy of the S.B.D.C.'s proposal for the abolition of industrial awards and replacement with contract labour for the small business sector of Queensland." Mr Miller: Who is Mr Kennedy? Mr McLEAN: He is the person who made this proposal. Mr Miller: Who is he really? Mr McLEAN: Who is he? He is the Govemment's appointee. Mr Miller: Who is he in the community? Mr McLEAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not waste further time. Mr Miller: Is he a member of the ALP? Mr McLEAN: I do not know. The article continued— "The mind boggles at the thought of the massive dismption to business and heavy financial losses for small businesses when the unions stand up to protect and fight for the awards and industrial system for which they stmggled for many years. The irony of it all is that small business has had a relatively peaceful and good working relationship with most unions in the past only to see this come apart" at the seams with what can only be described as an impertinent intmsion into a delicately balanced issue without the support of the majority of those affected. The SBDC has claimed its mandate to present its radical proposal was a resolution passed at the recent 'Voice of SmaU Business Congress' organised by the Corporation. From pre-congress publicity, this show was promoted as the biggest get-together of small businesses from all over the State, the biggest ever to occur in Queensland. Yet, we are advised by the Corporation that the sum total of those who attended was 138 people. Could a resolution passed by these people, whether they represented groups or associations or not, be held to express the wishes of the majority of the small businesses in Queensland? Surely where such a delicate issue is involved, any responsible group or association would have to canvas its members on their attitude and carefully weigh up the ramifications of such a confrontation." 598 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

The article then proceeds to ask some questions. I will not quote them, but other points in the article should be included in Hansard. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! I remind the honourable members for Murmmba and Ithaca that I have been tolerant, but I expect a little common sense. Mr McLEAN: The article continues—' "The cmelest cut of all would undoubtedly be strike action by shop assistants! The small business retail industry has had an excellent relationship with the union, but there is no shadow of a doubt strike action would be swift in this area! A buoyant small business retaU sector is essential! Without it, the manufacturing and wholesale industries are under extreme pressures and are virtually at the mercy of major retail corporations!" I wonder just whom Govemment members represent. This is certainly not a Labor Party propaganda sheet. It is the Small Business World. The article continues— "It is extremely difficult to perceive any benefits for smaU business in the proposal put forward by S.B.D.C. Indeed, if any benefits could be found, they would be obUterated by the massive losses sustained by small business in an all out confrontation with unions. Forget about promises by the Govemment to back any business which is prepared to take on the unions by suing for damages! Any small business which did so would be foolhardy indeed and may as well close its doors! How the S.B.D.C. did its sums remains a mystery. Let's look at some of the figures and claims made by the S.B.D.C. Chairman Jim Kennedy claims the State's unemployment problem could be wiped out by smaU businesses negotiating lower wages and conditions." Apparently he has been in touch with the Minister because those are exactly the words that the Minister used. The article continues— "He claims that 130 000 smaU businesses in Queensland employ an average of two persons each. According to Taxation Department statistics, approximately 65% of all businesses are sole proprietors and partnerships! The vast majority of these do not employ any staff at aU and are unUkely to do so, even with the advent of contract labour!" Using Mr Kennedy's figures, Small Business World put forward the following suggestions— "Supposing a smaU business employing two staff could manage to convince those staff to take a wages cut of say $20 per week each. That would be a saving of $2,080 per annum for the business. Can anyone equate this figure against the potential losses through massive union confrontation? In addition, the sum of $2,080 is hardly sufficient to employ another staff member, even if one was required! Let's look at a business with ten employees with the unUkely proposition that they could be convinced to take a cut of $20 per week each. That's a saving of $10,400 per annum and barely sufficient to employ one additional junior permanent employee. Again, this is extremely difficult to equate with the losses and damages sustained in an aU out confrontation with the union movement. The Small Business Development Corporation must be severely censured for catapulting the smaU business sector into an unwanted confrontation with the unions." Without going any further, I stress the point that this pubUcation was put out by small business—it is not from the Labor Party—and that is the opinion of that sector on the Minister's proposal that he claims wiU be its saviour. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 599

That leads me to discuss a set of notes that I received through a person I know who, on Wednesday, 19 June, attended a meeting at the River Room at the HamUton Hotel that was called by the Australian Small Business Association. This moming I heard that association mentioned in a question that was asked of the Premier and Treasurer. These notes leave no doubt in my mind about the type of people who attend meetings such as that. This particular meeting was addressed by David Russell, who is a barrister for the National Party, and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Lester). The chairman of the meeting was Mr Peter Boyle, who is national president of the Australian Small Business Association. Peter Boyle, as chairman, introduced Vince Lester as a knight in shining armour representing a Govemment giving overt support from here on in the battle by smaU business against unions. Mr Boyle is a good example of the type of people with whom the trade union movement and other sensible people have to deal. In his address, Mr Boyle said— "Union leaders are taking to the suburbs with cars, free lunches, fostering demarcation disputes, forcing unionism on employees. They wiU picket your business, organize secondary boycotts, stop your supplies, stop your business, your cUents will suffer, your home, family and children will suffer. Architects are threatened currently, accountants will be next." Mr De Lacy: That sounds Uke Gil Alison. Mr McLEAN: Yes, it is very similar. To be honest, I thought that these notes must have come from this place. Mr Boyle continued— "You'll see intimidation, coercion, they foUow your employees and against those odds—who can resist—your money will be pinched." Later he went on to say— "We are facing a Communist inspired plot to socialize the country—rape the country—and we have 4 years to redress the problem. The education system is to blame—teachers who don't know any better are teaching humanities and social issues and teaching nothing about profit and the values of profit and competition. We have a socialistic education system. Children come out of schools, especiaUy some State Schools and don't know the meaning of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." Mr Boyle went on with that sort of jargon right throughout his speech. The next address at the particular meeting was from David RusseU. Among other things, he had this to say— "The curremt problem has its genesis in a new province of law and order, with origins of a new policy of conciUation and arbitration implemented in the 1980's. Remedies of the past are part of an overall strategy. Remember a good industrial relations record is a most valuable asset for a small business." How a good industrial relations record can be associated with a barrister for the National Party is beyond me. Mr Russell continued— "We are now looking outside the Industrial Court for remedies." I think that everyone is aware of that. One part of his speech caught my eye. He said that the new legislation wiU aUow individuals and Govemments to deal with unions in civil coiuts. In talking about the unions, he went on to say— "They're not like us who are familiar with the law, the jargon, the formaUty, they don't like going, they're terrified of wigs and gowns, they definitely don't like telling the tmth—they back off in this situation. This threat is what tumed the power on and delivered the mail." 600 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

That is an example of the type of persons I am speaking of, and of their mentality. That man is a barrister for the National Party. At the conclusion of his speech, Mr RusseU was asked a question about individuals taking action under the new legislation. He said— "Much has been said in the press about the legislation reversing the onus of proof—the law provides for the Govemment to proceed on the accuracy of a newspaper article." That was one of the points that the Opposition raised during the debate on that legislation. That is a totaUy unjust provision. Mr RusseU continued— "Usually it is possible to take action by obtaining an admission of action by a union delegate." He gave the following example— "When tins of paint are thrown around and premises defaced, ask the union representative, 'Do you know anything about this?' The official will almost always respond, 'Yes, it's because ...' But make sure you have a witness." Mr RusseU said also that a recent phone information service to strikers was recorded from the phone and iised as evidence in court action. As a result, unions quickly stopped using that system. That speech was made at a meeting of the Australian Small Business Association held in the River Room of the Hamilton Hotel on 19 June. I am quoting excerpts from an address by David RusseU, a barrister for the National Party, and from a speech by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester). Mr Vaughan: That sounds like a Nazi Party meeting. Mr McLEAN: It gets worse. Vince Lester, who by that stage was obviously warmed up by the feeUng of the meeting, said— "The drain on Govemment resources caused by the power dispute wiU mean a school less—" obviously in a Labor electorate— "or some other resources delayed for the State of Queensland. The next legislation—" he is foreshadowing new legislation— "will provide for automatic fines and deregistration. Unions wiU be deregistered with back-up by Govemment legislation." The most pertinent part of the Minister's speech was— "Former union representatives will not get Industrial Commission jobs in future." The Minister is saying that, in the future, the Govemment will dictate who is to get jobs on the Industrial Commission. Mr Vaughan: So there won't be any balance. Mr McLEAN: No, there will be no balance whatsoever. The Minister went on to say— "There will be an option for deregistration in future laws." The Minister said that at a public meeting. How long can the commission remain an independent body? Address in Reply 3 September 1985 601

The Minister said that, in future, where there is widespread industrial action, or smaU-scale action such as a fine of $50 on the union ticket issue, there wiU be a right for penalties to be enforced. At the conclusion of his speech, the Minister was asked— "When wiU the Govemment clean up its own back yard Uke not collecting union dues?" The Minister said that the State Govemment is afready not doing that and gave the example of the police force and the Railway Department. He said that, strangely, since that happened, poUcemen are not so apathetic and that they objected strongly when their executive made a donation to the Electrical Trades Union. He added— "We'U give the unions a bit more treatment as we go down the track." Another question was— "What do you mean by 'when the time is right'?" The Minister replied— "If they flee to Federal cover we can't move against them—not a dam thing we can do about them." That is an example of the sort of mentaUty that the people of Queensland have to put up with. At the conclusion of his speech, Mr Lester said that those people who call themselves "Concemed Christians" are in fact cormpt clergy. At the meeting, reference was also made to the policy on voluntary employment contracts. Mr Lester said— "Its implementation wiU legalise the right of individual mutual contracts outside union awards. You will be totaUy outside the control of the unions. Whatever is determined will apply to your employees—for example, 336 days' work on whatever pay." Mr De Lacy: The Aborigines used to get a pound of tobacco and a billy of tea when they were deregulated. Mr McLEAN: I think that some Govemment members would bring back the whip or the cat-o'-nine-tails, if they could. A number of recommendations were passed. Some excellent questions were asked and answers given at the meeting. The whole proposal for contract labour is obviously unworkable and has not been accepted by the small business people. The Queensland Government has become so artogant that it wiU not talk to people. It is not considering all the options that are open. The proposal for contract labour is so typical of the seat- of-the-pants decision-making by the Queensland Govemment. How could any Govem­ ment contemplate such a major change to accepted practices without first consulting with all the parties involved? It is a major change because, if it is implemented, it will revolutionise all industries. I cannot see how any Govemment could possibly consider that. It is obvious that that has not been done. It is no wonder that such uncertainty exists within industry in this State. It is also no wonder that Queensland's economy is trailing the field and that its unemployment figures are so bad. How would any business consider commencing or extending its operations in this State when the uncertainty to both employer and employee does not allow for long-term planning? There is no room for the hatreds and conflicts that are presently part of the Queensland way of life. The worst aspect is that those hatreds and conflicts are created and maintained on most occasions to ensure that the National Party can survive. The difference a Labor Govemment will bring to industrial relations can be summed up in one word—justice. That is what is missing in that area at present in this State. To put it another way, a Labor Govemment is committed to giving a fair go to everyone involved in the industrial scene. It is impossible to legislate for good industrial relations. 602 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

and it is obvious that that is something that the Govemment does not realise. The faUure to recognise that fact has been the foUy of a procession of conservative Govemments. A working partnership must exist between business, unions and the Govemment. Co-operation must exist between State and Federal Govemments. That is obviously lacking, because conflict exists at all levels. Co-operation must exist at all levels between the Govemment, unions and employers. Unfortunately, there has been no co-operation between the Queensland Govemment and the Federal Govemment. Honourable members have not seen any co-operation between the Queensland Govemment and the unions. There must be a genuine recognition of the fact that the trade union movement represents the ambitions of a substantial segment of the population. It represents the aspirations of workers, both men and women, for the right to have employment, job security, health, safety, the ability to eam an income that is maintained as prices rise, and the right to be treated as human beings. That is not happening at present. Like so many other people in the community, I feel that the present excesses of the Queensland Govemment in the area of industrial relations prove beyond doubt that there is a better way. The present policies are divisive, at a time when we should all be working together, and unproductive and destabilising, at a time when just the opposite result is vital. They are demoralising for the work-force, at a time when job security and stability are required. Well overdue is the necessity for Govemments, unions and employers to sit round a table and talk. We are growing to accept as normal the bittemess, the hatreds, the distmst, the criticism and the waste of money, energy and resources that flow from regular industrial confUct such as the confUct that is being experienced in Queensland. It must be obvious to everyone who has watched the situation grow that Queensland cannot afford dismption of this kind. Something must be done to bring the whole industrial relations situation in Queensland back to a sane footing. There must be someone on the Govemment side of the House who has normal common sense to take over from the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester). It is obvious that he cannot handle the situation. It is also obvious that the Premier and Treasurer's hatreds will not allow for a sensible situation to prevail. Mr KAUS (Mansfield) (8.45 p.m.): I have pleasure in supporting the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply so ably move by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and seconded by the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper). I believe that both honourable members did a very good job and that, with a bit more experience in the House, both will go a long way. I take the opportunity of affirming my loyalty and that of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen. I also pay a tribute to the new Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell, and Lady Campbell for the way in which they are doing their job. They have quite an act to foUow in the previous Govemor, Sir James Ramsay, and Lady Ramsay. However, I am sure that the people will like these two Queenslanders. Sir Walter CampbeU and Lady Campbell are very easy to get on with, and undoubtedly they will carry out their duties very well for the State. I compliment the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) on his recent move to improve this State's technology. Whether we Uke it or not, it must be recognised that Australia must march with the times or be left behind. Indeed, I believe that Australia may have already been left behind in some fields. If the problem of having to import large amounts of equipment in the electronic industry is to be overcome, strides'will have to be made in establishing our own production plants. No doubt, the Minister is currently in the process of doing that. Along with many other honourable members, I have held fears about the number of jobs being replaced by the silicon chip. However, like it or not, industry will have to be modemised, and we cannot escape the fact that we are living in a technological revolution. Indeed, perhaps it would be safer for Govemments to continue the status Address in Reply 3 September 1985 603 quo and keep everyone happily in jobs using out-of-date and outmoded equipment. However, that would be short-sighted and irtesponsible. Computerisation has revolutionised production and business methods. In fact, every aspect of daily Uving is affected in some measure. Perhaps industry can take the example of the housewife, who has eagerly adapted to all the gadgetry because she realises that it saves her the most valuable commodity of aU, that is, time, as weU as removing the dmdgery from most household duties. I doubt whether any housewife would want to go back to the good old days of copper boilers and wood stoves. In some instances, they would be aU right, but not today with the modem miss. I understand the obvious fear that this technology will lead to higher unemployment. Indeed, it was not long ago when honourable members heard that a robot, in a matter of minutes, could perform metalwork that would take several hours to do manually. Undoubtedly, that is the way that industry is going today. All one has to do is to go to the technical coUeges and see the training of men who are coming through in the computerisation of these machines. I suppose that this technology has cost someone a job. However, it is also a fact that computerisation wiU create many new employment opportunities, and advantage must be taken of that rather than looking at the negative side. It is significant that Japan, which is such a great exporter of computer goods, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Can it be that Japan has grabbed the bull by the homs whUe AustraUa has been deUberating for too long, trying to please Larry and Harry? In order to be competitive with other countries, Australia has to accept new technology irrespective of the immediate consequences. The brainpower is certainly available in the country to develop the industry. The less we have to import, the better. The highest unemployment is among young people. A person who grows up with computer technology, once trained in the field, is fiiUy developed. Later I shall talk about protections that ought to be introduced into computer systems to ensure privacy. I sympathise with the older generation, which may feel it is being pushed aside. However, our country cannot afford to stagnate. The continuation of high unemployment among the young will have tragic social consequences. Already AustraUa has witnessed an increase in violence and other crime, and young people resorting to dmgs and other forms of escapism as a result of disillusionment. Little is to be gained by comparing our unemployment rate with that of other countries and somehow comforting ourselves in the laiowledge that our unemployment is no higher than that in Britain or America. We must create a climate in which jobs will be provided. The Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Techonology has an excellent plan under way to achieve that goal. Mr Prest: In what areas? Mr KAUS: In the area of a technology park. An area is being developed on the other side of the river. That is only one direction. Mr Prest: That's where he's making the jobs? Mr KAUS: There wiU be plenty of other jobs in that field. Mr Fouras: They have a bit of land there, but that's aU. Mr KAUS: It is in the electorate of South Brisbane. Society cannot expect the Govemment to cure all ills. Govemments cannot legislate for the attitudes of people. It would be very comforting if people were honest, friendly to one another, chivalrous and kind; but no Govemment can pass laws that forbid lying and cheating or make it mandatory to greet one another on the streets or perform acts of courtesy. The member for Bulimba (Mr McLean) claimed that the Govemment is doing the wrong thing. He does not consider the other side of the story. I invite honourable 604 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

