Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 1984

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statement 6 March 1984 1771

TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 1984

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

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Guide Dogs Act Amendment BUl; Patriotic Funds Act Amendment Bill.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Cairns Port Authority for the year ended 30 June 1983. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1982 City of Brisbane Act 1924-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Electricity Act 1976-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Supreme Court Act of 1921 Regulations under the Main Roads Act 1920-1983.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Railway Strike Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (11.4 a.m.), by leave: I would like honourable members to understand the correct position in relation to the strike by control clerks at Mayne centre. The current situation regarding train services is that electric trains are running on schedule in Brisbane. Services are not operating beyond Petrie, Kingston, Whinstanes and Grandchester. The long distance trains are also not mnning. In fact, passengers from a Sunlander service which terminated at Gympie are being brought to Brisbane by bus. The control clerks responsible for this strike have obviously given no consideration to the inconvenience and, in some cases, hardship that they have caused and are causing to people who had, in some oases, planned holidays months in advance. Those control clerks are adversely affecting the State's tourist industry. The major issues are— Passenger safety is not at risk. This is supported by both signalmen and drivers. At Mayne at any one time there are as many as six signalmen and a supervisor overseeing the running of trains. Control boards have been coupled and worked at Rockhampton and Toowoomba for years. The coupUng of boards is done only at week-ends or on public holidays, when there is greatly reduced railway traffic. Coupling of boards at the Mayne and city centres represents a saving to the tax-payer of $49,000 a year by reducing five Sunday penalty shifts. Those are double-time shifts. As to the dispute over the removal of guards' vans from long-distance coal trains in central Queensland—a conference is presently under way in the State Industrial Commission on this matter. It is to be hoped that the commission does not set a precedent by ruling on matters of operational safety—an area that must rightly remain under the control of the Railway Department. 1772 6 March 1984 Personal Statement

Tradesmen at the diesel shed at Jilalan have also stopped work over roster amendments that would eliminate broken shifts. It is strange indeed that the men are striking over a matter that is the poUcy of their own State union executives. I have been amazed at the deliberately misleading and alarmist statements being made by some union leaders who obviously have no regard for the convenience of the general public. Mr Head of the Queensland Railway Employees Union and Mr Bond of the Railway Salaried Officers Union have done their unions' causes Uttle good by introducing the new dimension of scare tactics to score blatant political points.

PERSONAL STATEMENT Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (11.6 a.m.), by leave: Last Thursday in this House, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni), in a ministerial statement, endeavoured to protect Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper in relation to their involvement in a fund that has been set up and is known as the Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit. As Mr Tenni stated, a formal approach was made to Comalco Ltd in October 1983 for a contribution. Whether the approach was made to Comalco before or after the decision to grant Boyne Smelters an exemption from paying the fire levy of $600,000 is of great concern. The $50,000 donation to the fund can be seen only as a pay-off or a bribe to obtain a let-off from the $600,000 annual levy. The Minister also stated that the decision to exempt Boyne Smelters from the Gladstone fire brigade district and from the levy of $600,000 was made after "both the board's chairman and secretary were consulted on several occasions before the decision was taken" I have here a statutory declaration that is signed by the secretary of the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board. I seek leave to have it incorporated in "Hansard" (Leave granted.)

"The Oaths Acts 1867 to 1960" Statutory Declaration '^"^OwiT'} GLADSTONE I, Warren Douglas Dinte of Williams Road, Beecher, in the State of Queensland, Agent do solemnly and sincerely declare that 1. I am the Secretary to the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board. 2. In about September 1983, I became aware that Boyne Smelters Limited had approached the State Government hoping to have the land occupied by the smelter removed from the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board District. 3. In September 1983, I located Mr Gayle Paltridge at the Gladstone Airport and in discussion, he advised me that he had visited the smelter site and was on his way back to Brisbane. 4. On Sunday, October 16, the Board Chairman, Mr John Artderson; Deputy Chairman, Mr Les Norris and I met with Mr Paltridge at Hervey Bay. Mr Paltridge advised us that he has having a meeting in the near future with representatives of Comalco in relation to the Boyne Island Smelter, and that the company claimed that the area had been gazetted into the District without any prior knowledge, request or desire by the company to be so included. He sought clarification of this claim. 5. Mr Paltridge then asked if we had any documentation to confirm that the company was aware of the Board's intentions. 6. I undertook to check the files in this regard. Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1773

7. Mr Anderson, Mr Norris and I then informed Mr PaUridge that the Gladstone Board had spent a large sum of money in providirtg the infrastmcture for a Boyne Island fire fighting force, which would not be needed if the smelter was removed from the District. 8. No discussion was held with Mr PaUridge as to the abUky of the Gladstone firemen and officers to deal with any emergency fire sUuation at the smelter. 9. On or about October 24, 1983, I received a telephone caU from Mr PaUridge wherein he inquired if I had been able to locate any documents as mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof. He informed me that he had to attend a meeting with the representatives of the smelter in one hour. 10. I have not received any correspondence from Mr Paltridge, or any other person, concerning the removal of the smelter site from the District. The views of the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board were not sought. 11. I am informed by the Chief Officer, and I verily believe that no person sought information from him as to the procedures to be adopted in fighting fires at the smelter site, and/or the capabilities of the Brigade to deal with any fire emergency within the plant. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of "The Oaths Acts 1867-1960"

TAKEN AND DECLARED before me W. D. Dinte at Gladstone this 2nd day of March, 1984. Declarant W. Howard, J.P. A Justice of the Peace. Mr PREST: Both the chairinan and secretary denied that they were consulted. I believe that both Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper deliberately misled the Minister and acted improperly. They should be dismissed. Furthermore, the Minister should be replaced in Cabinet.

PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Trading Hours of Motor Dealers From Mr Ahern (11 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to increase fines imposed on motor dealers operating illegal hours, and that no action be taken to extend trading hours. Petition received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as foUows— It Crown Payments for Public Relations and Advertising Mr Wright asked the Minister for Welfare Services and Ethnic Affairs— With reference to the Return to Order showing all payments made by the Govemment to public relations agencies or consultants and advertising agencies or consultants durmg 1982-83— (1) For what purpose were Gamsey Stafford Clemenger Pty Ltd and Market Facts of Queensland Pty Ltd engaged for each item identified in the Welfare Services Department in the Return to Order? (2) Were tenders caUed or expressions of interests sought by the department for advertising, pubUc relations, or consuhauts to be ertgaged by the Welfare Services Departmertt during 1982-83? 1774 6 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— (1) Garnsey Stafford Qemengef Pty Ltd was engaged by the Department of Welfare Services as its prirtcipal advertising agency to co-ordinate all advertising, pro­ motion and pubUcity activities across the portfolio for a two-year period commencing 1 January 1983. Market Facts (Qld) Pty Ltd was commissioned in August 1982 to conduct a survey of the general welfare and related needs of the community in the Brisbane metropolitan area. The specific amounts referred to in the Return to Order so far as Garnsey Stafford Qemenger Pty Ltd is concerned relate in the main to the develeopment of a new logo and promotional campaign for the Queensland Recreational Council, the promotion of the Crisis Care service offered by the Department of Children's Services and the promotion of Queensland's first Recreation Week. The payments made to Market Facts were in relation to the needs survey mentioned above. (2) I am advised that Garnsey Stafford Qemenger Pty Ltd was appointed after tenders from four leading agencies had been considered. Its tender reflected a greater awareness of the department's needs and was considered to offer a superior quality of service. I am further advised that after inquiries had been made into the capacity of several firms to conduct the survey and having regard to the special nature of the project, the then Minister for Welfare Services commissioned Market Facts in accord­ ance with the provisions of the Treasurer's Instructions.

2. Alcohol Related Traffic Court Referral Program Mr Neal asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the Alcohol Related Traffic Court Referral Program conducted by the Queensland Road Safety Council— (1) How many persons to date have been referred by magistrates to undertake this course as part of their sentence for drink-driving? (2) Were any estUnates made by his department on likely numbers for such courses, and how do these compare with the actual number of participants? (3) What has been the cost to develop this course?

Answer— (1 to 3) The drink-driving court referral program developed by the Queensland Road Safety Council has been a disapp>ointment because of the failure of magistrates to refer people to undertake the course. To date, a total of only six people have been referred and of these only one has completed the course and another is waiting to undertake it. The program was specifically designed because there was concem by members of the community and also members of Parliament that something more definite be done to try to rehabiUtate and modify the behaviours of those people who drive with excessive blood alcohol levels. It was felt that imposing fines and licence dis­ qualification would not necessarily lead to corrective behaviour. The rehabilitation program was developed by the Queensland Road Safety COuncU at a cost in excess of $6,800 and the Traffic Act was amended in April 1982 to allow magistrates to refer people to compulsorily undertake the course as part of their sentence. It was estimated by officers of the Queensland Road Safety Council that approxi­ mately 120 drink-drivers per month would be ordered to attend the lectures. However, to date, numbers referred have fallen dismally short of that estimate. In asking the magistrates to use their discretion to order people to undertake the course, we specifically asked them to bear in mind that the people be residents of Brisbane, that they be 30 years and under, and that their period of licence Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1775

disqualification be between three and six months. This way U was anticipated that the program would reach those most in need, namely, young people who exceed high blood alcohol levels. I have had discussions with my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in an effort to impress upon the judiciary that the community expects the Government to give a lead in this matter and that their co-operation is essential. Further efforts wUl be undertaken to request magistrates to take this very worthwhile project into consideration when convicting drink-drivers.

3. Fatal Injuries Suffered by Non-users of Seat-belts; Child Restraints Mr Neal asked the Minister for Transport— (1) What studies have been undertaken to determine the number of car passengers killed in 1983 who were not wearing seat-belts? (2) Has any estimate been made in particular of the number of children who use chUd restraints as a result of the 1979 change in legislation, making chUd restraints compulsory? Answer— (I & 2) An analysis of the 1983 Queensland road toll by the Road Safety Council has shown that nearly 25 per cent of motorists killed last year were not wearing a seat-belt at the time of the accident. It would appear that, despite the very heavy emphasis that is given in advertising for the need to wear seat-beUs, many people are ignoring this and are paying a very high price. Recent studies carried out in New Zealand have shown that one of the first signs of the drirtking-driver is neglect for wearing seat-belts. The recent report undertaken on road accidents and alcohol highlighted this fact and recommended that the police be on the look-out for people not wearing seat-belts as one of the first signs of drink-driving. With regard to studies done on child restraint usage—studies undertaken for the Queensland Road Safety Council by the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine have examined the effects of legislation on the use of restraints by children under eight years. This research was undertaken at shopping centres, schools and kindergartens and found that whilst the availability of child restraints increased from 88 per cent to 93 per cent as a result of Government legislation, unfortunately the usage has risen from only 30 per cent to 45 per cent. In other words, despite legislation, one out of every two children ride unrestrained in both the front and rear seat compartments of vehicles. Honourable members would be aware that the Road Safety Council has spent considerable amounts of money advertising the need for children to wear seat-belts, but it would appear that, despite our efforts, many parents still do not heed warnings. I have asked officers of my department to further consider measures to inform parents of the dangers of letting their children ride unrestrained. As a further measure, consideration will be given in the future to making breaches of the Traffic Regulations dealing with child restraint usage a ticketable "on the spot" fine with ensuing penalties. I am sure that the House agrees that children are this State's most precious commodity and that no effort must be spared to ensure that they do not become a lamentable statistic.

4, Misuse of Dangerous Drugs Mr Elliott asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the many reports concerning the misuse of dangerous drugs— What action is being taken by his department to monUor the use of dangerous dmgs? 1776 6 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— My departmertt has recently instituted a computer-based system to monitor the issue of dangerous drugs. This system enables the department to give a prompt response to queries from medical practitioners regardirtg the activities of persorts obtaining narcotic drugs for purposes other than medical conditions. It is the first system of its type to be developed in AustraUa and has impressed representatives of other regulatory authorities. Previously, all prescriptions for narcotic drugs were forwarded to the department and checks were made manuaUy.

5. Private Hospital Patients, Anomalies under Medicare Mr Elliott asked the Minister for Health— Is he aware of anomalies in relation to private hospital patients under Medicare, particularly those who have used their life-savings to buy a unit in retirement villages and require special hospital care part of the time, such as psychiatric patients, who now find themselves faced with massive costs which will in some cases result in these patients having to leave such care? Answer— The amendments by the Commonwealth Government to the Health Insurance Act 1983 have revealed several shortcomings in remuneration for hospital accommo­ dation to varying groups in the community because of the introduction of categoris­ ation of private hospitals. Such categorisation influences the daily rate of Commonwealth contribution. I am advised that all psychiatric hospitals are in category C. This categoris­ ation is currently under negotiation with the Commonwealth Government.