members opposite to tell me of one industrial conference at which the unions have not won. It is never the businessman or the Govemment who wins. It is always the union, and at the expense of the community. Mr Prest: Who puts the better case? Mr KAUS: It is not a matter of putting the case better; it is a matter of greed. Someone of higher authority has alrady laid down 10 good mles of conduct, but without much success. Unfortunately, the media seem to give the impression that politics is the only matter of significance these days. I am sure that the public are heartily sick and tired of it. One election is scarcely decided before the media commence speculation about the outcome of the next. A politician can scarely blow his nose these days without being in the news. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that when things go wrong, the general attitude is that it is the Govemment's job to put it right. I have many friends in the media. Perhaps after tonight I will not have one, but who cares? I tmst that my criticism will be accepted as constmctive. Certainly, the media do not hesitate to criticise us. I remind them of their grave responsibility to report factually, to avoid sensationalism merely to sell papers and to present the tmth. The daily newspaper is the only reading done by the majority of people. It would be heartening to think that they were being properly guided. Joumalists must ensure that the standard and tone of reporting are thought-provoking and intelligent, balanced and moderate, and wiU serve the best interests of the community. On the positive side, one has to admire the tremendous good brought about by media coverage, particularly when appeals are made on behalf of deserving cases. Time and again, honourable members read about the thousands of dollars raised through the media on behalf of those who are in dire need. Of course, a tribute must be paid to the media for the exceUent coverage of such events as the last Olympic Games. I tum my attention now to the housewife. It never ceases to amaze me that a housewife can accomplish so much with so little fuss. Today, many women not only manage households and rear children and look after husbands but they also hold down jobs, serve on p. and c. committees and assist charitable organisations. Housewives must be among the most efficient industrial groups of any community; for instance, they have to work to achieve the high standards that are expected by families. Deadlines cannot be extended if children are to arrive at school on time. Husbands must be kept to time if they are to arrive at work punctually. Meals must be prepared when they are needed and clothes must be laundered. Moreover, there must be a dozen other jobs that I have not mentioned. Despite their work-load, housewives never go on strike, nor do they have a union to back them up despite the fact that they are the lowest paid work-force in the world. The point I make is that the housewife is a classic example of what can be achieved because of the convenience and speed of computerised equipment. The home is a microcosm of the nation and it is analogous with what can be achieved by the nation if Australians have a mind to achieve. Although I sympathise with the miners, electricians and others whose jobs are threatened, I believe that people cannot look back on times past. This is particularly tme of the markets that could close because of industrial relations troubles in employment fields and opportunities lost. Along with the rest of the people in the world, Australians must look forward and develop. Strikes, riots, go-slows, sit-ins and demonstrations are all negative and valueless. Australians must be positive and optimistic. In my opinion, the most important principles today are the freedom of the individual, freedom of the press and freedom of trade, which constitute the hallmark of democracy and are observed by all democratic nations. The obvious difference between most westem countries and the Union of Soviet Socialist RepubUcs is that of freedom of movement. In Australia, the people are fortunate to enjoy that freedom because they can vote with their feet by deciding where to live and under which authority they choose to live. That stands in marked contrast to the people of East Germany, who are denied such freedom Address in Reply 3 September 1985 605

by the Berlin WaU—a barrier that has been erected, not for the purposes of defence or to keep enemies out, but solely to keep ordinary people from voting with their feet by deciding where they wish to live. In countries such as the USSR, freedom of movement is suppressed by tyranny, because the absence of such a freedom is the ultimate verdict upon a system of govemment that denies freedom of movement. Just as the free movement of goods in a free market says much about the free world, political freedom indicates what ordinary people think, because the poorest member of society values poUticial freedom as much as the richest. The freedom that is valued most is the freedom to sell one's labour and skills in the open market. The social virtue of the market-place is that it provides not only accurate information as a basis for decision-making, but also instant feedback after decisions have been taken. The market-place is not merely an early-waming system for catastrophy. It is also a continuous waming system that enables the effects of decisions to be monitored and, if necessary, cortected. Therefore, Govemment restrictions on the operations of the market are forms of censorship and act as a means of suppressing the tmth. The greater the range of choice for individuals and the least amount of Govemment intervention or interference that is evident in the market, the greater the measure of tme freedom in a democracy and the greater the benefits to the community in terms of increased efficiency. Mr Miller: Is that also tme of the unions? Mr KAUS: No, it is not always tme of the unions. Some may be efficient, but others are not; they just create problems to dismpt the efficiency of business. However, it is not Govemment interference that is harming markets here in Queensland but trade unions meddling and persistently raising obstacles to dismpt industry and commerce. By their actions, trade unions are denying freedom to the ordinary working man, who, despite his own philosophy of life, is bound by trade union regulations and is obliged to be part of their machinery if he wants to work in his chosen field. Australians are fortunate to live in a country in which they are free to choose their own way of life and express themselves without being dictated to. But if the unions had their way, there would be no freedom, and not only trade union members but the entire community would be affected. That was seen quite plainly in the recent electricity strike, which affected every person in the State—from babies being inconvenienced by having to wait for water to boil so they could be fed to the sick and elderly being denied the comfort afforded by their heaters. Such is the power of the unions that they are able to make their presence felt right across the whole community. That would not be tolerated in Soviet countries, yet Queenslanders have to put up with that state of affairs caused by unions, whose leaders make no bones about being inspired by their socialist principles. The time has come when the worth of unions has to be balanced—no doubt that has already been seen to—against the good of the State as a whole. By any objective standard, it will be seen that the unions are crippling the entire nation by their strikes and disputes, which, more often than not, are politically motivated, without any logical foundation, and in the long mn, do more harm than good to the common man. There is something sinister about a movement that claims to liberate the worker while plunging the country into turmoil. Are unemployed or striking workers better off than others who receive full weekly pay-packets? Are their families better off because they blindly follow the directives of trade unions? Are Queenslanders any better off because they bend over backwards to meet the demands of the unions and then, when one set of demands is met, another issue is promptly raised? It is nothing short of blackmail, and any good lawyer will say that the only way to deal with blackmailers is to call their bluff. That has been done. 606 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

Recently, the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Harper) formed a Privacy Committee, which will be responsible for investigating alleged violations of privacy. Mr Miller: He is doing a very good job. Mr KAUS: Yes, he does a very good job. He is a capable man. I note that the committee will be empowered to consider the need for legislative or administrative action to protect privacy, especially in relation to computers and data banks, and that one of the committee's first tasks will be to review the Invasion of Privacy Act, which is now 10 years old. It is about time that was done. I have a suggestion that I hope the committee will take on board. I know that many people feel that measures should be taken to protect the man in the street by legislating for preventive measures to ensure that computer-stored material is not divulged to unauthorised persons. It is patently obvious that the computer age is with us and will escalate and that personal particulars and past records for every person in Australia are already stored away in computer data banks. It is, therefore, imperative that legislation be enacted to provide powers to guard against the threat to privacy posed by the rapid growth in the use of computers. Some months ago, a writer to the editor of The Courier-Mail stated that he had been receiving medical treatment for 16 years and would have no reason to wince if aU his medical files were printed on the front page of the newspaper. That may weU be the case, but at the same time, for a myriad of reasons many people are concemed that information supplied to Govemment sources may be made available other than to limited personnel for valid reasons. I am sure that all honourable members are aware from press reports that it is possible to extract information from computers, which means that information of a highly confidential nature could become general knowledge. It is to dissuade this type of exercise that a "Protection BiU" is desirable. So that any culprits could be suitably penalised, a protection register could be drawn up of personal data-users and computer bureaus to ensure that data is not misused. Mr Casey: Where will you set this up? Mr KAUS: It would be set up by the Govemment. I think it is a good idea. Mr Casey: WhUe nobody else would know, the Govemment would know. Mr KAUS: I could give the honourable member a lot of information about it, but I do not intend to do so at this stage. I want to get my story over. Mr Casey interjected. Mr KAUS: I could give the honourable member a great deal of information, but I will not do so before I give it to the Minister. Although Federal legislation has been enacted to enable Mr Citizen to have access to his own personal data on computer file, I am not aware of any legislation being drafted or contemplated to protect the man in the street from the misuse of data. Honourable members will no doubt recall an incident that occurted some time ago when an employee of an electricity department supplied names and addresses to an outside source. It is always a possibility that this sort of temptation will be laid at the door of those who have access to such information and that the Govemment will find itself compromised by the actions of its employees. The Govemment should guard against that. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 607

I suggest that the legislation should— (a) protect the individual; (b) safeguard the Govemment against any legal action arising out of the actions of its employees in releasing sensitive information; and (c) ensure that all Govemment agencies and private computer firms who store personal data register as data-users and declare the nature of their operations so that it could be ascertained that they complied with the necessary standards laid down in the legislation. I understand that similar legislation has been introduced overseas. It should be a fairly simple exercise to model our proposed legislation on it. Mr Casey: Does that include the police force? Mr KAUS: No, the police could be excluded. Probably the taxation officers, too, could be excluded. I do not want to become involved in cross-talk with the honourable member. Although it may be argued that this legislation is in the province of the Federal Govemment, I feel that the need also exists at State level. I urge the Minister to look into this matter. The Bill would require all those who process personal data to register as data-users and to set out in a public register certain details of their operation. A data protection registrar would be appointed to see that the computer companies compUed with the protection principles for the collection, storage and use of personal data. In other words, he would be an ombudsman in that field. To maintain an unregistered file would be an offence. It is essential to stipulate clear codes of practice for all computer data banks and to protect individuals against potential misuse of personal information held about them on computers. Mr Casey: Would he work through the ombudsman's office? Mr KAUS: No, we could have a special ombudsman for that job. Mr Casey: Does he look after the hardware and the software? Mr KAUS: I am not worrying about the hardware or the software. I am talking about the information. Most importantly, it will become an offence for someone to process personal data automatically without being registered. Unregistered users, or those breaching the mles, should face the prospect of unlimited fines. A suitable period would be allowed to enable data-users to comply with the data protection principles. I hope that the Privacy Committee will give its attention to this very important aspect of privacy. Last year I mentioned a few things about the last election, in which I won my seat very well. I challenge anybody to come into my electorate and stand against me, but I assure him that he wiU not get anywhere. In the 10 years that I have been the member, the ALP candidate has scored no higher than 35 per cent of the vote. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr KAUS: I still won the seat; I stUl got up. Mr Miller: It is back to 29 per cent, now. Mr KAUS: Yes, it is close to 29 per cent. The linking of the South East Freeway with the magnificent Gateway Bridge is already well under way and on schedule for completion in December 1986. The 38 km 608 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

arterial road is now more than 13 per cent complete and more than $20m has been spent to date on the project. The Gateway arterial road is being completely managed and constmcted by the private sector, under the control of the Main Roads Department, as part of the Queensland Govemment's $600m Special Major Capital Works Program. That program has been criticised by Opposition members, who cannot see where the money has been spent. The money has been spent very wisely, although not quickly enou^ for me, and a marveUous job is being done on this particular project. Special consultants have been called in and a number of contractors were successful in their tenders. I will not mention all the bridges and cross-overs that are being constmcted but, if any honourable member wants to look at my notes, I will be only too pleased to show him. Mr Casey: I have a very pertinent question. Can you see the Gateway Bridge being used by the traffic to the west—the traffic that is going to use the New England Highway? Mr KAUS: It aU depends on their destination. Mr Casey: That is the destination—the west. Mr KAUS: Yes, they will come down through my area. Mr Casey: There will be interconnectors there for that traffic? Mr KAUS: Yes, there wiU be plenty. Two million man-hours of work wiU be created through the Gateway arterial road project. This includes 1.6 milUon man-hours of constmction work. The project has involved the resumption of property from 100 private land-owners and seven Government authorities. More than $4.6m has been paid in compensation to date. Negotiations have proceeded very smoothly and compensation matters have been handled with care and faimess. Provision will be made for at-grade roundabouts, and I hope that they wiU be big enough. I understand that the smaU ones that the Brisbane City CouncU uses are not intended for this project. Provision will be made for roundabouts or intersections with traffic-lights to cater for heavily trafficked roads connecting with the arterial roads from the Gateway Bridge. These include one-way on-and-off interchanges at the South East Freeway and Bmce Highway junctions, roundabouts at Miles Platting Road, the east- west arterial road at Airport Drive, Toombul Road, Stanworth Road and Depot Road junctions and grade-separated interchanges at Old Cleveland Road, Lytton Road and Bracken Ridge Road junctions. Mr Miller: Have you explained to the member for Mackay where that is? Mr KAUS: He would not know because he does not know too much about the city, even though he criticises it. Another feature of the constmction of the Gateway arterial road will be the use of cmshed rock from a major cutting in Mount Petrie to pave more than half the total route, and the road will pass through the excavated cutting. Mr Casey inteijected. Mr KAUS: I know that the honourable member for Mackay was once in the business before he went broke. The Gateway arterial road is expected to carry nearly 20 000 vehicles per day near the redeveloped Brisbane Airport when completed. Traffic volumes will vary at other points on the road. The Gateway arterial road is expected to become a major tourist route and is expected to generate new industrial and residential development along the route and its Address in Reply 3 September 1985 609

environs. It wiU create business activity in my electorate or just on its border. Land values are jumping in my area because of its proximity to the Gateway Bridge arterial road. Mr Milliner: It will make it easier to get to the Gold Coast. Mr KAUS: That is right, it wiU be much easier for people on the north side of the city. Mr MilUner: What about aU-night shopping on the Gold Coast? Do you think they should have that? Mr KAUS: I am not worried about aU-night shopping; I am only worried about the roads in and near my electorate. Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (9.15 p.m.): Unfortunately, many people have noted Queens­ land as the home of con men. In recent times it has become notable that the estabUshment in this State has paid more respect to those who indulge in sharp practices than it has to those who conduct legitimate businesses and act in the best interests of the community in general. Tonight I make particular reference to a company known as Electronic Sales and Rental. That company has been given some publicity on national television. In other States that pubUcity has resulted in action. Unfortunately, in this State it has not. That business could be called a sort of reverse pyramid business, in that the people at the top rake off sums of money from each level below them. While the top company is no doubt ripping off funds from the franchise-holders, they in tum rip off fiinds from those who work for them and from the customers who are unfortunate enough to do business with them. In my opinion ES and R is a shonky business. It is a rip-off and people should be wamed that, when they look at the advertisements on television, they do not see the sort of treatment that they can expect when they are unfortunate enough to deal with this company. It is particularly regrettable that Electronic Sales and Rental is aided and abetted in its activities by finance companies. In Queensland the particular company is Custom Credit Corporation Ltd, which likes to portray itself as a respectable business. In recent times all finance companies have set out to improve their image. Their association with this company certainly does nothing to that end. The company is also supported by so-called celebrities, who vary in importance. Both the celebrities and the finance companies are important to the way in which companies such as Electronic Sales and Rental operate. The importance of the finance companies is that they provide the basis for the quick kiU—to be able to do a sales spiel that convinces the people who do not have the money that there, on the spot, they can have the sort of equipment that they have dreamed of having for some time but which they know in their own hearts they cannot afford. The company deals particularly with people who are unemployed, on low salaries, often uneducated, sometimes in very, very poor health and sometimes of very low intellect. They are the very people who should be protected, but they are the ones on whom companies such as this prey and rely for their business. They want to believe what the salesman tells them on the spot, but deep down they must know that the whole thing has to have a catch. The accomplices are the so-called celebrities—the well-known names who give respectability to this company when it is dealing with the public. Down south the celebrities are John McEnroe and Sammy Davis Jnr. When people, especially those who are not well educated, see these very weU-known names associated with the company, they tend to believe that the company must be on the up and up and that it must be safe to deal with it, even though it sounds very suspicious. Many people think that, if that were not the case, such well-known people as John McEnroe and Sammy Davis Jnr would not be associated with it. In Queensland the company does not use John McEnroe but has used the pretty poor substitute of Billy J. Smith, who is a one-time football commentator. In my opinion, he was a very poor football commentator. He 610 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

lives on in my memory as the person who said that Wynnum-Manly would never, ever win a premiership. In fact, he promised that if that ever happened he would drop his pants and walk down the main street of Wynnum. I am pleased to say that he never kept that promise. Currently he is the compere of a very poor games show on television. However, it enjoys fairly good ratings because there is nothing much better on television. Billy J. Smith's name is known to many people. Members of the public have told me, "I thought the deal sounded a bit too good to be tme. I knew Billy J. Smith's name, and I thought that if he was associated with it, it must be all right, so I rang up." Even if he did not know at the time he made the advertisements, Billy J. Smith must know by now that he is involved in a con trick. He sits in a fishing boat with his rod, smiles and says, "It is only $400. If you buy a video from us, at no extra cost you receive a fishing boat." The words "at no extra cost" flash on the television screen. How could anybody be blamed for ringing up in the belief that he will receive a video with a fishing boat thrown in and that it will not cost him anything? Most honourable members would say, "Rats—it has to be a con." My next-door neighbour, who is an accountant, was looking for a video cassette recorder and rang up about one that was advertised. A salesman presented himself and wanted to talk about long-term deals and payment. The accountant said to him, "Yes, but I want to know how much it costs." The salesman said, "We have this special deal." The accountant said, "Tell me about your special deal." The salesman outlined the deal. As the accountant was most skilled in arithmetic, he said, "This is actuaUy going to cost me $3,000." The salesman said, "If you look at it like that, I suppose you could say that that is right. I will leave you my card, and, if you wish, you can ring me back." The salesman could not get out of the house fast enough, because he knew that he had come across somebody who could see through the con trick that he was trying to pull. In fact, nothing is being offered at no extra cost. People such as Billy J. Smith must know that consumers are not being offered items on the terms that he is indicating. It is time that legislation was introduced to ensure that people who sponsor such advertisements can be called upon to withdraw their name from advertisements or accept liability for what they are offering. At times in all good faith people will recommend a business. In those circumstances, they should be given the opportunity to withdraw their sponsorship and say, "I made a mistake." In circumstances in which a person continues to support what is obviously a con trick, and he does not want to withdraw it in good faith, provision should be made for a penalty to be imposed. I shall cite an example of what is happening aU round this State at present. A 14- year-old lad, who was doing part-time work, saw the advertisement on television, rang the telephone number, and a salesman came out to his home that night. He said, "I can supply you with a video. It will not cost you anything at all." In fact, this occurred just before Christmas. The salesman said, "It will be after Christmas before you will have to make the first payment. I will supply you with a video and I wiU throw in a couple of spare cassettes. I will tell you what, son; I'll be able to get you a good microwave oven for your mother." The lad's mother was on her own. She is a lone parent stmggling on a pension and in extreme ill health. The idea of being able to provide a microwave oven to his mother was a very attractive proposition to this young lad. This parasite of a salesman presented a paper to him and asked him to sign it. The salesman asked the young lad where he worked. He said, "Actually, I am only working part-time. I am not old enough to get a job yet." The salesman then realised that he might lose the sale. The salesman said, "We wiU have to get somebody to sign the paper with you. It does not mean anything. He will sign the paper and that will make it all right." The lad found a family friend, who is a railway employee on a very low wage. Obviously, that person should have known better, but he was gullible enough to accept the salesman's assurance that all he was doing was Address in Reply 3 September 1985 611 helping this lad to purchase something. He did not look further at the contract that he was helping the lad to enter into. He thought he was doing the boy a favour, and he had faith that the boy would keep up any payments to which he committed himself So the friend signed the paper for him. After Christmas, the moment of tmth arrived. The first biU came and the boy found that he was up for $100 a month. That seemed an awful lot to pay for something that was only going to cost him a little over $400 in the first place. He then checked up on what he had actually paid for. I might say that I have in front of me a copy of the contract that was signed. It makes no mention of the finance company. It does contain a section in which the cash amount is filled in. I am told that, as happened on this occasion, on most occasions that is filled in after the salesman leaves. The spiel goes something like this: "I will have to work out the exact amount. It will be a few extra dollars and cents because of the rentals. It is a bit hard to work out. I will just fill that in later on. You sign down here and it will be OK. No need for a deposit. That is all right. Don't worry about that, son. To make it legal, I will put a dollar in for you." It is laughable to people who have been through the mill and know the sorts of tricks that are played. However, for people who are inexperienced and who want to beUeve, it works. The chap about whom I am speaking on this occasion checked back and found that that $400 purchase, if he pays it out straight away, exclusive of the legal costs, will cost him $2,720. I priced the goods that were supplied under the contract. If one were very generous indeed and believed that he did not shop around but walked into the most expensive retail store that he could find in Brisbane, one would find that he could have purchased the video casette-recorder for $600 and the microwave for $239. The company threw in two movies that he could keep. To aUow $100 for the pair would be extremely generous. He was given a blank tape, which, I am told, is valued at $10, and two movies on loan were thrown in on the spot. They could be rented anywhere for approximately $2, and in some cases for $1, but I will be generous and allow $3 for each one. At top value, that is a total of $955 for the articles for which he was charged $2,720. That leaves $1,765, which the people who try to support these scams say is made up in rentals. The very top price being charged for rental of movies round Brisbane at present is about $3. Perhaps some places are charging more than that, but I do not know of any. In aU the places that I checked, the prices ranged from $1 to $3 for the top movies. I might add that the movies that are available from this company are far from the top. They are the ones that in most cases people would not be bothered taking home—from John Wayne's first westem to some of the old sporting newsreels that people have long since lost interest in. At that value, one would want to rent about three movies a week for the entire four years that the contract mns to come out anything approaching square. Money would still be lost, but that would bring it out somewhere close to square. That is on the supposition that in four years' time the firm wiU still be operating, and I am told that that is highly unUkely. The people who do give it some thought naturally assume that, as their contract is only with Electronic Sales and Rentals, if Electronic Sales and Rentals folds up and the movies are no longer available, they will not have to make any further payments. However, that is not what happens. Custom Credit steps in, takes over the promissory note, pays Electronic Sales and Rentals a handsome commission—I believe that that, to put it mildly, is getting round the law—and the poor customer stiU finds himself Uable for making the payments, even though he receives absolutely no benefit. The profit—or, to put it more succinctly, the rip-off—is so great that the company is able to discount the amount to the finance company and to pay spotters' commissions. When the lad realised the problem he had got himself into, he rang the company. He 612 3 September 1985 Address in Reply

was told that it could not give him his money back. Obviously it could not, because it had charged too much and there was no equity left in it. The finance company could not repossess it. It did not look like getting its money back. The salesman said to the chap, "I will give you some cards." He supplied him with about 50. He added, "If you can get some of your friends to phone me up and they give me that card when I visit them, I'U give you another microwave. If you like, we'll make it a boat." Whether or not he would ever have been paid, of course, is another matter; but that is an indication of the incentive promised as a commission for spotting. At the present time, there is absolutely no protection in this State for such needy people. Moves have been made in other States to offer protection. There should be a cooling-off period for people who sign such contracts, to enable them to consider whether or not they want to go ahead with it. They are not seen to be covered by the Door to Door (Sales) Act. The loophole used is that, when the salesman is invited to the home, the Act does not apply. That is a very shallow argument, which has been rejected in other States. There should be a requirement that people be given a clear explanation of the contract they are signing, the payments being required and the final amount to be paid. In the instance I have given, the total will be $5,000. A 14-year-old lad who is in part-time employment will be required to pay that amount for goods which, if he had purchased them with finance from a legitimate company, would have cost $2,000. The cash price would be less than $1,000. I repeat that, through Custom Credit, he is being required to pay $5,000. Because of Custom Credit's involvement with what must be recognised as a very shonky deal, I wrote to the company. If it were an ordinary hire-purchase agreement, under which equity is required, the company just would not consider it. The reply I received was most unsatisfactory. I will not take the time of the House by reading the entire letter, but I was told that Custom Credit had taken the matter up with the person who had guaranteed the loan and explained to him that he was liable for the amount; that, if the young lad did not pay, his wages would be gamisheed. He had never incurred any debts before. The company laid down the law to him: "That's it. Fully understand that you're up for it." He was not particularly worried. With good reason, he believes that the young lad will meet his commitments. To date, he has made the payments. The letter from Custom Credit says that the position has been explained to the guarantor. The letter goes on to say that Custom Credit's involvement is solely in the provision of finance. I reject that argument totally. The company has a moral obligation as well as a legal obligation when it is a party to such deals. It is not good enough to say that everything a finance company does is within the law as it presently stands in Queensland. By placing a rider on such a statement, the company is admitting that it knows quite well that the law as it presently stands is inadequate. The usual defence is to say that the companies are acting within the law, and can therefore completely reject any moral obligation that they have. As I said previously, it is the have-nots in the community who are suffering because of this inadequacy. It is not the people who have the money and those who can afford to pay outrageous amounts of money who concem me. I am concemed for the people who do not understand what they are getting into, who are desperately short of funds, who are being preyed on by these vultures and who then find themselves suffering as a result. In many issues, the Queensland Govemment has displayed a lack of compassion and concem for the kind of people I have described. Tonight, I make a plea that the Govemment act to protect those citizens, because I believe that they, too, have a right to expect protection by their Govemment. In the short time that remains, I wish to deal very quickly with another issue. The Queensland Govemment spends mUlions of dollars in expounding in propaganda—it is one of the best industries that Queensland has—the wonderful job that it is doing for its people. One of the publications that are produced regularly is Queensland Australia. Address in Reply 3 September 1985 613

I am not certain of how much this publication costs, but I do not think that its cost is included in the $1.5m that the Premier and Treasurer recently mentioned in respect of the television show Queensland Unlimited. I believe that the costs associated with Queensland Australia are outside that figure of $ 1.5m. That publication has been produced over a number of years and last year I noticed that it contained a page on education. In short, it states that education in Queensland is wonderful and it states how proud the Queensland Govemment is of the education system that operates in the State. It depicted the Toowoomba Grammar School, and the thought went through my mind, "I wonder why the Queensland Govemment, which is so proud of its schools system, would depict the example of an independent, private school, rather than a school that is funded and operated by the State Govemment?" Mr De Lacy: The Govemment could not find a decent State school. Mr SHAW: One could not help wondering whether that is so. The school that was selected to portray the kind of education facilities that are available in Queensland was the Church of England Grammar School in Toowoomba. I wonder how long it will be before the Queensland Govemment will be able to find a State school in Queensland that is up to the standard that could be suitable for inclusion in this kind of propaganda? Mr De Lacy: How did you think Claude looked the other day? Did you see Claude the other day? Mr SHAW: I must have missed that. I am sorry that I missed that. Another feature article was included on manufacturing industry. With one exception, the publication portrayed industry in Queensland as what could be described as cottage industry. The exception I refer to is the constmction of electric trains in Maryborough; however, aU of the other industries that were featured were cottage industries, such as leatherwork and hand cabinet-making. That kind of industry hardly justifies the constant trips that are being undertaken by Govemment Ministers. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Bums) listed a number of wonderful schemes that the Govemment is promoting as employment-creation ventures. The industries listed by the Govemment could only give substance to the fears expressed by many people who are familar with the views expressed by so many Govemment members during the Address in Reply debate, that is, that Queensland should be rid of unions and awards, and trade union organisation in industry should be broken down and replaced by people being able to do their own thing. What the Govemment is really saying is that the industrial relations scene in Queensland should move towards that of Singapore and Hong Kong, where many people who use sewing- machines slave away at all hours of the night for very low wages. Mr De Lacy: I call that the rickshaw mentality. Mr SHAW: A pretty fair description, too. If the Govemment of this State thinks that that is progress and that that is the sort of economy that Queensland should be looking for, I believe that a great many people in this State will be sadly disappointed. Motion—That the Address in Reply be adopted (Mr Henderson)— agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY Presentation Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I propose to present to His Excellency the Govemor, at Govemment House, on Thursday moming, 19 September at 9.30 o'clock, the Address in Reply to His Excellency's Opening Speech agreed to 614 3 September 1985 Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Bill on 3 September, and I shall be glad to be accompanied by the mover and the seconder and such other honourable members as care to be present.

SUPPLY Constitution of Committee Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty." Motion agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS Constitution of Committee Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty." Motion agreed "to.

SECOND-HAND DEALERS AND COLLECTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act 1984 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (9.42 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984, together with the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 and the Hawkers Act 1984, came into operation on 1 October 1984. Since that date there have been received from interested parties a number of submissions made with a view to improving the operation of those Acts. The submissions have been examined by officers of the PoUce Department and it is believed that they are desirable to achieve a more efficient operation of the Act, leading to satisfaction on the part of all concemed. The Act is to be called the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Act 1985. The Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984, referted to as the principal Act, is to be called the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984-1985. (Clause 1). Clause 2 of the BUI sets out the date on which the Act or any part thereof will come into operation and the procedure whereby it is to commence. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 6 of the principal Act in the areas of the present definitions of the terms "dealer", "Local Authority" and "second-hand goods" as they appear in the principal Act, and provides a definition for the term "entrepreneur". Section 6 of the principal Act defines generally who shall, for the purposes of the Act, Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 615

be a dealer. Certain persons, who would otherwise fall within the general definition of "dealer", are exempted. One such person currently exempted is a motor dealer or motor salesman licensed, where required, under the Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1984. Clause 3 of the Bill exempts a further two persons. The first is a dealer in firearms who is licensed under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1979-1984, whUst the second is the owner of goods who sells those goods, which he originally purchased new, after letting them out for a period of time on hire. It is unnecessary in these circumstances to require either of these persons to be licensed under the provisions of this Act. Clause 3 excludes those persons from the definition of "dealer". Clause 3 of the Bill provides a definition for the term "entrepreneur". An entrepreneur is referred to in the definition of the term "dealer" and in the proposed amendments to sections 11 and 17 of the principal Act. An "entrepreneur" is the person in charge of and responsible for the mnning of various forms of markets such as flea markets or trash and treasure markets from which numerous second-hand dealers operate. The present definition of the term "local authority" in the principal Act is inadequate in that it omits the various councils now established by statute on Islander and Aboriginal reserves. Clause 3 of the Bill encompasses all local authorities within Queensland that may at some time be called upon to provide local authority certificates. It is considered that the definition of "second-hand goods" in its present form in the principal Act is too wide. It has brought about a great deal of complaint from the business sector. One area of complaint centres on the retum of goods to retailers who offer money-back guarantees on goods purchased. In the terms of the present definition, goods retumed for a refund are deemed to be second-hand goods requiring the retailer not only to be licensed but also to abide by other requirements of the Act. Clearly the Act was not meant to include such items. In order to overcome this situation, clause 3 of the BiU excludes such retumed items from the general definition of "second-hand goods" Similarly, motor vehicle batteries come within the ambit of the present definition of "second-hand goods" This has created a great deal of concem among service station operators State-wide. At present, by taking a wom-out battery as a trade on a new battery, the service station operator is dealing in second-hand goods and is placed in the same position as the previously mentioned retailer and must be licensed. Once again, the Act was never intended to include such matters. Clause 3 of the Bill rectifies this situation by providing an exemption in respect of such batteries from the term "second­ hand goods" A further complaint from the service station fraternity relates to second-hand tyres. When the operator takes an old tyre casing as a trade on a new tyre, once again he is dealing in second-hand goods. Generally, the old casing is thrown away as it is of little or ho value. Because the term "used tyres" would include tmck tyres, heavy earth- moving and tractor tyres, all of which have considerable value, it is necessary to have persons trading in such tyres licensed as second-hand dealers. On the other hand, where the value of the traded in tyre is small in amount and where, in fact, it is virtually impossible to establish ownership of the tyre casing, there is little practical need to have the dealer licensed in respect of these goods. Clause 3 of the Bill excludes such tyres from the term "second-hand goods" Clause 4 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 9 of the principal Act, which refers to the issue of licences. Section 9 makes provision for an authorised officer to both issue and renew licences. In addition to the authorised officer, the officer in charge of a police station may renew licences. Clause 4, in order to centralise control of the issue and renewal of licences, vests in the authorised officer sole authority to both issue and renew a licence. This is now easily achieved because all licences under this Act are computerised. 616 3 September 1985 Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Bill

Clause 5 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 11 of the principal Act, which is concemed generally with appUcations for Ucences. Section 11 has caused concem to both business persons within the industry and local authorities alike. Section 11 (2) refers to the local authority having no objection to the applicant when giving consideration to the issue of a certificate of a local authority. The section omits the strong possibUity that the local authority may object. Furthermore, the local authority's primary concem rests not with the person. Local authorities are, as required under their various town plans, concemed more so with the real property description and its intended use. The section refers to a local authority area and the council's refusal to give a blanket-cover approval to an appUcant to operate as a second-hand dealer in a local authority area. Clause 5 of the Bill caters for such possible objection to either the applicant or the premises, whUst imposing an obligation upon the local authority to issue a certificate of local authority in or to the effect of the prescribed form. The certificate may be issued under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of the local authority. Section 11 (1) of the principal Act refers in the opening words of the paragraph to the "renewal of a licence". Clause 5 of the BiU removes the area of renewal of Ucences from the ambit of section 11. A certificate of a local authority now need only be produced upon initial application for a second-hand dealer's licence. Clause 5 of this Bill inserts the expression "(being not more than one)" after the word "premises" where it appears in section 11 (3) of the principal Act, to overcome confusion that has arisen in relation to that term, which can be interpreted in either the plural or singular sense. The intention of the Act is to aUow only one premises (buUding) per licence. If a second-hand dealer operates from, for example, three premises, he must be the holder of three second-hand dealers' licences, one in relation to each premises. It is not open to him to hold one licence with all three premises nominated thereon. A local authority certificate is required in respect of each premises. The popularity and growth of flea markets and trash and treasure markets makes it essential that operators dealing in second-hand goods at these venues be licensed. The requirement in the principal Act that each application be accompanied by a certificate of a local authority creates the situation in which the local authority may well be providing 50 to 100 or more certificates at a fee in respect of the one real property description. This was not envisaged when the Act was originally drafted and, to overcome this problem, provision is made for an entrepreneur who is the person having the overall charge and control of the abovementioned markets to make application for the certificate of the local authority in relation to the relevant real property description when applying for his second-hand dealer's licence. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that individual second-hand dealers operating from the markets will require a licence to operate but will not need to obtain a local authority certificate when a second-hand dealer's licence in the name of the entrepreneur has been issued. This will relieve the work-load of the various local authorities and wiU reduce expense involved. There is no necessity to have more than one local authority certificate in relation to the one real property description, but there is the very real need to have the individual dealers licensed in order to fulfil the purposes of the Act. Because a local authority certificate is not available where the land is leased from the Crown for any particular purpose, clause 5 exempts an applicant in such circumstances from producing a certificate when making an application for a second-hand dealer's licence. It is not uncommon for a licensed dealer to also hold or seek to hold a licence to trade as a pawn-broker. A problem has been experienced with regard to the certificate of a local authority that is required to accompany the application for a licence under both the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1984. As these Acts now stand, a certificate of a local authority is required in respect of each Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 617

application. There is need for only one certificate when the local authority certificate relates to the same premises. The present situation imposes an unnecessary financial burden on the applicant. Clause 5 of the Bill removes the requirement to have an application for a dealer's licence accompanied by a certificate of a local authority when the applicant is presently the holder of a pawn-broker's licence in respect of the same premises. Clause 6 of the BUI amends section 12 of the principal Act, which outlines the powers of the authorised officer or officer in charge of poUce. At present, the principal Act does not make provision for the inspection, etc., by an authorised officer or officer in charge, of premises or locations in respect of which an application for a second-hand dealer's licence is lodged. It has become increasingly apparent that these persons in some instances wiU need to inspect premises or locations nominated for use by an applicant. As the safety of the public generally is of utmost importance, it is necessary that the authorised officer or officer in charge of police have a power to inspect or cause to be inspected proposed premises or locations in order to ensure pubUc safety. One such instance when inspection is necessary is in circumstances in which there is a real fear of the nominated premises being a fire hazard. Clause 6 of the BUI provides the authorised officer or officer in charge with power to make or cause to be made inspections, inquiries or investigations in respect of the premises or locations nominated by the appUcant. Clause 7 amends section 13 of the principal Act, which refers to applications for Ucences, other than renewal licences. Because of the amendments outlined in clause 8 of the Bill to the provisions of section 14 of the principal Act, it is necessary to amend section 13. Clause 7 of the Bill removes from the ambit of section 13 any reference to renewal of licences. Clause 8 amends the present provisions of section 14 of the principal Act, which is concemed generally with the area of renewal of licences. When the Act was proclaimed on 1 October 1984, the provisons of this section caused concem among local authorities, dealers and coUectors alike. Section 14 1(a) of the present Act requires that an application for the renewal of a licence be accompanied by a certificate of a local authority. This requirement brings with it the need to pay the necessary fee (variable from one local authority to another) each year for this certificate. Once a local authority has provided a certificate indicating that it has no objection to the appUcant operating as a second­ hand dealer from the nominated premises or locations, the approval to operate remains. To require a certificate at each renewal date is an unnecessary financial hardship on the licensee. Inquiries from the local authorities in and around Brisbane indicate that to provide certificates at renewal is an unnecessary work-load they can well do without. By virtue of clause 8 of the BiU, it is no longer necessary to obtain a certificate of a local authority when applying for the renewal of an existing licence. Section 14 (2) of the principal Act provides for the appUcation for renewal of an existing licence to be determined by an authorised officer or the officer in charge of police for the division of the poUce district in which the appUcation is lodged. Clause 8 of the Bill, in order to centralise control of the issue and renewal of licences (and thus provide a workable system under which the renewal and replacement of Ucences can be accounted for) provides that an authorised officer is the only person authorised to both issue and renew a licence. This is easily achieved now that records of Ucences issued under this Act have been computerised. The officer in charge of police for the division of the poUce district in which the applicant is then residing or in which he carries on the business of a second-hand dealer or collector may stiU receive an application and make recommendations in relation thereto, but the ultimate decision will rest with the authorised officer. The authorised officer may approve the application conditionally or unconditionally or may refuse the application. As the principal Act now stands, upon approval of an application for renewal, a licence may be renewed according to the duration of the period of renewal either by endorsement on the existing licence or by the issue of another licence. 618 3 September 1985 Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act Amendment Bill