6. Mineral Royalties Mr Lickiss asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the amendment to Regulation 50 of the Mining Regulations 1979 under the Mining Act 1968-1983 dated 22 December 1983 and tabled in this House on 31 January 1984— (1) What was the revenue from royalties for 1982-83? (2) What is the estimated revenue for 1983-84? (3) What is the estimated additional revenue from royalties for a full 12 months as a result of the amendment to the regulation aforementioned? Answer— (1) $88,646,572. (2) As the honourable member will be no doubt aware, the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer, in his published Budget Speech and Financial Statement delivered on 1 December 1983, estimated total receipts from royalty for 1983-84 at $102m. Any revised estimates are a matter between the Department of Mines and the Treasury. (3) This figure cannot be estimated as it depends on the economic heaUh of the mining industry and the amount of royalty relief granted pursuant to the mining regulations.

7. Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Health— WUh reference to complaints from constituents concerning the treatment of patients in private hospitals and nursing homes— Are regular inspectiorts of private hospitals and nursing homes carried out to ensure that proper treatment and care is provided? Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1777

Answer— During 1982-83, 56 inspections were carried out in private hospitals and 151 inspections of nursing homes were undertaken. These inspectiorts are designed to ensure that adequate care and supervision are provided to the patients and a satisfactory standard of cleanliness is provided, with maintenance of buildings to prevent patient hazards. In addition, visits were made to some nursing homes by the Adviser in Nutrition and Dietetics to assess the provision of normal and modified diets. A Nursing Home Manual for Food Services has been prepared for distribution to nursing homes.

8. Defamation Writs, Brisbane Mr Yewdale asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General— (1) How many writs claiming defamation were issued out of the Brisbane Supreme Court during 1982-83? (2) How many pf these writs have subsequently been withdrawn? Answer— (1) During 1982 and 1983, 201 writs claiming defamation were issued out of the Supreme Court, Brisbane. (2) Of those writs 22 were discontinued.

9. Garbage Bins, Brisbane Mr Miller asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— WUh reference to an article in "The Courier-Mail" of 28 February under the heading "Garbos can smell poUtics" and specifically to the paragraph dealing with the inabiUty of the elderly and infirm "to wheel the new, large garbage bins on to the footpath instead of leaving them in their yards as at present."— (1) As the original tender called by the Brisbane City Council was for the bins to be placed inside the property line, when did the council decide to ask the house-holders to place the bins on the footpath? (2) As the placing of garbage on the footpath will mean considerable saving to the successful tenderer, have all tenderers been given the opportunity to tender for this method of collection? (3) As the Queensland Health Act does not allow for garbage to be placed on the footpaths in this State, is any change contemplated to allow for this new concept?

Answer— (1 to 3) I am advised that the contracts let by the Brisbane City Council for the removal of garbage provide for domestic-typie bins not to be placed on the footpath for collection but inside the property line adjacent to the road alignment. Where, because of infirmity, an occupier of premises considers that the placing of his bin in this situation would constitute a problem, I am advised that he will have a right to place his case before the council and, in appropriate cases, the courtcil wiU have the right to exempt him from the requirement.

10. Dengue Fever Mr Stephan asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the 1981-82 epidemic of dengue fever in this State and to his advice that a media campaign was being launched in conjunction with the local authorities to educate the residents of Queensland to counteract causes of such an epidemic— What was the result of this action? 1778 6 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— I am very happy to advise that this exercise was highly successful. The community consciousness, raised by the media campaign, was a major factor in reducing transmission of the disease by mosquUoes. For instance, in 1981-82 there were 474 seriologically proven cases, and in 1982-83, aUhough 133 suspected cases of dengue fCvef were notified, only 46 cases were confirmed. Since October 1982 there have been only two suspected cases. My department has taken action to establish a vector control unit for north Queensland, funded jointly by my department and the Commonwealth Department of Health, to monitor the environmental factors which facilitate any outbreak, to liaise with local authorities and other revelant groups on control procedures and to act as an initial response team when problem areas are detected.

11. Beenleigh Police Station Mr D'Arcy asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Is he aware that the crime rate in the Beenleigh area has increased by some 47 per cent? (2) What increases of staff have taken place at the Woodridge Police Station since October 1983 when he made an election promise to upgrade staffing? (3) What are the current staffing levels at the Woodridge PoUce Station? (4) What population does this station service? Answer— (1) According to statistics held by this department for the period 1 July 1983 to 31 January 1984, reported crime in the Beenleigh-Woodridge poUce divisions increased by 16 per cent and, for the period 1982-83, by 13 per cent. (2) One additional constable. Further strength increases are presently under consideration, (3) The Woodridge Police Station approved establishment comprises 29 police officers and 4 ciViUan staff. Woodridge is a training station and, in addition to the approved establishment, there are currently eight trainee constables allocated thereto. Also, there are eight police officers from the Beenleigh Criminal Investigation Branch operating from Woodridge station. (4) Approximately 71 000.

12. Flying Fish Point Schpol Mr Menzel asked the Minister for Works and Housing— Will he approve the construction of a fence round the new oval at the Flying Fish Point School?

Answer— Now that work has been completed on the levelling of this additional land, action is in hand for quotations to be invited for fencing of the site. On receipt of a suitable quotation, approval will be given for the work to proceed,

13. Walkamin Fish Hatchery; Borumba Dam Fishery Mr Burns asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) What was the total operating cost of the Walkamin Fish Hatchery for the years 1982-83, 1981-82 and 1980-81? (2) What was the total number of fry produced in each of those three years and what was the cost per fish? (3) What percentage and numbers of each type of fry in each of these years were distributed to dams and streams m the highly populated south-east corner of the State between Bundaberg and the New South Wales border? Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1779

(4) What was the total operatmg cost of the Bommba Dam Fishery in 1982-83, 1981-82 artd 1980-81? rr (5) What was the total number of fry produced in each of those three years and what was the cost per fish? Answer— (1) The hatchery operations at Walkamin are only one element of the total activities carried out at the Walkamin Fisheries Research Station, and no precise separation of costs is available. The hatchery only operates for half of the year and even during that period staff are often involved in non-hatchery activities. However, taking these circumstances into account, a reasonable estimate of Walkamin hatchery costs would be— 1982-83—$25,000; 1981-82—$21,000; 1980-81—$26,000. (2) The total number of fry produced and distributed in these three years were— 1982-83—79 888 fry at a cost of 31 cents per fish; 1981-82—108 589 fry at a cost of 19 cents per fish; 1980-81-13 411 fry at a cost of $1.94 per fish. It should be noted that the costs quoted include the cost of transporting fish to release sites, which were up to 1 000 km distant from Walkamin. (3) The only releases of these Walkamin-produced fish in south-eastern Queensland were made into Monduran Dam near Gin Gin, as foUows— 20 186 sooty gmnter in 1981-1982, that is, 48 per cent of the year's production of that species; 16 000 sooty gmnter in 1982-83, that is, 29 per cent of the year's production of that species; and 100 sleepy cod in 1981-82, that is, 9 per cent of the year's production of that species. (4)- 1980-81—$39,000; 1981-82—$78,000; 1982-83—$73,000. (5) The Borumba Dam Hatchery is only in its infancy and initial operations have been affected by unseasonal conditions and problems with water quaUty. Effort to date has been directed towards the improvement of hatchery equipment and techniques. The first release of 3 000 fingerUngs was made in 1982-83, but such release is insignificant in relation to the planned production target of the faciUty.

14. Rape Laws Ms Warner asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—^ (1) What has happened to submissions caUed for by the previous Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Doumany, on a review of the rape laws in Queens­ land? (2) Will these submissions be evaluated with a view to a reform of the rape laws in Queenslartd? Answer— (1 «fe 2) I refer the honourable member to my reply to a question asked by her on 13 December 1983 on the same subject. Submissions received on a variety of topics, including rape, will be taken into account during the course of the extensive review of the Queensland Crimmal Code which I am undertaking. I take this opportunity to correct an error in reporting which occurred in the "Sunday Sun" of last Sunday. At no time have I expressed an opinion that "in every marriage there is sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman." Such a claim would undoubtedly be quite untrue and derogatory of the great majority of marriage partners in this country. 15. Year of the Family Ms Warner asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) How much money has been aUocated for expenditure on the Government's campaign on the Year of the FamUy? 1780 6 March 1984 Questions Ujpon Notice

(2) How much has been spent so far? (3) Who is resppnsible for authorising and making the money avaUable? (4) Are community groups allowed to make submissions for a grant to promote the Year of the Family and, if so, to whom are they to make submissions and on what criteria are grants, if any, allowed? Answer— (1) Irt keeping with its election commitment, the Government has set aside $100,000 towards the 1984 Queensland Year of the Family campaign. These funds will be directed primarily towards dissemination of information and stimulating interest and awareness of the family within the community. (2) To the end of February, $6,118 had been expended. (3) A secretariat has been established within the Department of Welfare Services to assist a State planning committee which has been set up to co-ordinate and plart activities. The committee has formulated a program for the year involving, among other things, a Family of the Year competition, radio and television advertising and a variety of activities which highlight aspects of famUy Ufe. (4) The support of numerous community Organisations with an interest in famUy life has been sought and these groups may apply for assistance to the State planning committee for the Queensland Year of the Family, care of the Department of Welfare Services. I am sure that the committee wiU be only too pleased to provide whatever assistance it can to community organisations with a genuine interest in fostering family life.

16. Effect of Income Tax on Wage Claims Mr Alison asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs— (1) Is he aware that the average male wage-earner is now paying 46 cents in the dollar income tax to the Federal Govemment? (2) What effect will this imposition have on wage claims and incentives to employees to follow the free enterprise principle? Answer— (1 & 2) Yes, I am aware that many tens of thousands of wage earners are now paying 46 cents in the dollar to the Federal Government in personal income tax. It is absolutely incredible. Figures released last week by the Australia Bureau of Statistics show that average weekly earnings (ordinary time) for full-time adult males now exceeds the $374 per week threshold above which wage-earners pay 46 cents in the doUar on their earnings. That has happened since the coming into power of the Federal Labor Government, which said that U would reduce taxes. The posUion is actually worse than the figures reveal. The Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin indicates that many employers had not paid the 4.3 per cent national wage case increase granted on 10 October 1983 when the survey was taken. Not only have the tax burdens risen for most workers but the Hawke Govemment has increased taxes by indirect methods. The quarterly indexation of excise duties on beer, petrol and spirits is taxation by absolute stealth. Ort top of this, all wage-earners have been charged another 1 per cent of their wages to support Medicare. I assure honourable members that we will probably be paying a lot more. It is about time that the Hawke Labor Government reduced taxation in this country instead of increasing it. It is wrong for the Federal Government to be supporting full wage indexation knowing that much of the increase wiU flow back into Federal coffers. The Federal Government will gain from all this, and it is not giving money back to the States. Honourable members have ortly to cortsider what the Federal Government did to Tasmainia and what U is trying to do to Queensland with Medicare. Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1781

This situation can only result in an escalation in the number of wage claims outside the wage indexation system. In other words, counterclaims will be made outside the wage indexation system. That wiU increase costs and make it more difficult for us to compete. It will result in severe increases in unemployment. I call on the Prime Minister to do as he promised, that is, reduce taxation and give the people of Australia a fair go, I suggest to him that he should try to be honest, Cortsider what he has done to Tasmainia. Labor promised a sum in the order pf, $250m, but I understand that Tasmainia has received only $20m so far. The Federal Government is saying one thing and doing another. Queensland, and the other States will pay for it through increased unemployment.

17. Maryborough Bypass Road Mr AUson asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— When is construction of the Maryborough bypass road and bridge over the Mary River at Copenhagen Bend due to be commenced?

Answer— I am aware of a press article that listed this project, among pthers, as being envisaged by the Commonwealth for construction under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program. Unfortunately, the reality is that funds wiU be insufficient to undertake all of those projects listed. As a result, at this stage, timing for construction is not determined and will depend on the level of funds in future years.

18. Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic Mr Comben asked the Minister for Health— , With reference to the Wacol Rehabilitation CUnic— (1) Why was it necessary recently for the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Dependence Services to issue a memorandum to staff about the unethical behaviour of a large number of staff members engaged in personal relationships with patients? (2) Why has Mr Ted Livingstone, a long-time patient of the centre, been allowed to run an SP book which is used by both patients and staff? (3) Has this patient effectively lived at the centre for the past eight years, leaving annually for approximately one month, thus enabUng him to be readmitted for 12 months? (4) How was another patient, Mr Stan Horam, a person without substantial assets, able to build himself a substantial cabin cruiser in the Wacol centre grounds whUst a patient? (5) Why is the centre known to patients as"Ponderosa Holiday Camp" or "Shangri-La"? (6) Are full-time patients of ADDS encouraged to register for social security benefits of any form? (7) What is the approximate success rate of ADDS treatment? (8) How does this success rate compare with that of similar institutions in other States?

Answer— (1) On 5 May 1983 a memorandum was sent by the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Dependence Services to all staff reminding them of certain ethical con­ siderations in their deaUngs with patients. It has come to the notice of the director that a staff member may have become emotionally involved with a patient and that memorandum was regarded as an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the maintenance of proper ethical and clinical practice. The director is unaware of any cause for concern about such matters since the circulation of that memorandum. 62182—62 1782 6 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(2) There is no evidence whatever to substantiate the claim that a patient of Wacol RehabiUtation Clinic has ever run an SP book. It is abhorrent to me that the name of a patient of an alcohol rehabUitation cUnic is mentioned under parUamentary privilege, thus breaching confidentiality and exposing that patient to stigmatisatiort and labelUng. (3) No. The patient in question was first referred to Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic and was an in-patient for two months in 1971. He has had 10 admissions to Wacol Rehabilitation CUnic since that time, five of which have been long-term admissions. During this period, he has had treatment at hospitals and other treatment c^itres. (4) The person referred to buUt himself the huU of a boat during a long-term admission to Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic. He had had a number of admissions to Wacol and he had made only limited progress. As part of the therapeutic program, he was encouraged to build himself a boat in his spare time using his pre-existing skiUs. He used his own resources to purchase materials for the boat and absolutely no materials were provided by the institution. I believe that the emphasis on occupational therapy at Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic is entirely appropriate. (5) I am unaware that these names are used to refer to Wacol RehabiUtation Clinic. (6) Yes. (7 & 8) Success of treatment programs can be evaluated only against the goals of a particular program. A study that aimed at assessing the short-term impact of the Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic program on patients' post-treatment functioning has recently been completed. Although that study needs some caution in interpretation because of the length of the foUow-up period (3 months), improvement in drinking states occurred in 39.58 per cent of the sample, and 32.29 per cent were abstinent throughout the follow-up period. Overall improvement, which encompasses issues in post-treatment functioning other than drinking status, was present in 53.11 per cent at the completion of the follow-up period. In other States, only two worthwhile evaluative studies of alcohol dependence treatment programs have been published. Both of these were conducted by the Western Australia Alcohol and Dmg Authority. One study found in favour of the program over a range of indicators of program success, while the other revealed negative findings. Neither of these programs is comparable to the Queensland survey.

19. Legal Costs, Mr J. Sinclair Mr Comben asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General— (1) How much money has been paid so far by John Sinclair towards settling the legal costs incurred by the Premier and Treasurer irt the defamation case inUiated by John Sinclair in 1977? (2) What were the total legal costs incurred by the Premier and Treasurer in defending himself in the defamation claim brought by Sinclair? (3) What part of those expenses, if any, was paid directly by the Crown and to whom was it paid? (4) If any of those legal expenses were paid by the Crown, how much of the money contributed by Siuclair has been redirected to the Crown and which department, if any, has received the direct benefit of any payments by Sinclair?

Answer— (1 to 4) The defamation action referred to by the honourable member was initiated by Sinclair, who initially obtained judgment in his favour. The Honourable the Premier and Treasurer appealed against such judgment, and a decision was given in the High Court against Sinclair. The costs ordered by the court to be paid by Sirtclair are being paid in instalments. Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1783

20. Pest Control Operators Mr McPhie asked the Minister for Health— Although pest control operators are required to be Ucensed, what action is taken by his department to ensure that the pesticides used do meet with requirements? Answer— My departmental officers are continually taking samples of pesticides for the purposes of testing for conformity in type and strength of pesticide. During 1982-83, 47 samples were found to be unsatisfactory in that the pesticide was below the stated strength or contained traces of other pesticides. Warnings were issued to the operators that more care was necessary in the formulation or handUng of emulsions and the cleansing of utensils and equipment.

21. TAB Investments Mr Hooper asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) Does the TAB have $6.5m invested in merchant bills with the merchant banker, Rothwells? (2) If the TAB is so flush with funds, why does it not invest in Queertsland with local authorities which are currently starved for funds? (3) Is Sir Edward Lyons, chairman of the TAB, in his position as trustee of the National Party, allowed to invest tax-payers' funds at his discretion without ministerial approval? Mr Hooper: Mr Premier, before you answer that question upon notice, can you tell us whether the chairman of the TAB, Sir Edward Lyons, is also chairman of Rothwells? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member. Mr Hooper: I accept your warrung. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member had better, Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is nice to see the honourable member being contrite. Answer— (1) Section 189 of the Racing and Betting Act provides authority for the Total­ isator Board to invest moneys, not required for the time being for its purposes, with an approved dealer or upon such other security or investment as the Treasurer determines. I have given approval for the board to invest in bank-accepted commercial bills and for such investments to be made with recognised merchant banks. Rothwells is a recognised merchant bank. I must emphasise that investments in bank-accepted commercial biUs carry no risks for the board as the primary risk rests with the bank accepting the bill. Because of the temporary short-term nature of the board's investible balances, the level of total investment and investments with particular merchant banks varies con­ siderably over short periods of time. It is therefore irrelevant and inappropriate to indicate the level of investment in any particular security at any particular time. 1 stress also that because of the absolute security of the investment, I, as Treasurer, having approved the form of investment, do not require to be advised of the day-to-day levels of investment. (2) The local authority borrowing program for 1983-84 has, by the end of Febmary 1984, been substantially filled and the honourable member's assertion that local authorities are starved for funds is not correct. Also, because of the longer term nature of local authority borrowing requirements, it would not be appropriate for the board to enter into such investments of its largely temporary short-term investible balances. (3) See (1). 1784 6 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

22. Superintendent B. Hoppner Mr Hooper asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Did a meeting of police officers stationed in the Gold Coast Police District carry a motion of no confidence in District Superintendent Bernie Hoppner? (2) Is it a fact that some of the most senior members of the Queensland Police Force know that the state of crime-fighting on the Gold Coast is in complete disarray because of Superintendent Hoppner's incompetence? (3) Is it also true that senior police officers feel unable to correct this matter because of Hoppner's numerous National Party connections?

Answer— (1) Yes, but I understand U did not have the support of all members. (2) No. (3) No.

23. Matron, Townsville General HospUal Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Health— (1) When were appUcations caUed for the position of matron at the Townsville General Hospital? (2) Has there been any delay in filling the position by the board, causing the loss of two capable and suitable applicants? (3) Did his department threaten to fill the position as the board was taking too long to do so? (4) Has the position been fiUed and, if so. by whom? (5) If the position has been filled, is the person fuUy qualified and does the successful appUcant have to pass a medical examination to ensure that he or she will be able to cope with the rigours and stress of the job?

Answer— (1) Applications were called on 6 August, 20 August and 3 September 1983 and readvertised on 9 and 12 November 1983. (2) Following the first calling of applications for the position, the Townsville Hospitals Board did not recommend any of the applicants for the position. Therefore, a second advertisement was placed, resulting in a recommendation by the Townsville Hospitals Board to the chief nursing officer and, subsequently, in approval for one of its preferred choices (28 February 1984). (3) No. (4) Approval has been given for the position to be filled by Mrs Mona Kendall. She was recommended by the Townsville Hospitals Board. (5) The person is satisfactorily qualified. It would be up to the Townsville Hospitals Board to decide whether a medical examination were necessary.

24. Psychiatric Services, Gold Coast Mr Borbidge asked the Minister for Health^ Has he given consideration to the extension of psychiatric services on the Gold Coast? Answer— A regional community mental health centre is being established on the Gold Coast. This centre will provide a wide range of out-patient, day hospital and dom- icUiary services in close collaboratiort with the Psychiatry Unit of the Gold Coast Hospital and the local community medicine program. Staff wUl also work co-operatively with other health and welfare agencies. Presently staff are being selected and employed to form a multidiscipUnary team of mental health professionals. Questions Upon Notice 6 March 1984 1785

The development of this centre will permit comprehensive treatment of mentally ill persons in the settings of their own families and their social networks. Hospital­ isation, where necessary, will be integrated with the treatment program and, in most instances, will cause minimal stress and social disruption. Family support and treatment programs wUI aim to reduce the adverse effects of mental illness on all family members, especially children, who are most vulnerable. The establishment of this centre wiU mark an important stage in the continuing develppment of community mental health services.

25. ; Helicopter Rescue Service Mr Borbidge asked the Minister for Welfare Services and Ethnic Affairs— (1) To what extent does the Queensland Government financially support the Surf Life Saving Association's helicopter rescue services? (2;) Is the degree of financial support kept under review from time to time? Answer— (1 & 2) Under the endowment scheme administered by my department, the State centre of the Surf Life Saving Association and affiliated clubs receive a subsidy of 75c in the dollar on approved endowable collections. In the current financial year, the movement will receive a total of $1,378,000 under this scheme, of which the State centre will receive $428,342. From that sum, the State centre will pay $189,409 to the helicopter rescue service. The degree of Goverrtment financial support to the heUcopter rescue service is under continual review. The honourable member's support for the life-saving move­ ment is well known, and only last week he and the member for Southport led a deputation to the Honourable the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police and me, with a view to examining ways of providing additional support for the helicopter rescue service. The honourable member's support for community-based services is well recognised and I compliment him for his personal support for Queensland's 1984 Year of the Family. I take this opportunity, on behalf of aU honourable members, to congratulate the member for Surfers Paradise for taking a significant personal step and announcing ; his engagement to Miss Jennifer Gooding. I am sure that all honourable members join me in wishing them both every happiness. , *

.26. , .':",.' PubUc Accounts Committee Mr Prest asked the Premier and Treasurer— From a reported meeting held on 15 June 1983 ParUament was informed that the Standing Orders Committee resolved— "That, in view of the imbalance of its membership and its wish for further information on public accounts Committees and other Committees, a decision be postponed until the New Year" and as the new year is now one-sixth gone, has the Standing Orders Committee met and has further information been sought and obtained as to the formation of a public accounts committee for this Parliament and when will Parliament be informed of the committee's decision?

Answer— I am sure it is not necessary for me to remind the honourable member that the establishment of a public accounts committee was a major issue at the general election held last year; nor would he wish to be reminded of the devastating response by the electors of Queensland to the policies advocated by his party and the Liberal Party. I have said it before and I say it again now that there is no urgent need for a pubUc accounts committee in Queensland although New South Wales might need one. There are 82 members of the Legislative Assembly. Each and every member, if he or she is doing 1786 6 March 1984 Questions Without Notice

his or her job properly, is an individual public accounts committee. Furthermore, the Auditor-iGeneral, who is responsible to the ParUament, has a vital role as a watch-dog over Government expenditure in the State and every department has its own accountable officers.

27. Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit Mr Prest asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services— (1) When was the Fire Preventiort artd Protectiort Research UrtU set up? (2) How is this unit funded? (3) Who are the persons doing this research and what are their qualifications and experience to carry out such research? (4) Where is the research being carried out? (5) How much money has been aUocated and expended in each year since U was set up? (6) What wages for staff and expenditure on facilities such as motor vehicles have come from this fund each year since its estabUshment? (7) What persons' wages and expenses, etc., come from this fund? (8) Will he state what makes of motor vehicles, and for whose use, have been purchased from this fund? (9) Has Mr Paltridge, who is employed as an administrator and adviser to a service under his control in this area, ever been involved in an administrative capacity with a firm which has been declared bankrupt or gone into liquidation?