The dealer and collector are required by the Act to have the licence with them whilst engaged in their business. Most licences issued by State Govemment departments are replaced at the time of renewal and there would be no difficuUy in following this procedure. Clause 8 of this Bill provides for the issue of another licence upon renewal and, when renewed subject to conditions, those conditions are to be endorsed on the renewed licence. Clause 11 correspondingly amends the provisions of section 20 of the principal Act. Clause 9 of the Bill repeals section 15 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 15 in lieu thereof Section 15 of the principal Act provides that a licence, unless sooner revoked, surrendered or cancelled, shall remain in force for a period of 12 months. As with the Hawkers Act 1984, there is a need for the authorised officer to be able to grant a licence for a period of less than 12 months should the necessity arise. Circumstances may occur in which a local authority may object to a second-hand dealer operating from nominated premises or location for a whole year, or, altematively, an applicant may himself wish to operate only for a Umited time. A recent example was a dealer from Great Britain who, for some years, has conducted a sale of antique silverware from an area set aside at the Gazebo Motel. This sale is conducted over a period of about 10 days. There is a need to provide an endorsement on a licence for a stipulated period in circumstances such as these, where it would be unsatisfactory to allow the sale of such goods from these premises for a period of 12 months but satisfactory to all concemed for such a sale over a shorter duration of time. Clause 10 of the Bill repeals section 17 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 17 in lieu thereof Section 17 of the principal Act stipulates that a licence is not transferable. The original intention of the Act was that the licence could not be transferred from one person to another person and this is to be continued. However, instances have been reported of dealers who have been forced to move from their premises to another prior to the expiration of their current licence, and have had to apply for a new licence. One such instance occurred when a second-hand dealer's premises was gutted by fire some short time after his licence in respect of that premises was obtained. He established new premises some short distance away from his original shop and then sought to have the address of his new premises endorsed on his current licence. As the principal Act now stands, this was not possible, and he was required to obtain a new licence. This was never the original intention of the legislation. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that a particular dealer may apply for an endorsement of new premises on his existing second-hand dealer's licence. The application for endorsement is to be accompanied by the relevant local authority certificate. A dealer may be licensed in respect of one premises only per licence at any one time and is not able to transfer that licence to another person. The application is to be accompanied by the prescribed fee, if any. Clause 10 of the Bill also allows for additional or replacement locations to be endorsed on the dealer's existing licence. An application for endorsement may be made to an officer in charge of police of the division of the police district in which the licensee resides or in which he presently carries on business or proposes to carry on business at any premises or locations specified in the application. The relevant local authority certificate may be issued under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of the respective local authority. The officer in charge of police shall forward the application, and his recommendations in relation thereto, to the authorised officer who shall determine the matter. Conditions may be imposed on the licence and, if so imposed, shall be endorsed on the licence. Exemptions in respect of the production of the certificate of the local authority are made in clause 10 of the BiU. These exemptions are identical to those previously mentioned when outlining the provisions of clause 5. Hawkers Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 619

Clause 11 amends section 20 of the principal Act by deleting reference to "replacement Ucences" as this term is no longer needed. Clause 12 amends the provisions of section 26 of the principal Act by inserting after the word "premises", the expression, "(being not more than one)" The need for such amendment has been previously referred to when considering the provisions of clause 5. Clause 13 amends the provisions of section 39 of the principal Act, which provides for a collector to seU goods collected by him only to a second-hand dealer. This stipulation is of concem to the collector where some of the goods that he collects are not purchased by the dealer because they are unsuitable. This then leaves the coUector in the invidious position in which he has goods that he cannot sell. Clause 13 allows a collector to dispose of such unsuitable goods by way of public auction. This is in line with the amendments proposed to section 14 of the principal Act (clause 14) in relation to the dealer. Section 42 of the principal Act provides that a licensed dealer shaU not seU second­ hand goods except in the premises or at the locations endorsed upon his licence pursuant to section 26. It has long been the practice for second-hand dealers to sell slow-moving goods by public auction at the premises of a licensed auctioneer. Clause 14 allows for the continuation of this practice. Clause 15 amends section 44 of the principal Act. Section 44 (2) of the principal Act requires that a dealer enter in the register of transactions prescribed particulars of every transaction relating to the acquisition, sale or disposal of second-hand goods. This means that the dealer, when he buys an article of little value (for example, smaU items of crockery or omaments), still has to maintain the register of transactions. If the value of the article is very low and has no identifying marks, there is little point in maintaining a record of the purchase or the sale in the register. However, where the goods are identifiable by mark or brand, jewellery, or a precious metal, then the goods should be recorded. Clause 15 exempts the dealer from entering in the register of transactions particulars of second-hand goods with a resale value of less than $50—this value appears satisfactory to aU parties concemed—except where they faU into one of the classes previously mentioned. Clause 16 of the Bill creates a new section 47A, which provides for a holding period for certain goods. Under the repealed Second-hand Wares Act 1921, a withholding period of seven days on all second-hand goods was provided. That section was deleted when the principal Act was prepared. However, it is very much needed to assist police generally in locating stolen property. It is not necessary that all second-hand goods be retained for that period. Clause 16 of the Bill provides for a withholding period in respect of goods that are either identifiable or more readily stolen or disposed of, such as electrical goods and jewellery. Similar amendments have been proposed in relation to certain sections of both the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 and the Hawkers Act 1984. These proposed amendments, especially in relation to the Ucensing machinery areas, seek to maintain a degree of simUarity between the three Acts. I commend the BiU to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjoumed.

HAWKERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Hawkers Act 1984 in certain particulars." 620 3 September 1985 Hawkers Act Amendment Bill

Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (10.6 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Hawkers Act 1984, together with the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 came into operation on 1 October 1984. Since that date, a number of submissions have been received from interested parties with a view to improving the operation of these Acts. The submissions have been examined by officers of the Police Department, and it is believed that they are desirable to achieve a more efficient operation of the Acts, leading to satisfaction on the part of all concemed. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the title of the Act, and clause 2 sets out the date on which the Act or any part thereof will come into operation and the procedure whereby it will commence. Clause 3 amends section 6 of the principal Act, which is an interpretation section. The present definition of the term "local authority" is inadequate in that it omits the various councils now established by statute on Islander and Aboriginal reserves. Clause 3 of the Bill amends the definition of local authority so as to encompass aU local authorities that may at some time be called upon to provide local authority certificates. Clause 4 amends section 9 of the principal Act, which makes provision for an authorised officer to both issue and renew licences. In addition to the authorised officer, the officer in charge of a police station may presently renew licences. Now that licence details are computerised, it is proposed in clause 4 of the Bill, in order to centraUse control of the issue and renewal of licences, to give the authorised officer sole authority to both issue and renew a licence. Clause 5 amends section 11 of the principal Act, which has caused concem to both business persons within the industry and local authorities alike. Subsection (2) of that section refers to the local authority having no objection to the applicant when giving consideration to the issue of a certificate of a local authority. The section omits the strong possibility that the local authority may, and quite frequently does, wish to object to the operation of the hawker. Clause 5 of the Bill caters for such possible objection while imposing an obligation upon the local authority to issue a certificate of a local authority in or to the effect of the prescribed form. The certificate may be issued under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of the local authority. An application for a licence or renewal thereof under section 11 of the principal Act may be made by the applicant personally to the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the applicant resides. Clause 5 of the Bill, in order to assist a roving or itinerant hawker, or a hawker having a permanent interstate address, allows an applicant to make an application for a licence to the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which he resides or in which he carries on or proposes to carry on the business of a hawker. Section 11 (1) of the principal Act refers in the opening words of the paragraph to the "renewal of a licence" Clause 5 of the Bill removes the area of renewal of licences from the ambit of section 11. A certificate of a local authority now need only be produced at the time of the initial application for a hawker's licence. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 13 of the principal Act, which refers to "appUcations for Ucences other then renewal licences". Because of the proposed amendments Hawkers Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 621 to section 14 of the Act, it is necessary to amend section 13. Clause 6 of the Bill removes from the ambit of section 13 any reference to renewal of licences. Clause 7 of the BUI repeals the present section 14 and substitutes a new section 14 in lieu thereof Section 14 (1) of the principal Act provides for a licensed hawker to make application for the renewal of his licence to the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which he is then residing. Clause 7 of the Bill additionaUy allows in the substituted section 14 for the hawker to make application for the renewal of his licence to the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which he carries on the business of a hawker. This caters for the interstate hawker having his place of residence, for example, in Victoria, but carrying on his business in Brisbane. It likewise assists the itinerant or roving hawker. As section 14 of the principal Act now stands, an application for renewal of a licence must be accompanied by a certificate of a local authority. This requirement presently brings with it the need to pay the requisite fee each year for the certificate. Once a local authority has provided a certificate indicating that it has no objection to the appUcant operating as a hawker from the nominated local authority area, the approval to operate remains. To require a certificate at each renewal date is an unnecessary financial burden on the licensee. The local authorities have no desire or need to provide this certificate; nor does the Police Department require a further certificate. Clause 7 of the Bill removes the necessity of obtaining such a certificate when applying for the renewal of an existing licence. Section 14 (2) of the principal Act provides for the determination of the application by either the authorised officer or the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the application is lodged. The provisions of the new section 14 (clause 7 of the BiU), in order to centralise control of the issue and renewal of licences and thus provide a workable system under which the renewal and replacement of licences can be readily accounted for, provide for the authorised officer to be the sole person authorised to both issue and renew a hawker's licence. This amendment is complemented by the fact that Ucence records are now computerised. The officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the applicant is then residing or in which he carries on the business of a hawker may still receive an application and make recommendations in relation thereto, but the ultimate decision rests with the authorised officer. In addition to the aforementioned matters, section 14 of the principal Act provides that, upon approval of an application for renewal, a licence may be renewed according to the duration of the period of renewal either by endorsement on the original licence or by the issue of another licence. The hawker is required by the Act to have the licence with him whilst engaged in his business. Most licences issued by State Govemment department's are replaced at the time of renewal and there is no difficulty in following this procedure. Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the issue of another licence upon renewal and, when renewed subject to conditions, those conditions are to be endorsed on the renewed licence. Clause 8 repeals section 15 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 15 in lieu thereof Section 15 of the principal Act provides that a Ucence, unless sooner revoked, surrendered or cancelled, shall remain in force for a period of 12 months. As is the case with the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act 1984, a need exists for the authorised officer to be able to grant a licence for a period of less than 12 months should the necessity arise. Circumstances may occur in which a local authority may object to a hawker operating for a portion of a year or, altematively, an applicant may himself wish to operate only for a limited time. Clause 8 provides the authority for an officer to grant a licence for a period of less than 12 months in circumstances that warrant a reduced period. This period shall be endorsed on the licence. 622 3 September 1985 Pawnbrokers Act Amendment Bill

Clause 9 repeals section 17 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 17 in lieu thereof Section 17 of the principal Act stipulates that a licence is not transferable. The original intention of the Act was that the licence could not be transferred from one person to another, and that continues. No provision is presently contained in the principal Act that allows for an endorsement to be made upon an existing hawker's licence to carry on business in an additional local authority area. Under the present provisions, a hawker must make a fresh application for a hawker's licence in circumstances in which it is intended to operate in a local authority area for which no current licence exists. This was never the original intention of the Act. The new section 17 provided for in clause 9 I'emedies this situation by allowing for an application to be made by a hawker to an officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the hawker resides or in which he carries on or proposes to carry on the business of a hawker, to have the existing hawker's licence endorsed with additional local authority areas. The application for endorsement must be accompanied by the relevant local authority certificate, which may be issued under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of the respective local authority. The officer in charge of police shall forward the application, and his recommendations in relation thereto, to the authorised officer who shaU determine the matter. Conditions may be imposed by the authorised officer and, if so imposed, shall be endorsed on the licence. Clause 10 amends section 21 of the principal Act and is a machinery amendment that complements the changes already mentioned in connection with the issuing and renewing of licences. Clause 11 amends the provisions of section 25 of the principal Act, which provides for a right of appeal by an aggrieved applicant to a Magistrates Court. Clause 11 extends the appeal provisions to a licensee who, in accordance with the provisions of the proposed section 17, is aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer in respect of his application for endorsement of additional local authority areas. Similar amendments have been proposed in relation to certain sections of both the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1984. These amendments, especially those relating to the machinery provisions, seek to maintain a degree of simUarity between the three Acts. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjoumed.

PAWNBROKERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon, W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (10.20 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Pawnbrokers Act 1984, together with the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Hawkers Act 1984, came into operation on 1 October 1984. Since that date, a number of submissions has been received from interested parties who wish to improve the operation of these Acts. The submissions have been examined by officers Pawnbrokers Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 623

of the Police Department, and it is believed that they are desirable to achieve a more efficient operation of the Acts, leading to satisfaction on the part of all concemed. This Act is to be called the Pawnbrokers Act Amendment Act 1985. The Pawnbrokers Act 1984, referred to as the principal Act as amended by this Act, is to be called the Pawnbrokers Act 1984-1985. Clause 2 of this BiU sets out the date on which the Act or any part thereof will come into operation and the procedure whereby it is to commence. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 6 of the principal Act which contains the definition of the term "Local Authority" as it presently appears in section 6 of the principal Act. The present definition is inadequate in that it omits the various councils now established by statute on Islander and Aboriginal reserves. Clause 3 encompasses all local authorities within Queensland that may at some time be called upon to provide local authority certificates. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 9 of the principal Act, which refers to the issue of licences. Section 9 makes provision for an authorised officer to both issue and renew licences. In addition to the authorised officer, the officer in charge of a police station may renew licences. Clause 4 of the Bill, in order to centralise control of the issue and renewal of licences, will now vest in the authorised officer the sole authority to both issue and renew a licence. That is easily achieved now that licence records under this Act are computerised. Clause 5 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 11 of the principal Act. This section is concemed generally with applications for licences. Section 11 has caused concem to both business persons within the industry and local authorities alike. Subsection (2) of the section refers to the local authority having no objection to the appUcant when giving consideration to the issue of a certificate of a local authority. The section omits the strong possibility that the local authority may object. Furthermore, the primary concem of the local authorities rests not with the person. They are, as required under their various town plans, concemed more with the real property description and its use. Although the section refers to a "Local Authority Area", local authorities refuse to give a blanket-cover approval to an applicant to operate as a pawn-broker in a local authority area. Clause 5 of the Bill caters for such possible objection to either the applicant or the premises by imposing an obligation upon the local authority to issue a certificate of the local authority in or to the effect of the prescribed form. The certificate may be issued under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of a local authority. Section 11 (1) of the principal Act refers, in the opening words of the paragraph, to the "renewal of a license". Clause 5 of the Bill removes the area of renewal of licences from the ambit of section 11. A certificate of a local authority now need only be produced upon initial application for a pawn-broker's licence. Clause 5 inserts the expression "(being not more than one)" after the word "premises" where it appears in section 11 (3) to overcome the confusion that has arisen in relation to that term, which can be interpreted either in the plural or singular sense. The intention of the act is to allow only one premises per licence. If a pawn-broker operates from, for example, three premises, he must be the holder of three pawn-broker's licences, one in relation to each premises. He cannot hold one Ucence with all premises nominated thereon. It is not uncommon for a licensed pawn-broker to also hold or seek to hold a licence to trade as a second-hand dealer. A problem iias been experienced with regard to the certificate of a local authority which is required to accompany the application for a Ucence under both the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers 624 3 September 1985 Pawnbrokers Act Amendment Bill

Act 1984. As these Acts now stand, a certificate of a local authority is requested in respect of each application. There is need for only one certificate as the local authority certificate relates to the same premises. The present situation imposes an unnecessary financial burden on the applicant. Clause 5 of the Bill removes the requirement to have an application for a pawn­ broker's licence accompanied by a certificate of a local authority when the appUcant is presently the holder of a second-hand dealer's licence in respect of the same premises. Similarly, one certificate of a local authority only is required when an applicant makes a simultaneous application for both a dealer's licence and a pawn-broker's Ucence in respect of the same premises. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 12 of the principal Act in two respects. The first change merely corrects a typographical ertor existing in the present provisions in the speUing of the word "Queensland" The second change involves the powers of the authorised officer or officer in charge of poUce. At the present time, the principal Act does not include provision for the inspection by an authorised officer or officer in charge of premises in respect of which an application for a pawn­ broker's licence is lodged. It has become increasingly apparent that, in some instances, those persons will need to inspect premises nominated for use by an applicant. As the safety of the public generally is of utmost importance, it is considered necessary that, in order to ensure public safety, the authorised officer or officer in charge of poUce have a power to inspect or cause to be inspected proposed premises. One such instance in which inspection is necessary is in circumtances where there is a real fear of the nominated premises being a fire hazard. Clause 6 provides the authorised officer or officer in charge with power to make or cause to be made inspections, inquiries or investigations in respect of the premises nominated by the applicant. Clause 7 amends section 13 of the principal Act, which refers to "applications for licences, other than renewal licences" Because of the amendments outlined in clause 8 of the Bill to the provisions of section 14 of the principal Act, it is necessary to amend section 13. Clause 7 of the Bill removes from the ambit of section 13 any reference to renewal licences. Clause 8 of the Bill amends the present provisions of section 14 of the principal Act, which is concemed generally with the area of renewal of licences. Subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 14 are repealed by clause 8 and replaced by amending provisions. As section 14 of the principal Act now stands, an application for the renewal of an existing licence may be determined by an authorised officer or the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the application is lodged. Clause 8 of the Bill, with a view to centralised control of the issue and renewal of licences, wiU now vest in the authorised officer the sole authority to both issue and renew a licence. This is more easily achieved now that all licence records are computerised. The officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the applicant is residing or in which he carries on the business of a pawn-broker may still receive an application and make recommendations in relation thereto, but the ultimate decision rests with the authorised officer. The authorised officer may approve the application either conditionally or unconditionally, or may refuse the application. In addition to the aforementioned matters, section 14 of the principal Act provides that, upon approval of an application for renewal, a licence may be renewed according to the duration of the period of renewal, either by endorsement on the original licence or by the issue of another licence. The pawn-broker is required by the Act to have the licence with him while engaged in his business. Most licences issued by State Govemment departments are replaced at the time of renewal, and there is no difficulty in following this procedure. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the issue of another licence upon renewal, and when renewed subject to conditions, those conditions are to be endorsed Pawnbrokers Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 625

on the renewed licence. Qause 10 of the BUI correspondingly amends the provisions of section 20 of the principal Act. Clause 9 of the BiU repeals section 17 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 17 in lieu thereof Section 17 of the principal Act stipulates that a Ucence is not transferable. The original intention of the Act was that the Ucence could not be transferted from one person to another, and that is continued. There is no provision in the principal Act to aUow for an endorsement to be made upon an existing pawn-broker's licence of new premises. Instances have been reported of pawn-brokers who have been forced to move from one premises to another prior to the expiration of their current Ucence, and who have had to apply for a new licence—for example, where the original premises were gutted by fire. That was never the intention of the legislation. Clause 9 of the BiU remedies the situation, making provision whereby a Ucensed pawn-broker may apply for endorsement of new premises (being not more than one) on his existing pawn-broker's licence. The application for endorsement must be accompanied by the relevant local authority certificate. The local authority shaU issue a certificate in or to the effect of the prescribed form, under the seal of the local authority or under the hand of a duly authorised employee of the local authority. The application for endorsement of replacement premises shall be made initially to an officer in charge of poUce, who shall forward the appUcation together with his recommendations to the authorised officer, who will ultimately determine the matter. The authorised officer may approve the appUcation either conditionally or unconditionaUy, or may refuse the application. The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee (if any). Details of the replacement premises and any conditions imposed are to be endorsed on the licence by the authorised officer. Clause 9 of the Bill, in addition to the matters already discussed, removes the requirement for the production of a certificate of a local authority by an applicant when making application for endorsement of replacement premises in two instances. The first instance is that in which he has already had the same replacement premises endorsed on his dealer's licence. Secondly, one certificate of a local authority is sufficient where an application is made simultaneously under the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 to have the same premises endorsed on the respective licences. In each of the aforementioned instances, the production of two certificates of a local authority in respect of the one real property description imposes an unnecessary financial burden on the appUcant, and serves no useful purpose. Clause 10 is a machinery provision required as a result of the new method for issuing Ucences. Clause 11 amends the provisions of section 25 of the principal Act. Because of the changes to section 17 previously outlined, it follows that section 25 of the principal Act must also be amended. Section 25 presently prohibits the transfer of a licence from one premises to another. Clause 11 makes provision for such a transfer subject to the obtaining of a certificate of a local authority in respect of the new premises in the appropriate circumstances and the payment of the prescribed fee (if any). Clause 12 amends the provisions of section 34 of the principal Act, which provides in subsection (3) thereof, that, where an article for which an amount of less than $10 has been advanced by a pawn-broker and is not redeemed within the period of redemption, it shaU become the property of the pawn-broker free of all claims thereto. Subsection (4) of section 34 of the principal Act provides that, where an article in respect of which the amount of $10 or more has been advanced and is not redeemed within the redemption period, the licensed pawn-broker may sell the article in the prescribed manner free from aU claims by the person who pawned the article. In today's economic climate, it is considered that a more realistic value would be that of $40 in the instances outlined. Clause 12 provides that the sum of $40 be inserted in lieu of $10. The sum of $40 is the limit presently imposed in the comparable Northem Territory legislation.

68704—22 626 3 September 1985 Police Complaints Tribunal Act Amendment Bill

Clause 13 amends the provisions of section 35 of the principal Act, which requires that a tmst account be maintained with a bank for the purposes of banking the difference between the proceeds of sale of unredeemed goods and the amount of the deductions. If unclaimed, this amount is then to be paid to the Public Tmstee to be placed to the credit of the Unclaimed Moneys Fund. However, the Act is silent on who is to inspect this account and ensure that the requirements of the Act are being fulfilled. Clause 13 imposes an obligation upon the pawn-broker to make available at any time when his premises are open for business, upon request, all books of account and records relating to requirements imposed in subsections (3) and (4) of section 35 of the principal Act to a police officer. Clause 14 amends the provisions of section 61 of the principal Act, which makes provision for a right of appeal by an aggrieved applicant to the Magistrates Court. Clause 14 extends the appeal provisions to a licensee who, in accordance with the provisions of the proposed section 17, is aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer in respect of his application for endorsement of replacement premises. Similar amendments have been made to certain sections of the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Hawkers Act 1984. These amendments, especially those relating to the machinery provisions, seek to maintain a degree of similarity between the three Acts. I commend this BiU to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjoumed.

POLICE COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Police Complaints Tribunal Act 1982 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (10.35 p.m.): I move— "That the BUI be now read a second time." The Police Complaints Tribunal Act came into operation in 1982 and, since that date, through acceptance of this legislation by the public, the work-load of the tribunal has increased beyond initial expectations. The volume and complexity of the complaints calling for investigation by the members of the tribunal are placing an ever-increasing demand upon the members' time, considering their individual commitments to other duties. During the period that this legislation has been in force, its application has been well tested and certain areas have been identified which require amendment to facilitate the effectiveness of the practical application of the Act. Presently the Act requires that three members be appointed to deal with all business of the tribunal. To alleviate the hardship imposed by this restricted membership and to enable the tribunal to respond to the increasing demands made upon it, an additional member is required. Furthermore, an addition to the membership would increase efficiency by enabling the tribunal to function during the absence of a member owing to illness or for some other pressing reason. The amendment will increase the membership Police Complaints Tribunal Act Amendment Bill 3 September 1985 627 from three to four and provide that the business of the tribunal in most cases can be dealt with by a quomm of three of its members. The membership wiU comprise, as chairman, a judge of the Supreme or District Courts; a stipendiary magistrate as deputy chairman; a person appointed at the direction of the Govemor in Council; and the remaining member being a person nominated or deemed to have been nominated by the Queensland PoUce Union of Employees or a person who is a retired member of the police force having retired at a rank not less than senior sergeant. Experience has shown the necessity of having a judicial officer as chairman or acting in the capacity of chairman. Many problems arising in investigations revolve around the Magistrates Court and its procedures and therefore it is very necessary to have a stipendiary magistrate appointed to the tribunal who, in the absence of the chairman, would, as deputy chairman, assume the role of chairman. To ensure continuity should the member appointed from the police union retire, it is necessary that he continue on the tribunal, as a member of the poUce force who has retired, until his term on the tribunal expires. The chairman will be required to take his place on the tribunal when it is deaUng with the specific functions required by section 8 (c) and section 9 (d) of the Act. However, he may assume a supervisory role in other matters dealt with by the quomm under the chairmanship of the deputy chairman. Section 8 (c) refers to the function of the tribunal to consider matters of public knowledge that involve allegations of misconduct, etc., by members of the police force. Section 9 (d) refers to powers of the tribunal to determine the extent, if any, to which material brought before the tribunal is to be pubUshed. Section 16 of the present Act provides a form of protection from liabUity to members of the tribunal and its agents. However that protection does not extend to the Crown or the Minister. Experience has shown that, in matters of high pubUc interest, certain pronouncements should be made by the Minister or the tribunal. It is difficult enough for the tribunal to exercise its discretion as to whether material before the tribunal should be published under section 9 (d) when the interests of the persons directly concemed with a matter are weighed against the interest of the public at large, without having to worry whether the members, their agents, or the Minister and the Crown might be sued. One of the criticisms of the Act is that the public is not informed sufficiently promptly of what the tribunal is doing or has done. It is not practical or wise to withhold information until it can be released by the Minister in ParUament. On occasions, the pubUc interest requires that information as to the tribunal inquiries be made known. The amendment to section 16 will aUeviate the situation and bring the protective provision into line with that provided in other legislation. From time to time, matters of great importance come to the knowledge of the Minister and the commissioner as complaints or allegations that are serious enough to require referral to the tribunal and for it to assume its role as a commission of inquiry. The present legislation does not clearly enable this to be done. The strength of proposed section 18A is that it will clearly permit the Minister himself or the commissioner to refer such matters as are appropriate. The Bill comprises five clauses necessary to achieve practical efficiency and clarity in the operation of this legislation. Clause 1 provides the citation. Clause 2 amends section 4 of the principal Act by providing for the appointment of four members of the tribunal. Clause 3 inserts a new section 4A to provide for a quomm of three members to conduct the business of the tribunal and to require the presence of the chairman in specific matters. 628 3 September 1985 Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Bill

Clause 4 amends section 16 of the principal Act to make it consistent with other legislation giving protection to the Crown and the Minister. Clause 5 provides a new section 18A permitting referrals to the tribunal by the Minister and the commissioner. I commend the BiU to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjoumed.

DISPOSAL OF UNEXECUTED WARRANTS BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 26 Febmary 1985 (see p. 3386, vol. 297) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (10.42 p.m.): The Opposition has no great problem with this legislation, which deals with the disposal of unexecuted wartants. Members of the Opposition understand and accept statements that have been made to the effect that the Police Department has on file and on record tens of thousands of wartants and that the vast majority of those warrants are not likely to be ever executed. In fact, I understand that a number of the wartants go back to the 1920s and the 1930s and relate to offences the perpetrators of which have long gone and will never be located. The information I have obtained from police officers is that practical problems exist because the record system is cluttered, which makes it very difficult to get to those wartants and efficiently deal with those warrants that could possibly be executed. On that basis, it seems reasonable to dispose of those wartants. I understand that the Police Department is undertaking an extensive program of computerisation of its records and that warrants are to be included in that process. Hopefully, that wiU avoid the necessity for this having to occur in the future. I think we can rest assured that a department such as the PoUce Department would not be interested in cancelling warrants if there was, in the view of the Police Department or any police officer, any prospect at all that those warrants could at some time be executed and the perpetrator of an offence or a suspect brought to justice. As to the provision in the legislation that the commissioner should arrange for the retum of warrants issued by the judiciary, a magistrate or justices of the peace—I understand that the legislation provides that unexecuted warrants may be cancelled after a minimum period of two years has elapsed from the date of the warrant. I am not sure whether that period is a little short, but I accept the Minister's indication that that has been established as a relevant and appropriate period. The Opposition agrees that these proposals will assist with the administration of justice in this State by removing the excessive number of wartants presently on the records, by making those that could possibly be executed more readily available and, hopefully, making the job of the police and the other authorities easier. On that basis, the Opposition is happy to support the legislation. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (10.45 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the intent and the Mr Comben: Which faction—Howard or Peacock? Mr INNES: The Liberal Party in the State of Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Would the honourable member for Rockhampton please lower his microphone; it is picking up background noise. Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Bill 3 September 1^85 629

Mr INNES: I understand your confusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is difficiUt to distinguish between a raised microphone and the honourable member for Windsor (Mr Comben). The process of computerisation and the necessary record coUation which it demands bring to light a variety of problems, and old warrants which are unUkely to be executed are clearly one of them. Problems do arise in relation to warrants generally. In the last two months, I personally would have had three electoral complaints involving warrants. One of those complaints related to the execution of a wartant on a person who was not the actual person specified in the warrant. This person was arrested and taken before the court. He protested that he was not the person referted to. Only on the checking of fingerprints was it found that this person was, as he had continuaUy protested, not the person referted to in the wartant. A certain looseness is being adopted by the law enforcement agencies with regard to the execution of warrants. The case that I mention is merely one of the more dramatic instances. When the lawyers for the person who protested, "I am not the person you say I am. I am not the person who is referred to in that warrant," required the authorities to prove the case, it was found on a check of fingerprints that he had been wrongfully artested, that his contention was correct and that he was not the person referted to in the warrant. Only two days ago, in my electorate, I received a complaint from a completely law- abiding middle-aged lady whose door was knocked upon at 9.30 in the evening. She was disturbed, at the very least, by a person who wished to execute a wartant. The only thing that she had in common with the person referted to in the warrant was that she bore the same initials and the same sumame. Not even the address on the warrant was correct. A person who Uved 15 miles away on the other side of Brisbane bore the same sumame, the same christian name and the address of the person for whom the warrant was always intended. It is very disturbing to a law-abiding member of the community to have the members of law enforcement agencies act so cavaUerly about the servicing of warrants. Admittedly they see the damed things every day. However, for the person to whom the warrant represents the considered judicial determination of the community and the threat of imprisonment or the enforcement of a debt, the service is disturbing. It is extremely distressing to be disturbed late at night by persons acting in the name of the law who have not even had the decency or the pmdence to engage in the m_ost cursory of checks. During the last week, I came across another instance in which members of the police force claiming to act pursuant to a court order disturbed another completely law- abiding person in my electorate and demanded the giving up of a chUd who that person had, in total innocence and as a gesture of friendship, taken at the time of the death of the custodian. The police represented that they were acting pursuant to a court order, which did not exist. The suggestion that they had any court backing for that authority was a total falsehood. I come now to the matter at issue. If hundreds and thousands of warrants are Uttering the system, the police take them as a matter of routine. They usuaUy enforce them weeks or months after they are issued. Frankly, they become inured—hardened— to the whole circumstances of a warrant and attempt to pursue enforcement in circumstances or at times of the day or night that are totally unjustified. I recaU an attempt being made in my own electorate to enforce a wartant at 10.30 p.m. on Christmas eve, which led to the person's ringing me. The poUce were proposing to refuse any time to pay. The person had Bankcard, cheque-books and banks—total facilities, if business facilities had been open, to obtain money to pay the traffic fine— but, because the police had been twice to the premises—the person concemed was a 630 3 September 1985 Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Bill self-employed person who was away for 12 or 16 hours a day on business—they were aimoyed and were proposing at 10.30 p.m. on Christmas eve to allow no time to pay. I know that, in the last 24 hours, the Minister has had to consider the ramifications of the Criminal Code. I have no hesitation in saying that I approached the police force and suggested that what was happening was totally outrageous and that any action should be deferted untU the first business day, which in that year would have been 27 December, so that the person could obtain from his bank the amount that was referted to in the warrant. A cavaUer attitude is taken by many poUce. So often a warrant is clogged up in the system and the action taken under it waits untU it suits the police. It becomes divorced from the person, divorced from the event, and leads to acts that to ordinary members of the community appear to be callous and totally insensitive. The execution of wartants is a vexed matter. Apart from getting rid of ancient warrants, the execution of warrants and the circumstances of their execution require significant review. The action required should not be seen by members of the poUce force as another weapon of harassment. The execution of a wartant should not be seen by members of the poUce force or others as a matter of routine and indifference. Mr Scott: Did you ring the Minister that night? Mr INNES: No, I rang the poUce direct. I spoke to the sergeant, shall we say—the man who had had experience—and he saw the good sense in aUowing a reasonable time in which human beings could order their affairs. Guide-lines ought to be given to those who are to enforce warrants, to ensure that execution is carried out in a reasonably sensitive and responsible fashion. As I have mentioned in the House on an earUer occasion, it is related to the execution of other processes of the court, such as court orders in civil and other matters. Actions by baiUffs involve different issues. Very often, complaints about them are to the effect that insufficient steps are taken at appropriate times to enforce a court order. A balance has to be stmck. It could be said that my electorate would not experience a great number of warrants being executed, in comparison with other electorates, but I certainly recall very readUy some dramatic instances in which the execution of wartants has been sadly abused. Three of those instances have occurted in the last three months. Insofar as the BiU has been introduced to promote efficiency, the Liberal Party supports it. However, insofar as the general question of warrants is concemed, Govemment agencies wiU need to smarten up. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.56 p.m.): The purpose of the BiU that is presently before the House is to dispose of unexecuted warrants. I beUeve that aU honourable members wiU support the Bill because it deals with culling unexecuted warrants. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mr Harper) informed the House that, at present, the wartant bureau of the PoUce Department holds approximately 70 000 wartants, some of which date back to before 1919. As was stated previously, a large number of those wartants relate to persons who are no longer able to be traced and perhaps it is the case that many of those people have passed on. Because computerisation is taking place in Govemment departments at present it is a very good time to review systems. In this way, unexecuted warrants that should be recalled can be brought back into the system very quickly. I note that, after a minimum period of two years, wartants may be cancelled. I recognise that two years is a fairly short period. However, I also note that fresh warrants can be sought at a later date if problems need to be solved. If the notice of law enforcement agencies is drawn to an offender for whom a wartant has already been issued, and if the wartant has been canceUed, a fresh warrant can be swom so that the offender can be apprehended. Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Bill 3 September 1985 631

It is also noteworthy that disposal of warrants must be carried out in the presence of an officer of the Department of Justice, and authorised by the Minister. The legislation is timely. I beUeve that it is a very simple and clear piece of legislation. I feel sure that law enforcement agencies wiU be in favour of its introduction. I also believe that all warrants kept at the wartant bureau of the Police Department should be enforceable so that poUce officers and those who are engaged in executing warrants will have an uncluttered list of people who should be apprehended. The legislation reflects the wish of the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General to tidy up the housekeeping responsibilities of his department, and I offer my whole-hearted support for the Bill.

Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (10.59 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I have noted the comments made by members of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes). Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. I thought that a Ust of speakers had been provided to the Chair and that that list would be followed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I can only go by the Usts that are handed to me by the Whips. The list that was handed to me contained the names of only three members, and the speakers whose names appear on the Ust have been heard. Mr HARPER: As I said previously, I thank all members, especiaUy the honourable member for Sherwood, for their contributions. It wiU be necessary to move amendments to two clauses of the Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants BiU in which reference is made to the short title of the Justices Act as "the Justices Act 1886-1982". The short title of the Justices Act has been changed to read "the Justices Act 1886-1985" by virtue of the Director of Prosecutions Act and Justices Act Amendment Act 1985 having been introduced since this BiU came before the House. Accordingly, clauses 3 and 5 of the Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants BiU are to be amended. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to.

Committee Mr Randell (Mirani) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Harper (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) in charge of the BUI. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3—Interpretation— Mr HARPER (11.3 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 2, line 25, omit the expression— '1982' and substitute the expression— '1985'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. 632 3 September 1985 Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill

Clause 5—CanceUation of warrants— Mr HARPER (11.4 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 2, Une 36, omit the expression— '1982' and substitute the expression— '1985'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 8, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, with amendments. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (EXTRA-TERRITORIAL OFFENCES) BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 26 Febmary 1985 (see p. 3388, vol. 297) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (11.6 p.m.): Basically, the Opposition supports the thmst of the legislation. It is pleasing to note that, increasingly in this country, a uniform or national approach is being taken to certain matters. In the fight against crime, whether it be organised crime or other criminal activity, it is very important that Govemments of aU States, irrespective of political complexion, be prepared to co-operate and ensure that petty differences do not get in the way of the efficient enforcement of the criminal law. This legislation is subject to considerable agreement between the States. It will provide for the issue of search warrants in Queensland to pursue investigations in Queensland relative to offences, whether they be against the law of the States, the Territories or the Commonwealth. Difficulties have been experienced in the past. It is hoped that this legislation wiU go a long way towards overcoming them. Naturally I am concemed about provisions whereby police officers can obtain search wartants simply by making a telephone call. I am sure that all honourable members know of past incidents of police officers abusing the very considerable power that they have relative to obtaining search warrants and executing them. In May this year, we became aware of a spectacular, almost "star wars" version of the enforcement of justice, when a busload of plumbers, photographers, police, gynaecologists, nurses and candlestick- makers tumed up at Greenslopes to enforce the law pursuant to a search warrant that was subsequently declared by the Full Court of Queensland to be Ulegal. Obviously one has to be on guard about this matter, but, by the same token, we must accept that there will be situations in which the police act in an emergency or in which immediate action is required to apprehend suspects or locate evidence. Perhaps in such urgent circumstances a telephone call is the only way to get quick results. I am satisfied that the power is needed in certain circumstances. I hope it will be used very sparingly—only when absolutely necessary—and that it will not become the lazy policeman's way of obtaining a search warrant. Provided the power is used sparingly and strictly in circumstances that wartant it, I am generally happy with the safeguards introduced by the Minister in the legislation, namely, that particulars will be required from the member of the police force when seeking the warrant from the magistrate. The Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill 3 September 1985 633

member of the poUce force wiU have to set out for the magistrate the grounds on which he seeks a warrant and give an undertaking to forward a complaint in writing to the magistrate verifying the facts on oath. Following upon the giving of the undertaking, the search warrant can be issued. Once that procedure has been followed, the search warrant comes into force. I understand that the magistrate must convey to the poUce officer by telephone the terms of the warrant, but the BiU makes it a condition that the written complaint be forwarded to the magistrate as a matter of urgency or as soon as possible. In the circumstances, although one must necessarUy be worried about the potential abuse of this power, the safeguards that are enforced are probably the best practical safeguards that can be sought. I hope that the legislation is successful in enabling the poUce force of this State and of other States to trace and apprehend offenders who might otherwise have escaped the attention of the law because of jurisdictional problems and other problems associated with the formal delays that sometimes occur in the obtaining of warrants. On that basis, I am happy to support the legislation. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (11.11 p.m.): I rise to support the legislation now before the House. The Bill provides for the issue of search warrants for the investigation in this State of certain offences against the law of other States or Territories of the Commonwealth. It represents a continuation of the exchange of powers that has been going on for some time as a result of meetings of the Attomeys-General. This legislation has serious ramifications, because it means that, in Queensland, search warrants can be issued for offences against other jurisdictions. In regard to an application by telephone for a search warrant—the poUce officer wiU prepare a copy of the warrant made by him as a consequence of the issue of the search warrant by telephone. As soon as possible, the police officer must forward a complaint in writing, and on oath, to a stipendiary magistrate, verifying the facts set out in the telephone conversation. The search warrant is deemed to be issued and to come into force when it is signed by the stipendiary magistrate. If abuses result, under this system of issuing wartants by telephone telex faciUties, which are only one part of the modem communications network across AustraUa, could be used. In the future, ways of verifying messages by computer between police stations and stipendiary magistrates wiU become avaUable. Under this legislation, search warrants wiU remain in existence for one month, which is quite adequate. The legislation will affect a number of people, and, as has been said before, if police officers abuse the system, warrants should not be permitted to float round for any length of time. They should be executed as soon as possible. If they cannot be executed, they should lapse. I support the legislation. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (11.14 p.m.): The Liberal party supports the legislation. The issue of search warrants can be vexed. Mr Davis: Give us a little bit of Sir Samuel Griffith. Mr INNES: The gargoyle from the law courts is burbUng away again. The honourable member for Salisbury rightly adverted to a fairly serious incident that took place earlier this year relative to the issue of search warrants in this State. SimUar serious incidents took place, and were referred to and became part of the subject- matter of the Lucas inquiry into criminal law enforcement in this State. A very serious set of circumstances was revealed in the so-called south coast SP bookie case, which showed the circumstances in which search wartants can be obtained in this State. Because they involve misuses of the law, both are grave. The law traditionally recognises a person's home and property as his castle. It is only for very good reason that the rights of property and ownership and the right to privacy can be overbome. The criminal law has always recognised the right of people who have reasonable suspicions and are about the investigation of serious breaches of the law to overcome 634 3 September 1985 Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill those rights in the interests of the broad, common good. In Queensland one of the interesting things, I suppose, is that some quite innocuous pieces of legislation give powers of search of an extraordinarily extensive nature as a matter of course. For instance, most of the primary production legislation allows powers of entry and search far greater than those that the criminal law gives for very serious criminal offences. For instance, under the Wheat Pool Act, if an inspector, who might be a police officer, suspects that there is on premises a germ that has not been rendered unto the board, he can go onto those premises, search those premises, break open desks or drawers and take away documents. That is an interesting dichotomy in the law in Queensland which gives to people rightso f search without wartant in circumstances that most people would consider to be far less serious than those involving a serious breach of the criminal law. If one stays with the tradition in the criminal law, one would say that at least in this case the supervising authority is a stipendiary magistrate, somebody who is used to exercising principles of law, who is trained in the law and who, one would reasonably expect, would require the letter of the law to be fulfilled by anybody seeking a search wartant under the BiU. The two instances to which I referted earUer are but two instances out of many which involved serious police malpractice, I suppose it could be termed, or were part of a web of serious oversights by the police. They relate directly to the problem of justices of the peace of this State. As long as the present law of (Queensland stays this way, there will be tremendous pressures. In my own electorate I regularly put forward dozens of appUcations from people to become justices of the peace. Because the law is so arranged in this State that in all manner of business enterprise routine documents that have to be created have to be witnessed by a JP, one has to forward applications. Many times before in this House I have suggested that there should be two levels, as there are in the Northem Territory—a commissioner for affidavits, who is required to have a less rigorous level of legal, social and educational attainment to be able to witness aU manner of official documents, with the title of "Justice of the Peace" saved for those who are Ukely to understand the traditional and solemn nature of the responsibiUties that those people exercise. In this State the problem is that one is forced to process them aU as justices of the peace, which debases the institution of justices of the peace and does nothing for the commerce of this State, but leads to captive justices of the peace who do not understand their obligations and whom the rare poUceman—I say "rare poUceman" because it is not a routine matter—who wishes to misuse his powers can overbear and thus get a "friendly" search wartant. In the case of the Greenslopes raid, it was a very basic and fundamental oversight—the failure by the justice of the peace to require the person to affirm a reasonable suspicion before him and to be satisfied that a reasonable suspicion existed. It was terribly basic and very straightforward for anybody who is regiUarly in contact with the law, as a magistrate would be. As it tumed out, that was a fundamental and very cmcial ertor. It was a very embarrassing ertor. A far more serious type of omission took place in the SP book- making case in which the circumstances of the swearing of the search wartant were entirely fraudulent. That is what happens when justices of the peace do not understand their functions and are appointed mainly because they are supposed to witness documents rather than understand the judicially ministerial potential of their functions. Mr Scott: Have you noticed how interested the National Party members are in justice? They 'are all asleep. Mr INNES: Sometimes I take issue with the honourable member for Surfers Paradise. He is clearly interested in this subject. From his facial expressions, I can see that he understands what is going on and supports some of the propositions that I have put forward. Mr Davis interjected. Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill 3 September 1985 635

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Orderi Mr Scott interjected. Mr INNES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I need your protection from this mob. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would Uke the honourable member to continue his speech. Mr INNES: The point is simple. The issue of the search warrant involves a very serious or a very solemn, potential intmsion into people's rights and privacy. The issue of the search warrant as an administrative or ministerial function is serious. Certain grounds are required and certain grounds should be demanded by the person under whose hand the warrant is issued. In most cases it wiU involve not a magistrate who is mindful of his obligations under the law, but a justice of the peace, and most justices of the peace do not understand their functions. It is very easy for a poUce officer who knows a friendly JP to obtain a search warrant without question. I emphasise that such police officers are rare, but they do exist. That wiU lead the police officer and the whole system into error, sometimes serious error, which can either thwart a prosecution that should take place or assist a prosecution that should not take place. There is a point to be made in the discussion on this legislation. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (11.23 p.m.): It ought to be recognised that this legislation embodies part of the recommendations that come from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The taking out of warrants in one jurisdiction and the execution of them in another jurisdiction is a very important issue. It is a matter that occupied some considerable time of that standing committee. My understanding was that the issue was resolved back in March 1984. At the time, the committee was in some disagreement or potential disagreement over the subject of the telephone warrants. At that committee meeting, it was apparently resolved that it would be up to the individual States or each jurisdiction to determine its own attitude relative to the obtaining of warrants over the telephone. Although Queensland took the decision to introduce legislation providing for the obtaining of warrants by telephone, it is pleasing to see that a range of safeguards is included in the legislation to ensure that those warrants are issued in a proper manner and that abuses can be controUed by the legislation. As honourable members have been told, it is model legislation that aU the States are undertaking to enact. I am sure that aU honourable members are indebted to the contribution of the honourable member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald), who reiterated in great detail the speech that the Minister made in Febmary when the legislation was introduced. That has been a valuable contribution because it has jogged the memories of honourable members as to what the Minister said on that occasion. Mr Scott: He wiU make sure that he does not send your speech out into his electorate. Mr HAMILL: I might have to put my speech in the newspaper that circulates in his electorate, to ensure that the people of Lockyer know that their member can offer contributions of such sterling quaUty to the debate in the House. I wiU retum to the matter at hand. Because this is model legislation, I did note with some interest that the legislation has been varied to suit Queensland conditions. I presume that the Minister did not mean cUmatic conditions. However, there were few departures when I compared it with the legislation that has been enacted in, say. South Australia. One matter that I will raise now and pursue during the debate on the clauses relates to one of the offences that is created under the legislation. It does concem me that in this legislation there is a very broad interpretation, if you like, of the notion of obstmction. 636 3 September 1985 Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill

It seems to me that the Queensland Govemment has gone considerably further than necessary in relation to that. As I see it, this legislation is a follow-up. It is a part of the overaU package of legislation that includes the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) legislation that was before the Chamber last week. I am sure that aU honourable members welcome the legislation, as it is part of the co-ordinated and co-operative attempt by the ParUaments of Australia to fight organised crime. Last week, I spoke at length on the subject. I do not feel that I have to go into the detaU that I went into then. However, I believe that a couple of points ought to be made just for the sake of the public record. I mentioned that the legislation, which is part of a family of BUls, is in response to the considerable investigation into organised crime that has been conducted in this nation over the last decade. I spoke at length on the Williams royal commission, the Stewart royal commission, both of which were concemed with dmgs, and on the very wide-ranging investigations undertaken by the Costigan royal commission in throwing open to public view the massive web of organised crime in this country. Of course, that massive web of organised crime stretched interstate. This legislation facilitates interstate action being taken in a co-operative manner through the various police forces of this nation. Organised crime stretched to Queensland, and Mr Justice WUUams identified that problem; the Stewart royal commission also aUuded to it. The Costigan royal commission produced evidence about the cocaine trade and how that trade focused on landings of dmgs on the Queensland coast. Noosa was mentioned as a point at which dmgs were further distributed, and the web of crime stretched interstate. In that context, the Labor Party welcomes the legislation. It is one of a series of measures to combat organised crime. However, as I said in an earlier speech, in many respects organised crime has flourished in this country, either through a lack of wiU on the part of public authorities to properly confront it or through a failure to provide the necessary resources— and extensive resources are required—to combat it. At that time, I quoted an editorial from The Courier-Mail of 12 months ago, which expressed disappointment at the lack of action in this State in respect to the call from the Stewart royal commission for 400 additional police. That editorial said that those police had not materialised but the dmg trade was stiU in evidence. Last week, some political commentators caused some strife. I know that one of them certainly raised the ire of the Govemment, and that was the former director of the National party, Mr Evans, who Mr Davis: Mike. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Brisbane Central might caU him "Mike", but I do not believe that the Premier and Treasurer calls him "Mike" any more. One of those political commentators—not Mr Evans, but a person by the name of Richard Jones, who writes for a number of newspapers and syndicates articles through the Queensland provincial daUies—made comments about organised crime. I find them quite dismaying. It is obvious from the comments of that joumaUst, as reported in The Queensland Times of 29 August, that he really does not understand how serious organised crime is in this country. He indicated that I was "doing the Queensland tourist industry no big favour" with my renewal of allegations that "Noosa is still the cocaine capital". He accused me of trotting out old information. Let me say to Richard Jones that the old information that was trotted out was information that has never been properly responded to in this Parliament. I do not care what Mr Jones thinks about organised crime, I for one want to see the public authorities of this State and this nation confront organised crime and push it to the ground. Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill 3 September 1985 637