Answer— (1) 1982. <2) By contributiorts from the private sector. (3) Mr W. H. Ripper. Qualifications were detailed in answer to a question by the member for Bundaberg last Wednesday, 29 February 1984. (4) Brisbane, with on-site assessments and consultations throughout the State. isy- 1982-83—received $50,000, expended $33,978.34; 1983-84—received $110,000, expended $34,916.98 (to February 1984). (6)- 1982-83—wages $18,083.27; motor vehicle^nU; 1983-84—wages $22,000.70; motor vehicle—$6556 (March 1984). (7) Mr W. H. Ripper. (8) One 4-cylinder Toyota sedan for use by Mr Ripper on uuit duties, and as required for unit purposes. (9) Not in the last 20 years.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Promotion by National Party of Federation Insurance Ltd Mr WRIGHT: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer: Is he aware of circulars and letters that are being forwarded by the National Party of Australia (Qld) to National Party members requesting that they transfer their insurance policies from their present companies to a company knowrt as Federation Insurance Ltd? Is it correct that that company is being promoted by the National Party because arrangements have been made for the National Party to receive a commission from the company on insurance premiums paid by National Party members? Is he aware of a circular in which National Party members are asked to consider placing "all your business through Federation Insurance Ltd"? What commissions are being paid by Federation Insurance Ltd to the Questions WUhout Notice 6 March 1984 1787

National Party? How does the Minister, as one of the Ministers who are responsible for the SGIO, explain this attempt by the National Party to undermine the SGIO and other Queensland insurance companies? Mr GUNN: I do not know whether the Leader of the OpposUion is serious, but his question is certainly a fun question. The National Party, of course, has nothmg to do wUh the SGIO. Federation Insurance Ltd has been established in this State for a very long time, and I assure the honourable gentleman that it is a very reputable company. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in the National Party's involvement with that company. As I have said, it has been in existence for years and years. But perhaps the honourable gentleman found that out only very recently. Mr Wright: You are undermining every other Queensland company. You reckon you are pro-Queensland, but you are selling out Queensland. Mr GUNN: Queensland is a free enterprise State. Mr Wright interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the Deputy Premier is trying to answer the question, I should like the Leader of the Opposition to listen to the Minister's answer, Mr GUNN: Queensland is a free enterprise State and, as yet, not a socialist State; nor as yet is Australia a socialist country. The Federal Government, of course, is looking socialism's way and is being supported by members of the Opposition—that motley crew who sit on the other side of the House. As I was saying, Federation Insurance Ltd has been in existence in this State for a very long time. I am sure that the SGIO does not mind that and that it does not care two hoots about a little bit of competition. That does not hurt at aU. I support the National Party in its endeavours. If it can obtain some commission as a result of those endeavours, well and good.

Non-approved Private Schools Mr NEAL: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I draw his attention to an article in Monday's "Courier-MaU" concerning the attendance of children at non- approved private schools. I now ask: Will he inform the House— (1) What are the requirements for approval of non-Government schools? (2) What is the position concerning the particular education facility that was referred to in the article? (3) What motives may the Opposition spokesman on education have for high­ lighting at this point in time this potentially divisive issue? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for Balonne for the question, which, of course, was telegraphed through the columns of "The Courier-Mail" yesterday moming. I find it rather strange that the Opposition spokesman could not even wait until the House was sitting to publicise his questions. Of course, he has allowed me to be briefed fully on the matter. I shall deal first with the latter part of the question asked by the honourable member for Balonne. Of course, I have read the article to which he referred. Some discussion has ensued conceming the matter. It is interesting to note that the Canberra Labor Government's dangerous proposals for substantiaUy changirtg the funding for nort-Govemment schools are coming uuder attack from all sorts of people, except, of course, the socialists in this State. It is interesting also to note that the lackeys of the Federal Government in Queensland are again selUng out their responsibility to Queenslartd's non-Government schools and to the children who attend them. I suppose that it is an attempt to draw attention away from those rather strange "option papers" that have been presented on the matter. I am genuinely sorry for the Opposition spokesman on education, who has been dragged into the ideological strait-jacket of sociaUsm in education policies. It is a very clear Marxist policy. Opposition Members interjected. 1788 6 March 1984 Questions Without Notice

Mr POWELL: OpposUion members do not like the truth. I will give them a Uttle lesson. To be able to grab hold of the education system of a courttry and to control it from the one centre is a Marxist policy. The Opposition is trying to implement sociaUst policies m order to control all schools. The Queensland Government will not have a bar of that type of policy. The Queensland Government beUeves irt free enterprise and believes that the education system of this State should be orgartised in such a fashion that parents have the right to send their children to whichever school they like. Mr Goss: Even if it is a butcher's shop? Mr POWELL: The interjection from the honourable member for SaUsbury shows his complete ignorance in the matter. The issue of non-Government schools has really got under the skin of Opposition members. I am really pleased about that. It has them running round like ants after their nest has been hit. I point out to the honourable member that the school to which he referred is not in a butcher's shop; it is located in a building next to a butcher's shop. Opposition members are so Wind and one-eyed that they can see only one thing. I could tell another story about that, but I wUl not do so at this stage. The procedure for obtaining funding for education in Queensland is very simple. An organisation conducting a school simply applies to the Education Department for funding. An inspector of schools is sent out to look at the institution. A number of criteria must be met before funding is given. When those criteria are met Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the member for Wolston. Any further, interjections of the kind that he is making wiU not elevate the status of this Parliament. Mr R. J. Gibbs: What did I say? Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member knows what he said. I have warned the honourable member, and I warn him again- I will not warn the honourable member a third time. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr POWELL: For the benefit of the member for South Brisbane, who alsp is ignorant and does not want to learn the facts— Mr Fouras: I heard you last night. Mr POWELL: That is good; the honourable member might have learned something. I point out that the procedure for obtaining approval is simple. The school applies to the department and it inspects the school. If the criteria laid down are met, provisional approval is given. In many respects the word "approval" is misleading. The word "approval" means approved for fundirtg. Approval is given on a provisional basis. After a period, an inspection is made to check whether the things that we want are being maintained. Final approval is then given. The Federal Government meets some funding in non-Government schools. If one looks at the way in which that is done, one sees that that is where the non-Government schools sector finds objection, and that is why Opposition members find objection with the non-Government sector. The non-Government sector offers an alternative to the mainstream of education that is given. I believe, and the Queenslartd Government believes, that Australian parents ought to have the right to be able to choose whichever school thesy want. They ought not to be. directed by any Government or any loud-mouth from the Opposition benches to go to a particular school. The responsibility for education rests Very firmly with parents. That is the stance that I take, and U will be the stance that the Queenslartd Government will maintain. The Government believes that parertts have a right to make those decisions on behalf of their children. Once again honourable members can see the ALP philosophy on the complete control of non-Government schools. The non-Government sector does not want that and ought not to be compeUed to have it. Questions Without Notice 6 March 1984 1789

Plastic Bins, Brisbane City CouncU Garbage Contract Mr NEAL: In asking a question of the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology, I refer to a number of media and other reports indicating that the successful tenderers for the Brisbane City Council garbage coUection contract are looking overseas for companies to supply and manufacture the new, hard-plastic, wheeled bins incorporated in the new service. I now ask: Is this in fact the case, and what action, if any, can be taken to ensure that these contracts remain in Queensland? Mr AHERN: At least two companies informed me that the successful tenderers for the Brisbane City Council garbage contracts were considering the manufacture of these plastic bins in either France or Germany. I immediately took action to have consultations on the matter. I am happy to say that one of the contractors will have the manufacture of those bins undertaken in Queensland. That will create further employment here. I bring to the attention of honourable members the following press release provided to me by Otto Waste Industries Pty Ltd— "Following initiatives by the Minister of Industrial Development Mr Mike Ahern, mobile garbage bins for the Brisbane City Council's south side will be produced in Queensland. The insistence by Hunter Bros, for local production has ensured that Otto Waste Industries Queensland Pty Ltd, establish a manufacturing plant in Queensland. Whilst this plartt was scheduled for Australia, no firm site had been agreed. The intervention of the Minister and his discussions with the principals of Otto, coupled with the firm desire by Hunter Bros, for local production has brought a new industry and jobs to Queensland. The machine that the Otto group will bring to Australia for the moulding of Hunter Bros, bins, wUl be the largest in Queensland and one of only three of its kind in Australia. The initial investment by the Otto group with its Queensland manufacturing operation, will be 3.5 million dollars. Further capital would be available for expansion, to service the needs of other local authorities as the mobile garbage system is introduced throughout Queertsland. John F. Bundy, Managing Director—Otto Waste Indust. Pty Ltd." Mr Fouras: You know that was organised by the Brisbane City Council. You are grandstanding. Mr AHERN: The interjection by the honourable member for South Brisbane is in error. Very serious consideration had been given to having the bins manufactured in France or Germany. The initiatives of the Government will mean that the jobs related to that manufacturing will be created in Queensland. I will be having further discussions with the other successful tenderer in the interests of creating new employment opportunities in this State.

Cost of Queensland Government's Advertising Campaign against Medicare Mr WARBURTON: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer: With regard to the signing of the Medicare agreement yesterday by the Queensland Government following the expenditure of tax-payers' dollars on what now appears to have been a fruitless propaganda exercise against Medicare, but simply highlighted the continuing confrontationist attitude of the Government, will the Minister inform the House of the total cost of the State Government's fruitless advertising campaign for additional funding?

Mr GUNN: One thing has come out of Queensland's battle with the Federal Govern­ ment—the failure of the Opposition once again to stand up for Queensland! Oppositiort Members interjected. Mr GUNN: The Government received not one bit of support from the OpposUion. Opposition Members interjected. 1790 6 March 1984 Questions WUhout Notice

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the OpposUion that he is in continual contempt of my ruling. I will not warn him again. Mr GUNN: Queensland considers that what it has now received is a down payment on what is due to it, which is $52 per day, or the same as the other States. Because of the Government's initiatives, the State has received $35m more than it would have, plus $6.77m that was owed to it by the previous Government. "The Courier-Mail" did not say very much about that. The matter is not finished by any means. However, I repeat that not once did the Leader of the Opposition stand up for Queensland. The honourable member knew quite well that a patient in a Queensland hospital was receiving $29 a day as against $52 a day in other States, but he sold out Queensland. There is no other way to put it. We did our utmost, of course, and when the Grants Commission does make its decision—and there is no doubt what that will be—it wiU be a game Prime Minister who does not implement that decision. We will then expect the Leader of the Opposition and his crew to support our application for retrospectivity. We will test the Opposition in 12 months' time when that application is made.

State Budget Mr WARBURTON: I have a further question for the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I refer to the State Budget Speech of 1 December last year, in which it was stated that, unless an additional amount of $21m sought by Queensland under Medicare was forthcoming, "a substantial review of the State Budget wiU be necessary." As there is no sign of Queensland receiving the $21m which the Government gambled upon in framing the Budget, is the Queensland Budget under review and what substantive adjustments to the Budget does the Government intend to implement? Mr GUNN: I will make one prediction, and it will come true. This Government will balance its Budget, just as it has on earlier occasions when other States have shown deficits ranging from $90m to $200m. A similar prediction was made in 1983, and it was proved correct. I predict that, in 1984, this Government wiU once again balance its Budget in spite of the socialists in Canberra doing their utmost to short-change this Government, and in fact succeeding. It appears that "The Courier-MaU" is closely aUied with the Opposition on this issue, but we will prove it wrong, too. We look at the Budget every two months. At the present time we are satisfied with it.

Interstate Commission Mr JENNINGS: I ask the Minister for Transport: Can he inform the House of the latest attitude of the Federal Government towards the establishment of the Interstate Com­ mission? Has the Commonwealth Govemment taken heed of Queensland's opposition to this commission, or is it going ahead regardless? What safeguards or protections are afforded to the people of Queensland against the excessive use of this commission by the Common­ wealth? Mr LANE: Unfortunately, the Federal Labor Government is obviously determined to proceed along its own predetermined path to transfer to the central Government in Canberra more power and control over people's affairs. The Interstate Commission was established last year by the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which came into effect on 27 September 1983. By this legislation the Interstate Commission wiU have power to investigate, in the manner of a continuing royal commission, the private business affairs of people involved in the transport industry on both an interstate and an intrastate basis. Apart from the States' rights aspect of the commission, I believe that it represents an undesirable approach to solving problems in the transport industry because of the unnecessary invasion of the privacy of individuals and businesses. As I understand it, the commission will be empowered to call and examine witnesses without affording them the normal protection provided by the normal rules of evidence as they apply in court. In other words, hearsay or second-hand evidence could be heard. Recently, at a meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council held in Sydney I repeated Queensland's opposition to this commission, seeking an assurance from the Federal Minister that the commission would not apply to intrastate transport matters. Unfortunately Mr Peter Morris declined to give me that assurance. Questions Without Notice 6 March 1984 1791

Regarding the third part of the honourable member's question—the first support or protection that one would look to in these circumstances is the Federal parliamentary Opposition, which has a direct voice in the forum which applies, namely, the national ParUament. I must express some personal disappointment in the Federal Leader of the Opposition (Mr Andrew Peacock) who has not provided any significant public opposition on this matter. An Opposition Member: Who was that? Mr LANE: Andrew Peacock. It is time that he abandoned his preoccupation with fostering the modern Hollywood image of a gentleman and got on with his job as an Opposition leader. He will certainly need to toughen up if he is to deal adequately with the ruffians who make up the Federal Labor Party in Canberra. The other institution to which the States traditionally have resort when objecting to Commonwealth powers is the High Court of Australia, which is blessed with many fine and eminent judges respected by all Australians. However, if the High Court is to maintain the respect in which it is now held, the Federal Government must move urgently to deal with the allegation, which is widely spoken about in reliable circles in three States, that the judge mentioned so prominently in what have become known as "The Age" tapes is a judge of the High Court of Australia, Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, It is on public record that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) spoke personally with the judge involved. He should, therefore, have no difficulty in either clearing Mr Justice Murphy and restoring the faith that many Australians have in the bench or, alternatively, asking him to stand down while a thorough investigation is carried out by the proper authorities into the extent of the judge's alleged association wUh the shady activities of Morgan Ryan, a Sydney solicitor who is now facing serious criminal charges before a court. Opposition Members interjected. Mr LANE: I know that Opposition members are well aware that the essential qualification that the Federal Attomey-General (Senator Gareth Evans) needs to be Labor Attorney- General is a seven-inch whitewash brush. So far, he has succeeded in whitewashing Mr Combe and Mr Mick Young and recently he suceeded in whitewashing Hughie Williams, the candidate sponsored by Opposition members for presidency of the Transport Workers Union, in relation to the union ballots in 1980. It seems that Senator Evans may well attempt to wbitewash an ALP judge and the other person involved in "The Age" tapes, namely, Mr John Ducker, a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales, who is currently a member of the Public Service Board in that State. I hope that Mr Ducker wiU be dealt with in due course by the police in New South Wales.

Registration of Teachers Mr SMITH: Earlier this morning the Minister for Education was very adept at answering a question without notice. I hope that he can do the same again. If not, I will be happy to table the question. I now ask him: Is it a fact that, under the provisions of the Act relating to the registration of teachers, only registered teachers are allowed to teach in schools, institutions or places notified by the Governor in Council? Is it not a fact that Mrs Joyner's teaching establishment, regardless of how she classifies it, could reasonably be described as an institution or place? Does the Minister therefore propose to enforce the section of the Act that covers Mrs Joyner's teaching establishment? If the Minister does not understand my question, I wiU table it. Mr POWELL: I will have much pleasure in answering the question, because the honourable member cannot read. It is a shame that the Opposition spokesman on education has difficulty in reading. He went to Russia recently. That probably is the country from which he got his educational philosophy. The Act makes it quite clear that teachers are required to register. Under the Act, there is no provision that only registered teachers may teach at any institution. The regulation provides that if a school applies for funding, it must have, as one of the requirements, registered teachers. Mrs Joyner's establishment does not receive funding. It operates perfectly legally at the moment. It gives tutorials, and there is no reference to tutorials in the Act. 1792 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

The honourable member is completely incorrect in what he is saying. It is a shame that he does not do his homework before he goes to "The Courier-MaU" and gives U his questions. He should wait and ask them in the Parliament, which is where questions should be asked. Emerald Irrigation Scheme Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services: Now that applications have closed for the three farms in the Emerald irrigation scheme, will he advise me of the number of applications that were received and when the ballot for the farms will be held? Mr GOLEBY: The final three farms in the Emerald irrigation scheme are up for ballot. I understand that they are in Foley Road. To the best of my knowledge, 88 applications were received and they are presently being processed. When they have been processed, a ballot will be held. Fire Fighting Services, Boyne Smelters Mr MILLINER: I ask the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services: Is he aware that when he made his decision that the fire-fighting services at Boyne Smelters were adequate, the only full-time officer at the plant was a young former Gladstone fireman with 14 months fire-fighting experience, who was a third-class fireman when he resigned to take up that appointment and who has since resigned from that position to join the armed forces? Mr TENNI: No, I am not aware of that.

Fire Fighting Services, Boyne Smelters Mr MILLINER: I also ask the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services: Is it his practice to rely entirely on the advice of unqualified persons? If not, what discussions took place, or what efforts were made to obtain expert advice from the chief inspector of fire services, before the conclusion was reached that Boyne Smelters met the criteria stated by the Minister? Mr TENNI: I am aware of what is going on up there. I have had discussions wUh inspectors of fire services, with members of the State Fire Services Council, and also wUh other people involved with fire services in this State. From time to time, I have discussions with members of many fire boards throughout the State. I assure the honourable member that the position at Boyne Smelters and in every other part of the State is receiving very good attention from my department. In fact, fire boards in Queensland are happier today than they have been for many years. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MR SPEAKER'S RULING Motion of Dissent Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (12.11 p.m.): I move— "Pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 that Mr Speaker's ruling given on 28 February that a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order, because it is sub judice, be dissented from." The Opposition has not moved this motion lightly. Opposition members consider a motion of dissent to be an action in the last resort. I believe that we have been responsible in the way that we have endeavoured to pursue the issue of the Redcliffe Hospital project before coming to this point. However, the parliamentary Labor Party is left with no alternative but to take this action because of decisions that have emanated from the Chair pertaining to allegations of a conspiracy to defraud the Redcliffe Hospitals Board of approximately $4.25m. This motion of dissent relates strictly to questions that I asked in the Chamber on Tuesday, 28 February 1984. Members of the Opposition consider it regrettable that those questions and others that we sought to ask were ruled out of order by Mr Speaker. This Mr Speaker's Ruling 6 March 1984 1793

issue raises the question of freedom of information, the right of the Opposition to question the Government and the rights of individual members as to parliamentary privilege. The Opposition believes that the questions did not contravene any reasonable application of the mle of sub judice. It is apparent from other rulings made by Mr Speaker that he might also have held that view. I did note that, although he ruled the Opposition's questions out of order, he allowed debate and ministerial statements on the matter. Members of the Opposition are acutely aware that particular aspects that are linked with the Redcliffe Hospital project are the subject of legal proceedings and we have not endeavoured to pursue them. But that does not mean that the Government should be shielded completely from questions on the spending of public money on that project. I make particular reference to the comments made last Tuesday by Mr Speaker about the Redcliffe Hospital project. He said— "On Thursday, 9 February, I made a ruling on certain questions on notice that referred to matters pertaining to the Redcliffe Hospital project. I subsequently allowed some further comment on the matter and some questions without notice. I now advise members that I will not permit any further reference to this matter by way of question, statement or explanation until such time as the matter is determined by the courts." The Opposition contends that this is not a reasonable application of the sub judice rule. I refer honourable members to the recommendations about the sub judice convention tabled by the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahern) on 8 December 1976 when he was chairman of the Select Committee of Privileges. The report reads— "The media and the judiciary have in recent times shown a much more relaxed attitude to contempt of Court. Members have expressed the opinion that past application of the sub judice convention has led to a restriction of the right of the House to discuss matters while the public has not been similarly inhibited. This is the principal area of concern with the past practice prior to Mr Speaker's new ruling." It goes on to say— "Application of the sub judice rule is thus subject always to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter. We consider the Chair's discretion should recognise the paramount right of the House to consider, legislate and act on any matter, being mindful only of the necessity for avoidance of any substantial prejudice to pending Court proceedings." The Select Committee of Privileges went on to say— "The only restriction the House should place upon itself is to ensure that it does not so act as to become an altemative forum to the Court, or to permit its proceedings to interfere with the course of justice. We do not believe that the commencement of either criminal or civil proceedings should by itself thereupon prohibit consideration by the House of any matter." Later the committee said— "We recommend that the Chair continue making those determinations involving the inherent right of the House to inquire into and debate matters of public importance, whilst at the same time avoiding prejudice by comment of proceedings before Courts in such a manner as might influence juries or prejudice parties to and witnesses in the action. Parliament should be the supreme inquest of the State, whilst still not poisoning the wells of justice before they have begun to flow." In the light of those comments by the Select Committee of Privileges, Mr Speaker s application of the sub judice rule was unreasonable. For that reason, the Opposition has moved the motion of dissent from his ruHng. His ruling has placed the Government beyond question and above scrutiny, and that is a very dangerous precedent to establish. Let me briefly trace the history of this issue. In this House on Wednesday, 8 February, the Opposition asked a series of questions relating to the Redcliffe Hospital project. Subsequently, I made it clear that some of those questions related not to any action by the Fletcher Watts Group against one of its former employees, Mr Paul Penklis, but totally to the Redcliffe Hospital project. On that occasion I asked Mr Speaker to hear 1794 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling the notices of questions and to determine the matter later rather than on the spot. Mr Speaker followed that course of action and ruled out of order a series of questions asked by members of the Opposition. Those questions did not appear in the Notices of Questions on the following day. It is curious, therefore, that in last Wednesday's "Hansard" aU of the questiorts that Mr Speaker ruled out of order on the previous day were included. Why is it that questions ruled out of order after several hours of consideration do not appear orf the Notices of Questions paper, whereas other questions that were ruled out of order on the spot do appear in "Hansard"? However, that is only a minor point. I wish to examine inconsistencies in previous ruUngs given by Mr Speaker on matters pertaining to this issue. Confusion and a lack of information surround Mr Speaker's rulings. Despite requests by the Opposition, no ruUng has been given in writing, nor has the back-up to those rulings been given or tabled by either Mr Speaker or the Minister for Justice. Furthermore, Mr Speaker failed to use his discretion—which is clear—tp allow a reasonable application of the rules relating to sub judice. There exists the extreme danger that the ruling now under challenge sets a precedent that would effectively prevent the Opposition from carrying out its role, and there exists the extreme danger also that that same ruling sets a precedent that would protect the Government from scrutiny. Honourable members have seen further inconsistencies. Questions asked by the Opposition were ruled out of order and removed from the Notices of Questions, but a speech made by the honourable member for Redcliffe (Mr Terry White) in response to some of the allegations was allowed and therefore appears in "Hansard". Nowhere is there any reference by Mr Speaker to Mr White's speech, which dealt exclusively with some of the questions that had been ruled out of Order. I refer also to advice given to the press gallery. On the afternoon of Wednesday, 8 February, advice was given that three of the eight questions would be ruled out of order on the ground that the matter contained in them was sub judice. One hour later, coincidentally following the National Party caucus meeting—I cast no aspersions on Mr Speaker, but that happened to be so—the press was advised that aU eight questions would be ruled out of order. Telexes were sent to the media by the Attorney-General (the Honourable Neville Harper) saying that the matter might be sub judice. On the morning of Thursday, 9 February, Mr Speaker failed to inform the House of his ruling when ParUament commenced at 11 a.m.—in other words, at the first possible opportunity. Instead, he allowed Mr Harper to make a speech and he allowed the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) to make a speech. He allowed a detaUed ministerial statement and a personal explanation on all aspects of the Redcliffe Hospital issue. It was only after that that Mr Speaker said that the matter was sub judice. There is clear evidence of inconsistency. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General referred to "Erskine May" and the report of the Select Committee of Privileges, but he did not give a proper account of the comments by those authorities on the matter of sub judice. With his own comments about Mr Penklis, Mr Harper himself flagrantly breached the most fundamental principle of sub judice. Mr Speaker, despite his ruling that the matter was sub judice, said that he would give to Ministers a discretion to answer or not answer questions put to them by the Opposition. The inconsistent nature of Mr Speaker's ruUng became further evident during question^ time on Thursday, 9 February. A perusal of "Hansard" shows that even the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing commented on the matter on two occasions. Every time the OpposUion has attempted to find out the basis of the sub judice ruling, it has not been given it. Instead, there has been confusion and inconsistency. The question must arise as to whether those matters are sub judice. If they are, how is it possible that the Redcliffe Hospitals Board could have been considering the very claim that I asked about? If it is sub judice, those members of the hospitals board have Mr Speaker's Ruling 6 March 1984 1795

no right to consider such a matter. Yet the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General stood up in this Chamber and said that they were considering a variation claim. There is inconsistency after inconsistency. I have gone through the 42 charges referred to by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. Not one of them related in any way to the claim for variation about which the Opposition asked. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has never tabled his legal advice on the matter of sub judice. Mr Speaker has never tabled anything supporting his advice. The application of the sub judice rule by Mr Speaker is dangerous. The question involves the Redcliffe Hospitals Board hearing a claim for variation. The Opposition has a right, as do private members, to query the Government's actions and spending of public moneys. The position of Parliament as a House of privilege .should not be jeopardised, and the Government must be open to scrutiny. I conclude by making one final point. The recommendation of the Honourable M. J. Ahern was as follows— "It is the obligation of the Chair to hold the balance between the rights and duties of the House on the one hand and the rights and interests of the citizen on the other." Honourable members must support this motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's mling.