I felt compelled in my own column in that newspaper last week-end to respond to Mr Jones's half-cocked attitude to the fight against organised crime. I point out that I regard his as an out-of-sight, out-of-mind philosophy; a phUosophy which regards doUars in the hand as more important than the manner in which those dollars are come by. Mr Jones has done the pubUc of Queensland a great disservice through his soft attitude to the fight against organised crime. His attitude calls to mind the story of a man falUng from the top of a 20-storey building and, when asked how he is going as he falls past the 15th floor window, replies, "All right so far." Mr Jones ought to remove his bUnkers—perhaps they are politicaUy motivated bUnkers—which shield his vision, and reaUse that organised crime exists, whether it is respectable money in the tourist trade or not. Organised crime has to be fought on all fronts. I am not surprised that he should make such half-cocked statements. In the column I have referted to, Mr Jones spoke about my colleague the member for SaUsbury (Mr Goss) going soft on the TAB scandal "on Tuesday" Even though he claims to be a poUtical commentator, he obviously does not realise that last Tuesday was an aUotted day and that there was no opportunity to debate the matter properly. Indeed, the Govemment actually fmstrated an attempt to debate the Hinze TAB scandal. I conclude by saying that it is pleasing to see the legislation before the House. I have great pleasure in supporting it, although I reserve the opportunity to question the Minister at the Committee stage. Some matters ought to be clarified in the interests of the operation of the legislation in Queensland. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (11.33 p.m.): I support the BUI and congratulate the Minister on his co-operation with our coUeagues in other States in introducing the legislation. It is pleasing that the Minister is putting into effect decisions of this type. In the course of considering the BiUs that have come before the House tonight, one is reminded of other matters that have been reported to a number of Ministers for Justice but have not been dealt with as adequately as this legislation. I refer particularly to what is known as the Lucas report, which was issued in 1977. The member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) also referred to that. The report dealt with warrants and spoke about making the police good historians. The "good historian" aspect of the poUce force is one that has not been attended to by the Govemment with the diUgence that it warrants. Mr Casey: Some of them wiU be recorded as historians; others wiU go down in history. Mr BRADDY: Quite so. Unfortunately, some have been found by the courts to be fiction-writers rather than historians. In several recent criminal cases which have gained prominence—some have not yet been finalised, so I will not deal with them in detail—the police have been found to have fabricated evidence. Those aspects of the Lucas report—and the Director of Prosecutions (Mr Sturgess) was a prominent member of the inquiry—have never been attended to by the Govemment, by the Minister or by the Minister's predecessors. Opposition members beUeve that those aspects of the report that require poUce officers to record accurately, by means of video and audio equipment, the making of statements will safeguard basic rights. Therefore, those matters are very important. I suggest to the Minister that, during the course of his house-keeping exercise, he should look again at the matters I have referted to, because they are issues that have been supported by aU members of the community. The Minister ought to ensure that those matters receive the attention that they obviously deserve, particularly in the Ught of the defalcation that has occurted in recent times on the part of members of the poUce force. Some police officers have tumed out to be fiction-writers rather than historians. 638 3 September 1985 Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill

Because the legislation will apply in a manner that complements legislation in other parts of Australia, one cannot let the day pass without saying that the only political party in AustraUa that can give its undivided attention to the matters that are contained in the Bill are members of the Australian Labor Party in the various Australian Parliaments. The National Party has been distracted by the commencement of the apparent demise of the National Party parUamentary leader (Mr Ian Sinclair). As time goes on, Mr Sinclair seems to faU apart more and more. The once great Liberal Party of Australia— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I do not see any relevance in the subject-matter to which the honourable member is addressing his remarks. I invite him to retum to the provisions of the BUI. Mr BRADDY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was merely endeavouring to draw a comparison between the way in which the AustraUan Labor Party is able to give its attention to such important matters, because, unlike the National Party, it is not being distracted by faction fights. It can readily be seen that the Opposition has presented three speakers to debate the BiU this evening. No doubt because the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General has been distracted, the Minister has been able to get one speaker only to support him. Moreover, the Liberal Party also had one speaker. Mr Casey: I understand that the honourable member for Caboolture is first reserve. Mr BRADDY: I can understand the predicament faced by both of the poUtical parties I have mentioned, particularly in the light of the problems that they are facing. Nowadays, Mr Peacock and Mr Howard are on the telephone to aU of the members on the Govemment side of the House who have left the Chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Orderi I have directed the honourable member to confine his remarks to the BiU. I see that the honourable member is deUberately defying me, and I must point out that if he does not direct his remarks to the Bill, I wiU have him resume his seat. Mr BRADDY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, I believe that the best course for all honourable members to follow is to welcome those measures that have been well done and to regret the measures that have not been so well done. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate to the Minister that the Opposition supports his measures for reform and his wiUingness to co-operate with the members of other Australian Parliaments that make up Australia's legislative family. I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that I believe it to be a proper legislative procedure. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (11.39 p.m.), in reply: I thank aU honourable members for the contributions they have made to the debate. For the benefit of the honourable member for Rockhampton (Mr Braddy), I record that I was happy to accept a suggestion made by the Whips that would enable two members—despite the fact that they were not sufficiently diligent at an earUer stage to speak in the debate on the previous BUI—to be given an opportunity to speak in the debate on the Bill that is presently before the House. The agreement that had been reached between the Whips had to be broken to allow the two additional speakers from the Opposition to take part. As the Opposition spokesman has indicated, it is appreciated that the Opposition supports the Bill. As the honourable member for Rockhampton (Mr Braddy) said, the legislation has resulted from meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and I record that those meetings are meaningful and that a great degree of understanding Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill 3 September 1985 639

and co-operation exists between the Attomeys-General of the State and Commonwealth Govemments. It was regrettable, however, that the honourable member for SaUsbury (Mr Goss) saw fit to criticise members of the Queensland Police Force. I thought his criticism was rather uncalled for. As I have indicated previously in various places, the operation to which he referred was carried out by police officers in a very professional and under­ standing manner. I do not think that police officers are at all deserving of the criticism that that honourable member has levelled at them. The honourable member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald), understanding the legislation, was supportive. The honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) referted to recent difficulties associated with the form of search warrants, as did some of the other members who spoke in the debate. The whole law relating to wartants is under examination by me, and I anticipate bringing meaningful reforms before the Parliament in the future. Although the honourable member for Sherwood has left the Chamber, for his benefit I forecast that this reform could very well include the question of the class of official who should be authorised to issue warrants. I again assure the honourable member for Ipswich (Mr HamiU) that this State is playing a fiiU role in the National Crime Authority, and is certainly tackling organised crime with vigour. As with the previous BUI, and for the same reasons, at the Committee stage it will be necessary that amendments are made where reference is made to the short title of the Justices Act as "the Justices Act 1886-1982". The short title of the Justices Act was changed to read "the Justices Act 1886-1985" by virtue of the Director of Prosecutions Act and Justices Act Amendment Act 1985 having been introduced since this BiU originally came before the House. Accordingly, clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Investigations (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill need to be amended. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. Committee Mr Randell (Mirani) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Harper (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3—Interpretation— Mr HARPER (11.43 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 3, line 8, omit the expression— '1982' and substitute the expression— '1985'." Mr HAMILL: I wish to make some comments on the matters raised in clause 3. They are questions of interpretation that I find somewhat fascinating in one case and "disturbing" is not perhaps too strong a word in the other. The first concems the definition of the term "night" In this clause "night" means between 9 o'clock in the evening and 6 o'clock in the moming. I understand that that is the definition that appears in the Criminal Code. I said in my eariier speech that this Bill was part of model legislation that was varied for Queensland conditions. In South AustraUa, night-time mns from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., and it stmck me as somewhat pecuUar 640 3 September 1985 Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill in what is really uniform legislation that agreement cannot be reached on what constitutes night-time. I know that South Australia is in a different time zone, and I understand also that it has daylight-saving. South Australians are not worried about their ciutains fading and those other things that one hears so much about in Queensland. Mr Scott: That's where the sun comes from. Mr HAMILL: Is that where the sun comes from? I thought it rose in the east and set in the west and that that was where the sun went. But it does seem strange that some uniformity could not be reached on this measure, with South Australia legislating in line with Queensland or vice versa, or perhaps the two States agreeing to spUt the difference and have night-time starting at 8 p.m. An Opposition Member: That is a good suggestion. Mr HAMILL: I think it is a good suggestion. Many people could rest more easily if they knew that night-time started at 8 p.m. They would not have to continue to adjust their biological clocks when they crossed the South Australian border, other than for the half-hour difference in time, and maybe an extra half-hour in the summer-time. The other matter I wish to canvass has more substance. It relates to the definition of the term "obstmct" I note that it reads— " 'obstmct' includes assault, threaten, abuse, insult, intimidate, hinder and attempt to obstmct." This is an important point because of an offence created under the legislation. It seems to me that the Minister, in defining the term "obstmct" in such a way, is drawing a very long bow. I can certainly see how assaulting, threatening, intimidation, hindering and attempting to obstmct, whatever they might be, could all amount to some sort of hindrance or obstmction of the course of a police officer's duty. The reference to "abuse" and "insult" seems to me to be drawing a very long bow. I can certainly conceive circumstances in which a person may abuse or insult a poUce officer. Offences are set out in other legislation relating to impediments being put in the way of a police officer in the exercise of his authority. However, "abuse" or "insult" seems to be very difficult to define as an obstmction. Maybe each could cause irritation to a member of the police force in the execution of his duty, but to say that he is obstmcted is a very strong or peculiar meaning of the two terms. In the South AustraUan legislation that I have already referted to, the offence concems a person hindering an officer in the execution of his duties. I note that the term "hinder" is given as a synonym for the term "obstmct". I should be pleased if the Minister would address himself to this question, because I believe that the legislation goes a little too far. Amendment (Mr Harper) agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4—Issue of search warrants— Mr HARPER (11.48 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 4, Une 38, omit the expression— '1982' and substitute the expression— '1985'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Criminal Investigation (Extra-territorial Offences) Bill 3 September 1985 641

Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6—Obstmction— Mr HARPER (11.49 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 5, line 31, omit the expression— '1982' and substitute the expression— '1985'." Mr HAMILL: I was disappointed that the Minister did not choose to respond to my comments about the term "obstmct". This is the clause to which my comments were directed. It can be seen that an offence is created for which there is a maximum penalty of $2,000 or six months' imprisonment. A $2,000 fine or six months' impris­ onment is no small penalty. This clause reads, in part, "a person who without lawful excuse obstmcts a member of the poUce force " That means that a person who offers abuse or an insult but does not do anything that actuaUy impedes the poUce officer in executing a search warrant is liable to that fine or that term of imprisonment. The definition of "obstmct" is too broad, and the penalty goes too far. In the South AustraUan legislation, the word "hinder" is used instead of the word "obstmct", and it is a far more suitable term. I would like the Minister to respond and justify the inclusion in this legislation of such a broad definition, which goes much further than any act or omission that might be done or might be omitted to be done to impede a poUce officer in the execution of a warrant. Mr HARPER: I am not surprised that the honourable member should be concemed that the obstmction of a police officer in the exercise of his duty is an offence. The honourable member would serve the community much better if he exercised his influence, or endeavoured to exercise his influence, within the ranks of his own foUowers so that police were neither hindered nor obstmcted in the carrying out of their duties, and that, to the contrary, members of the community of his ilk gave assistance to the poUce force in the carrying out of their duties. The terminology used in this clause is quite appropriate and will tend to assist poUce in carrying out their duties to the benefit of the law-abiding citizens within the State of Queensland. Mr HAMILL: I do not believe that the Minister's response is anywhere near satisfactory. It is improper for him to impute that other Opposition members and I are in the business of endeavouring to obstmct the poUce force in any way in carrying out their lawfiil duties. This clause sits uneasily with me, especiaUy the penalty of $2,000 or six months' imprisonment that may be imposed on a person who, in the heat of the moment, might offer some abuse but not do anything to prevent or to try to impede a police officer in the course of his duty. It is a very draconian penalty. Although it reflects the attitude that Opposition members have come to expect from the Govemment, it does not do the Govemment any credit to have such a provision in its legislation. Indeed, it does the Minister no credit to make those imputations when responding to the very legitimate point that I raised. Amendment (Mr Harper) agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7—Ministerial arrangements for transmission and retum of seized objects— Mr HARPER (11.54 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 6, line 20, omit the expression— '1982' 642 3 September 1985 Adjoumment

and substitute the expression— '1985'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Harper, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjoum." Gold Coast City Council Credit Card; Use by Alderman Thompson Mr BURNS (Lytton) (11.56 p.m.): During the lead-up to the last local authority elections, I received a letter from a Gold Coast resident who said— "No doubt you are aware of the 'Credit Card' scandal that empted in the Gold Coast City Council in January, culminating in a decision by the aldermen to take away their own credit card facilities because of mis-use. The aldermen were getting away with murder." He went on to refer to an Alderman Thompson and enclosed a copy of a Gold Coast City Council credit card bill that Alderman Thompson tried to have passed by his feUow-aldermen. He went on to say that Alderman Thompson has been involved in other flagrant breaches of Gold Coast City Council regulations that state that aldermen are entitled to use councU vehicles only on a casual basis not extending beyond a few hours. According to a document in my possession. Alderman Thompson has weU and tmly abused that privilege by keeping vehicles out ovemight on no fewer than 20 occasions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have made artangements with Mr Speaker to have that list incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to have it incorporated. Leave granted. Aid. Thompson 29/9/83 45 mins 31/10/83 17 hrs Ovemight 11/11/83 2 hrs 15 mins 17/11/83 17 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 21/11/83 16 hrs 30 mins Ovemight 25/11/83 1 hr 29/11/83 1 hr 13/12/83 18 hrs Ovemight 18/1/84 1 hr 30 mins 18/1/84 20 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 27/1/84 2 hrs 2/2/84 2 hrs 6/2/84 18 hrs Ovemight 8/2/84 2 hrs 15 mins 28/2/84 21 hrs 30 mins Ovemight 1/3/84 18 hrs Ovemight 7/3/84 1 hr 15 mins 20/3/84 2 hrs 15 mins 20/3/84 17 hrs 30 mins Ovemight Adjoumment 3 September 1985 643

31/5/84 16 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 4/6/84 17 hrs 30 mins Ovemight 5/6/84 18 hrs 15 mins Ovemight 6/6/84 18 hrs Ovemight 13/6/84 16 hrs 15 mins Ovemight 18/6/84 17 hrs 30 mins Ovemight 3/7/84 18 hrs 15 mins Ovemight 9/7/84 18 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 16/7/84 2 hrs 30 mins 16/7/84 18 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 18/7/84 18 hrs 45 mins Ovemight 23/7/84 2 hrs 30 mins 26/7/84 19 hrs 30 mins Ovemight 30/7/84 17 hrs Ovemight 1/8/84 19 hrs 15 mins Ovemight 2/8/84 4 hrs 45 mins 3/8/84 70 hrs Over Weekend Mr BURNS: The letter continues— "I have been reliably informed that on several occasions he in effect 'stole' vehicles from the council carpool. You might note the last entry dated August 8, 1984. On that occasion Thompson was wamed not to take a car that was on trial from a Gold Coast vehicle dealership. He took it anyway without any authority and drove it to the southem end of the Gold Coast to attend the premiere of the film 'The Coolangatta Gold'. Thompson parked the vehicle iUegaUy and it was subsequently broken into by poUce and towed away. When Thompson eventually leamed where the vehicle was he then tried to get the Gold Coast City Council to pay the towing bill but his feUow aldermen refiised.

He was involved in the 'luncheon club' scandal where ratepayers money was squandered on super-extravagant lunches and he made sure that he took home more wages (they call it aUowances) than any other alderman. He took home $28,692 which was almost $5,000 above the budgetted figure." They were pretty serious aUegations to make. Because I did not have any facts to back up those accusations, I waited untU after the election before writing to the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) on 3 AprU 1985, as foUows— "I attach hereto material sent to me during the recent Local Govemment Elections on the Gold Coast. It refers to the expenses of Alderman Thompson. I did not use the material during the campaign in the ParUament because I was unable to verify the information forwarded to me but I now seek your assistance in investigating the foUowing matters. Is the copy of the Credit Card BiU attached, one that Thompson tried to have passed by his feUow Aldermen? Is it in fact a $132 bUl from a brothel named 'Panda and Cupid' in the outer Sydney suburb of Narembum? Is it a fact that Thompson presented it to the Gold Coast City CouncU and tried to have it passed under the heading 'smorgasbord'?" I went on to detaU a whole Ust of allegations of misuse of councU vehicles. On 11 June 1985, the Minister wrote to me in the following terms— "With further reference to your letter of the 3rd April 1985 conceming certain allegations regarding expenditure incurred by Alderman Thompson of the Gold 644 3 & 4 September 1985 Adjoumment

Coast City CouncU, I wish to inform you that the advice of the Council has been received on the matter. I am advised that in respect of the $132 bill to which you refer. Alderman Thompson refunded the amount to the Council before the matter was brought to its attention." I have a copy of a memo from the town clerk (Mr R. H. Brown). It says— "Details 1. Panda and Cupid Introductory Service Narembum N.S.W. $132.00. 2. Alderman Thompson tendered $90 in settlement (7-11-83), claiming that the balance was a meal expense incurred on his own behalf while engaged on Council business (a conference or meeting at Newcastle as I recaU). 3. The blue copy docket submitted by Alderman Thompson was blank where the name of the supplier should have shown. 4. The white docket which comes with the monthly account to Council showed P & C Int Service. The more detailed personal account showed the details in 1. above. 5. I confronted Alderman Thompson with the fact that the charge was for an introductory service (massage parlour or whatever you want to caU it) and that the whole amount should be refunded to Council. 6. Alderman Thompson professed at all times that the charge was for meals, however, I had taken the trouble to ring and establish that the service offered was introductory only, no meals. 7. Alderman Thompson paid the balance ($42.00 16-11-83) stiU claiming that it was for a meal."

Wednesday, 4 September 1985 I rang the place and I was told that it is $70 for a short time and that he must have had two. This is the same Keith Thompson who, on 13 July, was reported in the newspaper as saying that he was standing up for rate-payers against the excesses of the council and that he was concemed about waste of public money. He is the man who was going to charge these massage parlour visits to the council's credit card. The man is on record as breaking most of the regulations about the use of councU cars. In his letter about the use of council vehicles, the Minister stated— ". I am advised that the list attached to your letter was considered by the Gold Coast City Council prior to the last Local Authority elections and formed the basis of the establishment of a policy to limit the use of vehicles on a casual basis to a period not exceeding beyond a few hours." This hypocrite is reported in the newspaper as being concemed about the people on the Gold Coast. However, he did not refer to his luncheon clubs, his massage parlours or the misuse of the council car. Time expired.