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (12.21 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that it is important to make a number of points today. Indeed, those points were raised by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General during the debate on this matter some weeks ago. He stood guilty of entering this Chamber and pre-empting a decision to be made by Mr Speaker. At one stage he pre-empted the fact that Mr Speaker would make a ruling in relation to the matter being sub judice. During a ministerial statement, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General referred to "Erskine May—ParUamentary Practice" at pages 333, 368 and 427. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General referred also to the report of the Select Commitee of PrivUeges. I intend to refer to a number of those matters. It is important that members of this Assembly and the public are aware of what is contained in the "Erskine May" recommendations. Page 333 of "Erskine May" states— "By a Resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civU court may not be referred to in any debate or question—" and this is the important part— "though the House has more recently resolved to allow reference to be made to matters awaiting or under jurisdiction in all civil courts, subject to the discretion of the Chair, provided that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings." The Opposition does not beheve that there was a danger of prejudice to the proceedings. The Opposition sought to ask questions in relation to the activities of present and former members of this Assembly in the tendering on the Redcliffe Hospitals Board contract. The Opposition never intended to raise matters that were actually before the court. Under the heading "Matters pending judicial decisions" on page 368 of "Erskine May", the foUowing appears— "A matter, awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise. Subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made to matters awaiting or under adjudication in the civil courts in so far as they relate to certain Ministerial decisions or concern certain issues of national importance." Of course, it was not a matter of national importance. However, it was a matter of grave State importance that the Opposition sought to have debated in this Parliament. Most certainly it was a subject that fitted in expressly with that expression concerning ministerial decisions. It was up to the Minister for Health to decide how that contract and tendering procedure should be handled. 1796 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

The Attorney-General also made reference to page 427 of "Erskine May" relating to the rules governing contents of speeches, which states— notwithstanding the Resolution of 23 July 1963 and subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made in Questions, Motions or debate to matters awaiting or under adjudica,tion in aU civil courts, in so far as such matters relate to a Ministerial d'pcision which cannot be challenged in court except on grounds, of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy " Clearly this was a matter that affected an economic decision; it involved tax-payers' money. TTie Opposition was correct in raising the matter in the Parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition has correctly pointed out, on 8 December 1976, Mr Ahem^who is now a Minister in the National Party Govemment, brought forward tO the Parliament recommendations on sub judice, one of which read— "We do not believe that the commencement of either criminal or civil pro­ ceedings should by itself thereupon prohibit consideration by the House of any matter." Some people would say that in this debate members on both sides of the House are trying to score points. If this was the very first time that this matter was being raised in any Parliament within the Westminster system, people could perhaps look at it from that point of view. However, the fact is that already many precedents show that matters that have already been before the courts have been discussed in ParUaments. In particular, I refer to a statement made by a former Speaker of the Federal ParUament (Sir Billy Mackie Snedden) which reads as follows— "Having no Standing Order of its own relating specifically to sub judice matters, the House is guided by the practice of the House of Commons and as api^ied by this House in the past.

In relation to issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life before . . the rule is that these matters may be referred to unless such references would constitute a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings. the need to ensure that proceedings before a court are not prejudiced by comment in the House which might influence a jury or prejudice the positiort of parties and" witnesses. As an example of the exercise of this discretion, I haVe ruled as not sub judice a matter before a court of appeal where I was of the opinion that the judges would not be influenced by any debate occurring in the House." That matter related to what was known as the Greek conspiracy case, which concerned major fraud perpetrated upon the Department of Social Security. The former Speaker also said^— "For that reason my attitude towards the sub judice rule is not to interpret the sub judice rule in such a way as to stifle discussion in the national ParUament on issues of national importance." As I mentioned earlier, it is quite correct to say that aUhough the matter that the Opposition sought to raise was not one of national importance, it was most certainly of importance to the people of the State. I now quote from an article in a 1977 issue of the "AustraUan Law Journal"— " the classic test has been for over twenty years . the publication must have a 'real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass pending pro­ cedures'. The whole concept of course works on a basis of guesswork. One is almost never able to know with any degree of certainty whether debate or discussion is likely to prejudice an impartial hearing.

But, at least in our present society, judges do not give the appearance of being delicate hot-house plants, bound to wilt under any wind which blows their way. Juries may he more of an unknown quantity, but may it not be assumed that they comprise reasonably intelligent beings who can be relied upon to distinguish between out-of-court comment and the evidence in court upon which they have sworn to Mr Speaker's Ruling 6 March 1984 1797

base their decisions? Indeed, if danger to partiaUty exists, it may be preferable to have sorne (limUed) public discussion rather than that the tribunal be subjected only to gossip or private comment.

Surely the view that all debate on a matter 'before a court' must be stifled because one can imagine the possibility of prejudice in some instances, is insensitive to the dangers and disadvantages involved in preventing free parliamentary debate, often fpr months at a time, on a subject of public importance." This is matter of grave public importance, and the Opposition has highlighted concern about it in this Chamber. QuUe correctly, members of the media took it upon themselves to report the matter to the public, and I respect them for doing so. The public are now concerned. It is a matter of public importance upon which, it would appear, Opposition members are being stifled. We have been prevented from discussirtg the matter in this so-called "free" Assembly because the matter happens to be before a court, not in this State but in New South Wales. It is still at the committal stage in this State. I am absolutely astounded by the decision taken not only by the Speaker but also by the Attorney-General, who is the chief law-maker of this State. I am astounded that the Attorney-General could be so biased and have such a poor knowledge of his portfolio that he would speak in this Chamber when he already knew what the Speaker intended to say. He has abused the privUege of this Parliament and the high and honourable position of Attomey-General of this State, and he stands condemned for it.

Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (12.31 p.m.): It certainly is not my intention to be emotional or to do anything to distort the facts, because so far the debate has been conducted in a reasonable fashion. The two Opposition speakers have made a couple of important points. The Leader of the Opposition said that he did not want to poison the wells of justice, and I certainly agree with that statement. The honourable member for Wolston made a couple of points upon which I wish to comment. I believe that Mr Speaker acted correctly and, to his knowledge, in the best interests of this House. Once Mr Speaker has been notified, or becomes aware through the media, that a matter is the subject of judicial inquiry, he has to be careful. That does not mean that he should ban all discussion; but if he beUeves that justice might be hindered, he certainly has a duty to ensure that a person's right to justice is protected. He would be acting correctly if he did that. The honourable member for Wolston said that the person concerned was not even being tried in Queensland, and I take issue with him on that point. Surely a person should not be deprived of justice simply because he is appearing before a court in New South Wales. Mr R. J. Gibbs: What if he was in the United Kingdom? Would it be sub judice then? Mr BOOTH: Even then I would not like to see a person's right to justice hindered. I do not care where a trial is taking place. I beUeve that Mr Speaker should try to protect the person concerned. He certainly must try to protect someone on trial anywhere irt Australia. Mr Fouras: Except in the precincts of this Chamber? Mr BOOTH: No. I said that he must protect the right to justice of the person involved. Every person expects to receive justice, and that right should not be disturbed. That brings me to another point made by the Leader of the Opposition. He implied that perhaps, with hindsight, Mr Speaker's ruUng was incorrect. I agree. Sometimes one might be able to say, "Well, we could have debated this subject and it would not have interfered with justice." But how is Mr Speaker to know that? He has to make a mUng very quickly, and he has to try to protect a person's right to justice. He cannot say, "Oh, I will have a look at this in six weeks' time. It won't do any harm." He has to make a ruling there and then. 1798 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

The honourable member for Wolston quoted from a reputable publication, and I am not trying to knock him for that. The tenor of his remarks was that he did not think that judges would be influenced but that juries might be an unknown quantity. If anyone could be influenced, anywhere along the line, a matter should not be debated in this Chamber. Mr Wright: Have you read the Ahern recommendations on sub judice?

Mr BOOTH: I have not had time to read them. I wiU do so in the future. An Opposition Member interjected.

Mr BOOTH: I could cite umpteen authorities and ask if honourable members had read them. I believe that the Speaker acted properly. He had the power to do what he did. The main point is that at no time did he act outside his powers. He acted correctly once he became aware of the facts. I make the point that Mr Speaker has to make on-the-spot decisions. An Honourable Member: It is at his discretion. Mr BOOTH: It is at his discretion. If he were to allow lengthy discussion on a matter that was under judicial inquiry and then mle whether or not it was correct to do so, the very circumstance that the Leader of the Opposition said he was trying to avoid would come about—the wells of justice would be poisoned. Many people wUl be harmed if members of Parliament are allowed to discuss matters that are under judicial inquiry. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr BOOTH: If Mr Speaker or the Chairman of Committees errs, surely he should err on the side of justice. He should protect people and give them the opportunity to get justice. If a relative or a friend of mine who lived in New South Wales got into trouble, I would expect him to get justice under the British system that we have been proud of for years. People who were not proud of certain happenings in the early days tried to alter the clock to get away from the past. Most people who live under the British system of justice are proud of it. If we are to remain as proud of it as we have been in the past, we must always err on the side of justice. We cannot afford to look at decisions with hindsight and say, "That did not do any harm did it?" In my time in the House, it could have been said, "The jury did not ask questions about it and the judge did not comment on it. In the circumstances, we could have discussed it." However, if members' comments had appeared in the media, jurymen or others taking part in a case could have been influenced. Mr Speaker acted correctly in making his ruling. He had to act quickly, on the spot. He had the power to make the decision that he did. I hope that the House will endorse his ruling. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (12.39 p.m.): The members of the Liberal Party support the ruling given by Mr Speaker. Probably no question is more hotly debated in the various Parliaments that operate under the Westminster system than the sub judice rule. In this Assembly, we are very fortunate that the Privileges CommUtee made a decision in 1976—U has been alluded to already in the debate—setting an excellent guide-line. It was needed, and it has been relied on. Inevitably in this debate, reference is made to "Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice" The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech, seemed to suggest that even the hearing of the matter in the courts was sub judice. That is how far he would go with the application of the sub judice rule. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to make some great moment of Mr Speaker's ruling, because there could not be a more precise and apposite ruling than the one given by Mr Speaker. The matter has been listed as a civil case. In fact, it has been going on for some time in the courts in New South Wales. The matter also is the subject of criminal proceedings in Queensland. It is not something that has suddenly blown up; it has been round for quite a long time. The court records are available. Mr Speaker's Rulmg 6 March 1984 1799