Kangaroo Harvest Quota Mr NEAL (Balonne) (12.1 a.m.): The Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has refused to increase Queensland's kangaroo harvest quota. He has once again bowed to the dictates of the rabid conservationists, greenies and emotionalists. Kangaroo-culling is no different from culUng other livestock. Numbers must be controlled to prevent overstocking and subsequent financial loss. Any land­ holder who overstocks his land precipitates a drought situation and is on a short-cut to financial min. Livestock numbers must be managed pmdently, so must kangaroo numbers. Adjoumment 3 & 4 September 1985 645

In 1983 and 1984 the Queensland kangaroo harvest was dismpted by prolonged wet weather. Not only were cull numbers down but also, as a result of the ensuing good seasonal conditions, the kangaroo population multiplied rapidly. Kangaroos simply cannot be shot out as there are sufficient areas of inaccessible country into which they can escape. In fact, many millions of hectares of country and scmb in this State are inaccessible to shooters. Furthermore, the cost involved will ensure that shooters will not bother to chase kangaroos out of such areas. The cost is so exhorbitant that the shooters will not bother to look for them in such areas. Shooters must obtain their quotas for the night. Once their nightly take falls below a certain number, they move to other areas. Fuel costs for four-wheel-drive vehicles are very high and the shooters do not spend half the night driving around without shooting a reasonable tally. The shooters go to the areas in which culUng is most economical. As soon as the numbers are depleted and the shooters cannot obtain their usual tally, they move to other areas. The kangaroo harvest quota allocated to Queensland this year of 1.05 mUUon is hopelessly inadequate, bearing in mind last year's take of about 850 000 and the good breeding season. Dr Tom Kirkpatrick of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, who spent many years studying kangaroos, claims that an acceptable harvest quota for 1985 would have been of the order of 1.5 million with absolutely no danger to the future of the species being harvested. Dr Kirkpatrick's findings are based on scientific investigation of sizes of carcass and skull age of kangaroos being taken. Snap checks have revealed that the weight of carcasses received by dealers was 25 per cent heavier than that considered reasonable by National Parks and Wildlife Service officers to guarantee maintenance of adequate numbers of the species being harvested. Mr Cohen claims that this method is inaccurate and relies on aerial counts. How on earth accurate counting of kangaroo numbers can be made from the air is beyond me. Somebody should tell Mr Cohen that the kangaroo is a noctumal animal. If he does not know what that means, I will tell him. It means that they come out at night. While Mr Cohen's officers are flying round with their heads in the clouds, the kangaroos are nicely camped under trees and shmbs and cannot be seen. Furthermore, Queensland University research has shown aerial counts to be at times only 5 per cent accurate. Owing to inadequate harvest quotas, roo-shooters cannot keep the numbers down. Pastures, crops and fencing are being damaged, resulting in financial loss. Most land­ holders do not mind carrying reasonable numbers of kangaroos. However, they cannot afford to sit idly by and watch their crops and pastures being devastated. Some land­ holders have taken the law into their own hands and are shooting without permits. Of course, that has resulted in prosecutions by National Parks and Wildlife officers. Others have applied for secftion 25 permits to destroy kangaroos. Those permits disallow any commercial use of a carcass or hide. That is absolutely ludicrous. People could be making a Uving from the taking of those kangaroos, which are now left rotting in the field. The Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is bowing to the dictates of people who do not know the facts and, furthermore, are not interested in them. It is not hitting those people in the hip-pocket. If it was, they would soon sit up and take a bit of notice. My own personal contribution this year to the weU-being of kangaroos will be a conservative $3,400 minimum made up of a loss of some 250 chains around my wheat paddocks, 2 chains wide. Time expired. Application by Junefair Pty Ltd for Totalisator Administration Board Subagency Mr GOSS (SaUsbury) (12.6 a.m.): I voice my concem at the continued failure of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing to answer Opposition charges that he interfered politically to obtain the Oxenford TAB licence for his family company. 646 3 & 4 September 1985 Adjoumment

The Minister still has not answered the question as to why he concealed his so- called legitimate reasons for blocking the Frith application not only from the Friths but also from his fellow Minister, the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr I. J. Gibbs). This moming the Minister for Racing would not answer a question as to whether he interfered in 1982, although he later suggested by implication that it was Sir Edward Lyons. The Minister stUl avoids denying that he attended a board meeting to ask for the licence, because he knows that, if he does, he will mislead Parliament and no red herring wiU save him this time—not that the Premier and Treasurer is yet prepared to give him support. Tonight I raise yet another alarming aspect of this sordid, cormpt affair. It has been brought to my attention that of the other eight appUcants competing with the Hinze family company, at least five were not even interviewed and their premises were not inspected. The Minister has tried to claim that the board bent over backwards to obtain an independent recommendation that would be fair to all concemed. Frankly, that does not square with the five letters that I now table which were obtained for me by Mrs Elsa Frith. They are from Mrs Frith, Mr Zimpel, Mr Mayes, Mr Read and an anonymous one from an applicant who confirmed to Mrs Frith the same complaint but who was afraid to put his name to the complaint. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. That raises the question: How many of the appUcants were interviewed and had their premises inspected to reach the independent decision to select the Minister's famUy company as the successful applicant? Indeed, was Junefair Pty Ltd the only appUcant that was interviewed and whose premises were inspected? So much for bending over backwards to be fair to the people of the Oxenford and Coomera areas who appUed for a subagency licence! I make it clear that I have no information to suggest that the town-planner, Mr Feros, is anything other than competent. I have no information to suggest that he has done anything dishonest or improper. However, the fact that at least five out of the eight applicants were not interviewed and their premises were not inspected must raise further serious questions about the means by which Junefair Pty Ltd became the successftU applicant. It is high time that the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing came clean and tabled the whole TAB file—not just a self-serving selection from the file which suits him, but the tmth, the whole tmth, and that means the whole file. Two weeks after the matter was first raised the Minister is not prepared to do it. I tum to what instmctions were given to Mr Feros, what information was given to him about the applications. Frankly, I fail to see why the board's own experts were not asked to conduct the survey either instead of, or as weU as, Mr Feros. This is not usuaUy a matter which would fall within the expertise of a town-planner. A town-planner, with the best will in the world, could have easily overlooked some of the details or factors that would have been taken into account by a TAB expert like Mr Swinson, who originally recommended Mr and Mrs Frith. For example, although at first glance a particular location might be rejected because of its apparent position or disadvantagous position, an interview with the applicant and an inspection of the books might reveal that the business has a very strong goodwiU component because of the popularity of the proprietors or the business. The point is that at least five out of eight applicants were not given the opportunity to put their cases. The Govemment should not think that this issue wiU go away. The Opposition will pursue it untU it gets a result on Mr Hinze. Govemment members heard his defence last Thursday. If he will not do the cortect thing by the Parliament—or, for that matter, by the National Party—the Govemment has two choices: back him or sack him. It should stop dithering and make a decision. It should choose between the big man of Adjoumment 3 & 4 September 1985 647

Oxenford/Coomera and the Uttle people of Oxenford/Coomera. Who is to benefit from a fair hearing and a fair deal? It should not be thought, for that matter, that Opposition concem with the Minister ends at the Oxenford TAB. The Opposition feels that in several other areas his activities bear closer scmtiny. Opposition members have been receiving numerous caUs from National Party members and sympathisers complaining about the Minister. He is popular with some people, but he is very unpopular with others. In other States and parties, an individual in that position would have done the right thing by the Parliament and by his own party; he would have resigned. However, Mr Hinze is prepared to tough it out—and to heU with the consequences for his own party. The back-benchers who bayed and crowed the other moming when they heard his defence—unlike their colleagues on the front bench—are blind to what the Minister is doing, because of the pork-bartelling that they have enjoyed at his hands. Mr Newton: Paper talk. Mr GOSS: All he did last week, as the member for Caboolture knows, was muddy the waters. He introduced a red herring. If he wishes to continue in that vein, and if the Govemment is prepared to aUow him to do so, the Labor Party is happy to let them go down that trail. Time expired. Population Drift from the Country Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.12 a.m.): I wish to comment on the speech made by the member for Lytton (Mr Bums) last week, in which he complained that the conditions in the bush had deteriorated badly since the National Party came to power in the 1950s. I point out that it is a coincidence that those two factors occurred concurrently. There is no connection whatever between them. Two factors have led to the population decUne in the bush. Firstly, there is the direct, on-farm labour cost and, secondly, the indirect cost of labour associated with farm input. I wiU consider the on-farm labour cost. In the 1950s it was not unusual for a farmer to have an 80 horsepower tractor, which had the capacity of ploughing five acres an hour. At that time labour cost about $ 1 an hour, or a labour content of 20c an acre. The farmer faced higher labour costs. He either paid for the labour or had to aUow for his own. Let us say that it doubled to $2 an hour, or 4(k; an acre. Mr Davis: And no tucker. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is pretty much how it is for the farmer these days, too. Before too long, the labour cost had risen to $5 an hour, or $1 an acre. It can be seen that the laboiu- content of ploughing an acre of ground rose five times. Mr Bums: They don't plough too much out at Longreach. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I wiU talk about the shearing industry later. I am quoting facts. The same argument applies to all pastoral industries. Labour costs have risen. The options facing the farmer were that he could buy a bigger tractor so that he coiUd plough more acres per hour—that would have involved a bigger capital outlay— or he could buy more land and increase his profit by increasing his production. If he bought more land, obviously he wotUd have had to buy a bigger tractor so that he could plough it. The result was that a neighbouring farm had to be bought. The consequence in the smaU farming communities across the DarUng Downs was that one famUy left the district, a school closed and the tumover in the local shop was reduced. The compounding effect led to the district's decUne. 648 3 & 4 September 1985 Adjoumment

At the same time as labour on-farm costs were rising, the inputs on the farm were increasing also. Consequently, the farmer's margin was reduced. Once more, he faced the same options. He bought the neighbouring farm, which resulted in another famUy leaving the district, a school closing and lower tumover in the shop. The cmx of the matter is that the labour content, whether it be direct on the farm or the inputs, led to that result. The member for Lytton spoke about the shearing industry and the Longreach district. I can well remember the 1950s, when wool was very profitable. Because of union agitation, the wages for shearers and shed hands rose. At that time, it was said that the industry could afford it. Suddenly, the bottom fell out of wool prices. But did the wages of the shearers and shed hands go down? Not on your life! The result was that people who owned properties had to try to make more money, either by buying more properties or by cutting costs on the properties that they already owned. As a consequence, the working man who lived in a cotttage on a property and worked round the place lost his job. Recently, I spoke to the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Tumer) about a property at Morven. In the 1950s, that property supported a staff of 24 people; today that same property is mn by family members. Mr Burns: Is that the fault of the workers? Mr LITTLEPROUD: No; it is the cost of labour. Because of the unreal policies of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the blame can be sheeted home to that organisation. Mr Burns: You want the worker to work for coolie wages. You want to bludge on the worker. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Bludge on the worker, be blowed! The worker gets up in the moming, puts on his shoes and goes out to work on the job but does nothing to increase his productivity, nor has he done so for years. Mr Burns: You want the worker to work for a doUar an hour; that is what you want. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I have found the honourable member for Lytton out on that one. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Menzel): Order! If the honourable member for Lytton wishes to interject, I suggest that he resumes his correct seat. Mr Burns: I will get back in here and say that he wants the worker to work for a dollar an hour. Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, that is not the case. The worker picked up his sandwich and went out to work all day; but no increased productivity occurted, nor has any increase in production resulted from the investment of capital. Mr Burns: Coolie wages for the worker. You hate the worker, that is your trouble. Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, I do not. I have been a worker for the whole of my life. I have been paid wages all my life. Time expired.

Equipment Used by Fire-fighting Services Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (12.17 a.m.): I rise to address some remarks to the general subject of the standard of fire services in the metropolitan area. I wish to make particular reference to and offer support for Mr Bmce Wilkinson, vice-president of the fire officers association. Like so many responsible fire officers, Mr Wilkinson has been concemed Adjoumment 3 & 4 September 1985 649 for some time about the state and capacity of Queensland's fire-fighting services. It seems to have become abundantly clear to aU that fire-fighting services are being mndown. On 9 August, Mr Wilkinson expressed pubUcly his concem for the people of Brisbane when he appeared on State Affair and divulged that pump No. 66 had been condemned in 1983 but was still in operation in 1985. The tmth of the matter is that pump No. 66 could be compared with a msty bucket. NaturaUy, the officers who were obhged to work with that equipment refused to use it because of its dangerous condition and because of its inabiUty to perform satisfactorUy. I understand that since that time the Govemment motor mechanics have checked that vehicle and have taken it off the road. Furthermore, pump No. 69, which was supposed to replace pump No. 66 some time ago, has also been condemned by the Govemment's own motor mechanics. In addition, an appUance that is worth approxi­ mately $250,000, the Snorkel, No. 79, has been taken off the road because of a 25 per cent braking deficiency. I could go on in that vein, Usting vehicle deficiencies. There have also been a number of stories to the effect that fire officers have been caUed in for training in the use of breathing apparatus and, as a result, stations have been left unattended. I draw to the attention of all honourable members that fire stations are provided to serve the people. The cases in which fire stations have been left unattended simply cannot be tolerated, especiaUy when the period of absence is two or three hours at a time. I cite the example of the Taigum Fire Brigade Station, which was opened recently by the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) in a blaze of pubUcity. At times, that station is now closed in an effort to save something like $25 in overtime, which demonstrates the ridiculous state of affairs that exists. That is the type of problem that people such as Mr WUkinson are raising. Because of the wide circulation of intemal memorandums, it is now a matter of pubUc knowledge that 14 vehicles are in need of replacement. I coul{^ go on citing examples, but I wish to raise a question about Mr Wilkinson. What is his position? Obviously, judging by reports that have been made about him to a number of people, I could say that he appears to have been singled out for special treatment. It appears that a vendetta has been conducted against him because some weeks after this matter became public knowledge, one of the Minister's officers referred to regulations that were introduced 20 years ago and put Mr Wilkinson on a charge of infringing fire brigade regulations. In other words, here is a man who is obviously concemed about the safety of his men and their abiUty to cope with fires in our city. But he is now the subject of an oppressive vendetta because he has had the fortitude to speak out. It is a terrible state of affairs when a person such as he, who has had the fortitude to speak out in the interests of the public, can be singled out. It is just unacceptable. In his position as vice- president of the fire officers association he has a responsibUity to his men, and nobody could possibly argue about that. I sincerely hope that the matter I am raising tonight is not being tumed into a personal vendetta against this man. He is not a radical. He has been a member of the fire officers association for the best part of 20 years. He has never been on strike. He does not beUeve in strikes. But the position clearly is that he has been singled out. I hope that the Minister wiU take note of this problem and see that any form of apparent discrimination is removed. There are clearly many shortages in the fire service. An additional 44 men are required to make up the approved strength of the fire services in Brisbane. As I said, one pump has been removed and one snorkel does not have a permanent crew. Owing to the shortage of staff, nearly every shift some pumps and one aerial appUance are off the road. Time expired. 650 3 & 4 September 1985 Adjoumment

Council of Griffith University Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (12.22 a.m.): In the current debate on the Council of Griffith University there are a number of issues to be raised that should concem members of this House. Members of Parliament are in a somewhat invidious position; they cannot hide their politics; hence they seem automatically to attract the attention of those who have a different political view. Many people would recognise that I am a conservative politician and, therefore, it is not surprising to find that many people in the left wing of politics would find my views somewhat difficult to swallow. In exactly the same way, if I were a leftie I would tend to watch very closely the acts of conservatives. Many people know my views on the family. I believe very strongly in the traditional family. I have very little time for altemative life-styles and so on and, therefore, if a group of people who might have trendy views on families were to talk to me, my views would be unpalatable to them. In exactly the same way I am not a great advocate of affirmative action. I see very little need for sex discrimination laws. I think that existing laws have adequate safeguards. I find the feminist movement somewhat repiUsive, somewhat unnecessary and a scandalous waste of this nation's resources. Therefore, I am not surprised to find that those who embrace the feminist point of view find my views unacceptable. Many people would also know that I espouse a Christian point of view in many of the things that I talk about and, therefore, I do not doubt that a humanist would find my views difficult to live with. I do not think that all humanists would be in that boat; it is more likely to be the radical humanists who would want to oppose my views. The honourable member for Nundah (Sir WUUam Knox) pointed out that one day I might perhaps receive an honorary doctorate. I remind members that, when the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) received his honorary doctorate, the University of Queensland became the centre of quite a severe disturbance. Indeed, the Govemor was spat on, pushed and shoved round. I do not think that the people involved in the disturbance were necessarily university students; many of them were stirrers and trouble­ makers who came from outside the university. So I suggest that, in the years to come, when I receive my honorary doctorate, those same stirrers and trouble-makers wiU be present at the ceremony and a similar disturbance might occur.

Mr Burns: They call this an ambit claim.

Mr HENDERSON: Right. Many people might not be too pleased with my points of view, and I suspect that there are probably students at Griffith University who would disagree with some of them. Nonetheless, I feel that those groups, if they exist, would have been happy to see me booted off the Council of Griffith University. Of course, that did not happen. I assume that the strategy of all politicians is to keep an eye on what the opposite side of politics is up to. The aim of politicians is also to stay in Parliament as long as possible. I want to assure members that I will be round for many years to come and that, during that time, I will keep a close eye on all those who espouse a political philosophy different from the one that I ^pouse. It will not be surprising to find that, if anyone in this House or elsewhere falls into the category of leftie, trendy, trouble-maker, feminist, or radical humanist, he or she will find me paying great attention to what he says or espouses, in exactly the same way I guess, as any leftie would be particularly careful about watching what we as conservatives are up to, or what we do. Adjoumment 3 & 4 September 1985 651

I am not surprised that those who embrace a poUtical phUosophy different from that of those who wish to stop those views being expressed in some form or other should be outspokenly critical of them. Therefore the type of event that I witnessed does not really surprise me. I suspect that it wiU probably happen again in the future. That should indeed be an interesting encounter. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjoumed at 12.27 a.m. (Wednesday).