The member for Wolston read a quotation from "Erskine May" In it, there was a very clear reference to the discretion of the Chair. Although members might have some fixed or pre-ordained ideas about sub judice, the Chair must have some discretion in these matters. It is tme that the decision of the Chair may be chaUenged, and that is what is being done at the moment. Unless the Chair exercises some discretion, Rafferty's rules wiU apply. Many decisions have been given in regard to this matter. Perhaps the best catalogue of them is to be found in the publication by Odgers entitled "Australian Senate Practice" It refers to the decisions in this matter that have been given in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Attorneys-General and Presidents of the Senate have made many statements on the sub judice rule, and they are set out in the publication by Odgers. At page 251, it states— "President Sir Magnus Cormack, in his rulings, recognised the sub judice doctrine but he considered that some claims that a matter was sub judice might be too restrictive of debate. He ruled: The prime question I must ask myself is, I think: Is parliamentary debate likely to give rise to any real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before the court? If so, then Parliament must not pursue that path," Of course, that is how Mr Speaker ruled on this occasion. The matters that are involved in this case have been proceeding for some time, and they are stiU proceeding. No doubt they will be aired in the courts for some time to come. It would be highly prejudicial for anything on the subject to be mentioned in debate in this Chamber, Mr Mackenroth: Do you know what the charges are? Have you read the charges? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I do not have to read the charges. This Chamber does not have to know what the charges are. The question to be considered is the rights of the Parliament and of the individuals involved. At no time do members have to be concerned about the charges, Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I suggest that the honourable member wait to make his comments in due course. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The matter that the honourable member has raised is irrelevant to this debate and to the application of the sub judice rule. In making a ruling on sub judice, the Chair has a resportsibility to consider the rights of the citizens involved and whether those citizens might be presumed to be guUty or innocent, and whether their reputa­ tions might be put at risk. The Chair does not simply decide on the rights and privileges of members of Parliament, When Mr Speaker rules that a matter is sub judice, he does so on behalf of the citizens of Queensland; the charges and circumstances now or in the future are of no consequence. That is another privUege that the citizen has through Parlia­ ment; because Mr Speaker is there to protect them, a citizen's rights cannot be abused or taken away from him, Mr Davis interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: No, that is exactly what this is aU about. Mr Hinze interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: If they had the chance. Opposition members would abolish Parliament and take the rights of the cUizen away. The sub judice mle imposes a very broad and onerous obligation on the Chair. I suggest to the Leader, of the Opposition that, in this instance, the Chair has exercised its discretion wisely and correctly. Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (12,46 p.m.): Honourable members have just listened to another attempt tp justify what the Government is trying to do. Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. The matter under discussion is not what the Government is doing but what the Speaker is doing. 1800 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! To preserve relevancy in the debate, and because the point of order taken by the member for Cooroora has substance, I ask the honourable member for Wynnum to refer his comments to the subject under discussion, which is Mr Speaker's ruling, Mr SHAW: I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Speaker has been influenced to a large degree by the action of Ministers and Government members and I am sure that he has taken advice. I see nothing wrong with that and I do not intend to argue against it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member that, under Standing Order 120, any imputation of improper conduct by any member of the Government is disorderly. The honourable member should not impute improper motives. Mr SHAW: I do not think that anything I have to say is objectionable. The sub judice rule is one of the very few restrictions that can be placed on parliamentary debate. Those restrictions are few because the Mother of Parliaments has traditionally supported the view that, if the democratic process is to continue, it is essential that the widest possible debate be allowed in the legislature. I am concerned, as several other members have been, that it appears that the ruling made bV Mr Speaker has been more strictly applied to questions asked by Opposition members than it has been to comments by Government members. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly questioned why that has happened. The Opposition and members of the public who are interested in the continuation of democracy are entitled to know on what basis the statements by Opposition members were ruled sUb judice, and why the same ruling was not made concerning statements by other members. Members who have already spoken have referred to the fact that many experts, including this Parliament's own Select Committee of PrivUeges, hold the view that the aim of an application of the sub judice rule should be to ensure that the person concerned receives a fair trial and that nothing said prejudices that right. I refer again to what was said by the Select Committee of Privileges, which on the occasion in question was chaired by Mr Ahern, who is now the Minister for Industry, Small Businesss and Technology. That committee said— "We consider the Chair's discretion should recognise the paramount right of the House to consider, legislate and act on any matter, being mindful only of the necessity for avoidance of any substantial prejudice to pending Court proceedings." The committee did not say "any prejudice at all"; it said "any substantial prejudice to pending Court proceedings." It went on to say— "The only restriction the House should place upon itself is to ensure that it does not so act as to become an alternative forum to the Court, or to permit its proceedings to interfere with the course of justice." No substantial argument has been advanced to show that anything that the Leader of the Opposition attempted to raise by way of his question would have interfered with the course of justice. The Select Committee of Privileges' went on to say— "We do not believe that the commencement of either criminal or civil proceedings should by itself thereupon prohibit consideration by the House of anv matter." I want to stress the phrase "civil proceedings" because I shall refer to that aspect later. The select committee believed that the practice concerning the application of the sub judice rule should be described as follows— "Whilst debate may not be allowed on a specific matter clearly involving a matter before the Court, debate should be allowed in a general way and on broad aspects up to the point when it becomes clear to the Chair that a member is seeking to discuss the specific matter before the Court (or an aspect of it) which the Court itself must necessarily examine in coming to a decision on the issue before it," Mr speaker's Ruling 6 March 1984 1801

'^ I refer again to the statement made repeatedly by the Leader of the Opposition that the question that he attempted to ask bore no relationship to the matter that was before the court. What the House is debating is a much broader issue than the right of a member to ask a particular question. As the leader of the Liberal Party said, the House is discussing the operation of democracy and the operations of the House. I might add that my impression is that in the past the National Party has been quite loath to guard democracy and that it appears from the speech today by the leader of the Liberal Party that the Liberal Party, too, does not have a tremendous commitment to democratic procedures. The ruling by Mr Speaker is an attack on the principles of the Westminster system. The sub judice ruling is being used as a ploy to avoid accountability to the ParUamertt and. through the Parliament, to the people by the Government of the day. It can be used as a veil of secrecy. Mr INNES: I rise to a point of order. The last statement by the honourable member for Wynnum, that it is a deliberate ploy, is a direct reflection on the Chair. Mr Warburton: Are you protecting the Government again? Mr INNES: I am protecting justice in the House, which is what the sub judice rule is all about. As I was saying, the honourable member's last statement should not be allowed. Mr DEPUTX SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Any imputation of improper motives is considered to be out of order. There could be an imputation of improper motives in a sweeping statement such as that made by the honourable member for Wynnum. I take the point of order of the honourable member for Sherwood. The honourable member for Wynnum should realise that by making his comments he runs the risk of offending against Standing Order 120. Mr SHAW: I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I think that the honourable member for Sherwood is only trying to take up some of my time, and I do not want to assist him to do that. I was certainly not imputing improper motives to Mr Speaker. I want to refer briefly to the way in which an issue of this type can be broadened. Recently I asked questions of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts about a film called "Goodbye Joey" As a result of the questions that I asked, which dealt with the application of political censorship in this House, a letter was sent to the Minister asking him to clarify his statement in the House and to allow the people who were mentioned in his answer to state their position. The Minister was asked how he could claim that the persons who appeared in that film were not professional kangaroo-shooters. The Minister was reminded that the two men had pleaded guilty in a court and that they were professionals. In his answer, the Minister stated— "I refer to your letter of 15th February regarding 'Goodbye Joey'. I would point out that, following the issuing of a writ on my predecessor, this matter is now sub-judice." It has been pointed out that I should not infer that he had any motives in mind when he said that. If the sub judice rule is not applied with tremendous care, it may become a restriction on what can and cannot be raised in this Parliament. It should be borne in mind that this morning the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General said that in 1982-83 201 writs were issued out of the Supreme Court in Brisbane. So there are 201 matters that cannot be raised in this House. (Time expired.) Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (12.57 p.m.): In his speech, the member for Nundah claimed that in ruling on sub judice one did not need to know what the charges were or whether in fact charges had been laid. I should like to know how Mr Speaker could make a ruling that a matter was sub judice without knowing that the matter was before a court. That is what the member for Nundah impUed, 1802 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

The member for Sherwood rose to a point of order during the speech of the honourable member for Wynnum. He suggested that members of this Assembly could use the application of the sub judice rule to have reference to certain matters ruled out of order. That is what can happen in the situation that presents itself. If I rose to a point of order and said that a matter was sub judice, the person in the chair would have to take note of that. He would have to rule then that the matter was sub judice. The responsibility would rest with Mr Speaker to check that the matter was sub judice and to determine whether his mling on a point of order taken by any other member of this Assembly was correct. That is the crux of the motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's ruling that is being debated today. We are debating whether the Chair should have ruled out of order the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members need to look at the definition of "sub judice". The definitiort of "sub judice" in the Macquarie Dictionary is, "Before a judge or court of law; under judicial consideration." The definition of "sub judice" in ColUns Dictionary is, "Before a court of law or a judge; under judicial consideration," The definitions of "sub judice" are the same. We need to look further at what the Select Committee of Privileges said in 1976 when it examined the question of sub judice. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wolston referred in part to the recommendations of that committee. I shall refer to one of its recommendations, [Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Mr MACKENROTH: As I said before the luncheon recess, I wish tp read from the sub judice convention that was presented to this House in 1976, and in particular to part E, which reads— "Whilst debate may not be allowed on a specific matter clearly involving a matter before the Court, debate should be allowed in a general way and on broad aspects up to the point when it becomes clear to the Chair that a member is seeking to discuss the specific matter before the Court (or an aspect of it) which the Court itself must necessarily examine in coming to a decision on the issue before it," I began my speech by saying that before anybody can make a clear ruling on whether a matter is sub judice, he must be aware of the charges and what they relate to. I have a copy of the charges against the person to whom reference was made. The charges laid against him by the Queensland Police Force in no way relate to the subject matter of the question that the Leader of the Opposition attempted to give notice of on 28 February, read as follows— "(1) Has Watts Construction Division Pty Ltd, which is part of the Fletcher Watts Group, made a claim for monetary loss and expenses associated with the Redcliffe Hospital buUding project? (2) If so, what was the amount of the claim? (3) Was the claim accompanied by a bill of quantities? (4) When was the claim submitted, has the claim been resubmitted and, if so, what is the amount of the amended claim?" An examination of that question reveals that the Opposition wanted to know whether a company submitted a claim for monetary loss to the Redcliffe HospUals Board. The charges that have led to this matter being ruled sub judice have nothing whatever to do with whether that company made a claim against the Redcliffe HospUals Board. When Mr Speaker ruled that he would not allow any more questions in relation to the matter, I wondered what particular matter he was referring to. Did his ruling mean that untU such time as the matter had been dealt with by the court, members of ParUament were not aUowed to ask the Minister for Health questions relating to the Redcliffe Hospital? Does Mr Speaker's ruling mean that if the Opposition thinks that the services provided by the casualty section of the hospUal are inadequate, it cannot ask questions about that? That is the logical extension of the argument put to the Opposition. The mling means that, simply because a case is before a Queensland court, the Opposition cannot ask questions about the Redcliffe Hospital or the Redcliffe Hospital project. As I stated, those charges relate to a fraud by a person on two companies. A number of companies are mentioned in those charges, but at no stage is the RedcUffe Hospital mentioned in them. Mr Speaker's RuUng 6 March 1984 1803

What has happerted is that Mr Speaker has stated that his mUng is based on information supplied to him by the Attorney-General. The Opposition has tried to find out what that information is. The Opposition has asked the Attorney-General to table the documents on which he gave his advice, but he has failed to do that. For the proper operations of this Parliament, it is very important that all honourable members know on what basis Mr Speaker has ruled that the matter is sub judice and what will happen in future to any questions that the Opposition wishes to ask in relation to any matter pertaining to the Redcliffe Hospital, The Attorney-General should table the documents and tell the House on exactly what basis he gave his advice to Mr Speaker, The question is whether Mr Speaker received the wrong information, because from my information and from what I have read, that question should not have been ruled out of order. It should not be ruled out of order simply because it relates to a particular company, the Fletcher Watts Group, and because the company is conducting a case against an individual in the courts. Does that mean the Opposition cannot ask questions in relation to the Fletcher Watts Group if it is carrying out a job for the Works Department in North Queensland? Does it mean that members cannot ask any questions about the Redcliffe Hospital? One must look at how far the sub judice rule is to be extended. In this instance, the rule has been extended much farther than any Parliament has tried to extend it in the past. The Government is really trying to prevent the Opposition questioning Ministers on this subject. Of course, we are not going to go away. The matter will go before the courts. When it does and is dealt with the questions will still be there and will stUl have to be answered. The Ministers of this Government who have tried to hide behind the sub judice rule wiU then have to answer the questions we have raised and also give the reasons why they have tried to duck the issue. It comes back to one point: where do we draw the line on sub judice? I cannot see any reason why this particular question should have been ruled sub judice, because in no way does it relate to charges before any court in Queensland, New South Wales or anywhere else. Mr Wright: Why has the Government stopped debate? Mr MACKENROTH: The Government has tried to stop debate because it does not want the matter raised in the media. It is trying to prevent the people of Queensland finding out the truth.

Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (2.22 p.m.): No-one would dispute that ParUament has a paramount right to consider and debate any matter of public interest. The freedom of speech that Parliament has is essential so that it may carry out its functions properly. However, in exercising this right, it is necessary for the House to keep firmly in mind that, if it debates matters pending in the courts, particularly those in the criminal courts—and we are talking about criminal actions—it runs the risk of causing substantial prejudice to parties to those proceedings. The risk is especially great in the case in which criminal proceedings have been brought and where ultimately those proceedings wUl be tried by a jury. For those who are interested, I point out that the House of Commons rule, which is followed by Australian Parliaments, provides for greater caution when criminal matters are involved. The wide scope that members are allowed in the course of parliamentary debate can all too easily result in matters being canvassed, at length and in an atmospbere of great publicity—^we know that the Opposition loves publicity—that would not be admissible in evidence in a court of law. They may or may not be matters that have an obvious connection with the issues to be tried in cOUrt but, under the rules of evidence, would not be put before a jury. If Parliament debates these issues, it then becomes, in effect, an alternative forum to the courts. It would, in effect, be usurping the role of the courts. Parliament, as I have said, is rightly not subject to the same restrictions as the courts. It is a forum in which the rules that have developed down the centuries to ensure that parties to a law suit in the courts receive a fair trial do not apply. Those rules do not apply in this House. I doubt that any honourable member would dispute that if Parliament is to perform its functions properly it must have complete freedom of speech. 1804 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Perhaps it would have been poUtically advantageous last year—and certairtly it would be politically advantageous today—for my Government to make pubUc all the information that has come to its attention in regard of what might be termed the PenkUs affair. But I can assure the member for Wynnum that there has certainly been no ploy on the part of the Government to avpid accountability to this Parliament, or to the people of Queensland, in the Penklis affair. Despite the claims of the honourable member for Chatsworth, the subject of the Opposition's questions is clearly a matter before the courts of both New South Wales and Queensland. Contrary to what was suggested by the Opposition this morning, no public discussion has taken place on this matter apart from that initiated by the Opposition through moves it has attempted to make in this House. That, in itself, is' significant. Today, the honourable member for Wolston congratulated some sections of the media for taking it upon themselves to commit contempt of the courts. That, again, is a most significant point. My own inquiries into the matter, which have included discussions with the Auditor- General and the Fraud Squad detective responsible for painstaking and very. diUgent investigations, lead me to the conclusion that no member of the present Government has any involvement in the Penklis affair. This Government has absolutely nothing to hide. Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. May I take it that the Minister is commenting on the allegations made by Mr Penklis, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, said we could not do? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I did not detect any major digression by the Minister. I cannot take the honourable member's point of order at this stage. Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a further point of order. The Minister said that nP member of the Govemment has any involvement in the Penklis affair. That is a matter for the courts to decide, not for the Minister to comment on. Surely that must be sub judice, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the basis of the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the matter is verging on matters declared sub judice, the Minister should moderate his remarks, Mr HARPER: Thank you, Mr 'Deputy Speaker. The people of Queensland will see that once again the Opposition is trying to inhibit the Government from putting its point of view. The Opposition is playing for time as it sees the clock run out. It does not want the Government to be able to answer the accusations and innuendoes put before the House. I repeat that the Government has absolutely nothing to hide. On the contrary, the innuendo or smear of the Opposition will be shown to be the brainchild of the murky depths of despair and desperation. Some claims being made in the matter appear to be substantiated, but many appear to be speculative in nature. Remember—and I remind members of the Opposition of this— we are discussing criminal charges in Queensland courts quite apart from civil charges or civil action in the courts of New South Wales. Be that as it may, there seems to be no doubt that there are those who are, or have been, members of the parliamentary or organisational Liberal Party—quite senior members—^who will be named in court proceedings involving Penklis; but this Parliament has no right— Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are still members of the Liberal Party in the House. That statement would have to be taken as a reflection upon any member of the Liberal Party. If any member of the Liberal Party is in the House, I suggest that, under Standing Order 120, that statement is a personal reflection and I cannot allow it. Mr HARPER: I had no intention to cast a reflection. If Opposition members will permit, I will point out that this Parliament has no right to lend weight to accusations that may be made in the courts, nor has it a right to prejudge any matter presently before the courts. Certainly that right should not be denigrated as it was in New South Wales. It is also proper for this Parliament to ensure that nothing it does causes a person to be deprived of his or her right to a fair trial. Those before our courts of law are entitled to have their matters dealt with free from the influence of comments that may be made in Parliament or elsewhere. It is weU known that the rules relating to contempt of court Mr Speaker's Ruling 6 March 1984 1805 can be used to control comment made outside ParUament. The parliamentary principle is based on the same considerations, even though the Parliament is not bound to apply the rules of contempt of court, or even the laws of defamation. The right to a fair trial free from the influence of prejudicial comments made outside the court is fundamental in a democratic society. Opposition members may find difficulty in understanding that. It is a right that should be jealously guarded by all political parties. Certainly it is one that should not be denigrated in the manner in which it has been denigrated in New South Wales by the Opposition's coUeagues—or perhaps I should say comrades—in that State. Obviously, the Wright-led, or is it the Beattie-led, or perhaps the Warburton-led, or even the Gibbs-led, Labor Party has a somewhat similar disrespect for the right of the individual to a fair trial. Nothing that is said in debate in this House should be allowed to cause any substantial prejudice to that right. This is why Parliament should be vigilant to ensure that matters that are sub judice are not discussed. As I said before, when the sub judice rule was examined by a select committee of the Queensland ParUament in 1976, the first rule of practice that was laid down was put in these terms— "Matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction should not be referred to (in motions, debates or questions) from the moment a charge is made." It is simply impossible to say that the kind of questions that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to ask can be separated from the issues in the pending criminal proceedings. The general thrust of the aUegations that are likely to be made can be guessed at by looking at the pleadings in the civil case that is pending in New South Wales, However, no-one is in a position to know exactly what will be raised in the criminal proceedings in Queensland. No-one can know at this time what will prove to be relevant in those proceedings. (Time expired.) Mr HARPER: I move— "That the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General be granted an extension of time to enable him to complete his speech." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I am advised by the Clerk that such a motion can only be moved by another member. (Time, on motion of Mr Henderson, extended.) Mr HARPER: I repeat: It is simply impossible to say that the kind of questions that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask can be separated from the issues in the pending criminal proceedings. The general thrust of the allegations that are likely to be made can be guessed at by looking at the pleadings in the civil case that is pending in New South Wales. No-one is in a position to know exactly what will be raised in the criminal proceedings in Queensland. No-one can know at this time what will prove to be relevartt irt those proceedings. The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that I merely stated that this matter may be sub judice. I would not presume to make Mr Speaker's ruling for him. I do have an obligation to suggest to Mr Speaker that a matter could be sub judice, and that is exactly what I have done in this matter; and Mr Speaker then made his mUng, It has also been suggested that I pre-empted Mr Speaker's ruling. What hopeless nonsense! It is just clutching at straws. Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. I ask for silence while this matter is being debated. Mr HARPER: I attempted to obtain copies of the questions that were distributed by the Opposition to the media gallery. When I asked Mr Speaker to make copies of those questions aVaUable to me, I was advised that he had ruled that they were sub judice and not available. Where is the substance for the-claim that I pre-empted Mr Speaker's ruling? 1806 6 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

I agree with his decision in refusing to make those questions available to me, because he had ruled that they were sub judice. That happened the day before I made the statement in the Chamber in which I am now being accused of pre-empting his ruUng. The only wise and safe course was that adopted by Mr Speaker in his mling, and that has now been attacked. The interests of the accused persons in the pending criminal proceedings are least likely to be prejudiced by the mling Mr Speaker made. Those proceedings are set down for 30 April next, Mr Speaker's ruling complies with the principle set down in the report of the Select Committee of Privileges on the sub judice convention. That report says that the House should— " not so act as to become an alternative forum to the Court, or to permit its proceedings to interfere with the course of justice." It should not usurp the role of the courts. Mr Speaker's ruling is consistent with the convention that the sub judice rule should be applied as soon as it becomes clear • Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. The Minister for Justice and Attorney General has just told the Assembly that in no way did he try to pre-empt the decision by Mr Speaker. I refer him to turn 4 Alpha 1, dated 8 February 1984, where it clearly Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I will deal with only one point of order at a time. Mr WRIGHT: The Minister is quoted as saying— "Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that I believe that the matters that are the subject of the notices of questions given earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and presently being given by the member for Wolston are sub judice. I believe that earlier I drew your attention to that fact." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not think there is a point of order merely because it is complementary— Mr WRIGHT: He has lied to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no pomt of order, Mr HARPER: I have no objection to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I bring to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he was reading from a galley proof, and my understanding is that it is not permissible, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Standing Orders provide that "Hansard" from the same session cannot be quoted in the House. Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Does the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General deny that he said those things? They are on the tape as weU. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr HARPER: I have no hesitation in confirming that I used the words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition; I do not run away from that fact. I said what I meant and I meant what I said, and it was the tmth. Mr Speaker's mling, from which the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of dissent, complies with the principle, also referred to in the report of the Select Committee of Privileges, that the House should not so act as to become an alternative forum to the court or to permit its proceedings to interfere with the course of justice by usurping the role of the courts. Mr Speaker's ruling is consistent with the view that the sub judice rule should be applied as soon as it becomes clear to the Chair that a member is seeking to discuss the specific matter before the court or an aspect of it which the court must examine in coming to a decision on the issue before it. Food Act and Health Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1807

It has been said by the Speaker of another Parliament that— "If the proposed subject of discussion is substantially associated with the proceedings before the court, it would not be for the Speaker to microscopically sift the relevant from the irrelevant evidence but to liberally apply the sub judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate." I repeat—and let Opposition members take note: 'to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate" There can be no doubt that the ruling that has been given by Mr Speaker in this instance is correct and in accordance with long-standing practices. In the circumstances, the Govem­ ment strongly supports his ruling. Question—^That the motion (Mr Wright) be agreed to—put; and the House divided— Ayes, 30 Casey Mackenroth Veivers Comben McElligott Warburton D'Arcy McLean Warner, A. M. Davis Milliner Wilson Eaton Prest Wright Fouras Price Yewdale Gibbs, R. J. Scott Goss Shaw Tellers: Hamill Smith Hooper Underwood Burns Kruger Vaughan Campbell

Noes, 45 Ahern Harvey Muntz Alison Henderson Newton Austin Hinze Powell Bailey Innes Randell Bjelke-Petersen Jennings Simpson Booth Katter Stephan Borbidge Knox Stoneman Chapman Lee Tenni Cooper Lester Turner Elliott Lickiss Wharton FitzGerald Lingard White Gibbs, L J. Littleproud Glasson McKechnie Tellers: Goleby McPhie Gunn Menzel Cahill Harper Miller Neal Resolved in the negative.

FOOD ACT AND HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 February (see p. 1365) on Mr Austin's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time."

Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (2.50 p.m.): I wish to speak on a number of points in relation to the Bill as well as some other related matters. The Opposition's investigations reveal that health inspectors have welcomed the amendments that relate to local authorities. Therefore, the Opposition supports the Bill. The Bill contains a number of minor amendments of a technical nature that clarify the intent of the Act, which was passed with the support of the Opposition in this House in the previous Parliament. 1808 6 March 1984 Food Act and Health Act Amendment BiU

When the Minister was a member of the Liberal Party, he gave an assurance in relation to a matter I am about to raise. Now that he is a member of the National Party, I hope that he can still give that assurance. The Dalby Shire Council used its association with the National Party to move, through the Local Government Association of Queensland, to have the right of dismissal of health inspectors taken out of the hands of the Director-General of Health and placed in the hands of the respective local authorities. Fortunately, the Minister has taken the view that the Act should not be amended. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the debacle of victimisation and vested interests that occurred in the Dalby Shire Council will not be repeated. In that case more than one of the aldermen were obviously involved in a row with a health inspector because their businesses were suffering through his trying to enforce the law. I will not go into the details of the incident, but it was known that the president of the National Party (Sir Robert Sparkes) took up the cudgels on behalf of that local authority and took the matter through the system of the National Party to the Local Government Association. As all honourable members know. Sir Albert Abbott is now its president. His election at the last annual meeting of that association caused quite a deal of consternation because, quite obviously, the National Party used its numbers, power and back-room deals to have him elected as president of that body, which swings a great deal of weight. Now that the Minister for Health is a member of the National Party, I trust that he will stand by his decision when he was a member of the Liberal Party, and have the right of dismissal retained where it now lies. I ask the Minister for some clarification of the third-last paragraph of his second-reading speech in which he stated that certain recognised publications would be permitted to be adopted in regulations without the need to reproduce the whole of the text. I am unclear of the Government's intention to allow for the shortening of matters contained in regulations. The Bill clarifies the right of authorised officers to call a police officer to assist when they believe that they are being obstructed in carryirtg out their duty, whether that be inspections, seizures or other matters. That is a reasonable provision because health officers have a very onerous task and from time to time are presented with very difficult and dangerous Circum­ stances when trying to enforce the law. So, when officers are obstructed in carrying out their duties, they must have the support of legislation behind them. The BUl recognises the role of local authorities in the seizure of articles and provides that such articles remain the property of the local authority, which can dispose of them or otherwise carry out its responsibilities subject to the Director-General of Health. The Opposition agrees with the proposition that the local authority can recover costs and expenses through the appropriate court system and that the moneys recovered can be paid into the local authority's general fund. Inspections carried out by the health authorities in general are, however, a matter of contention. I refer particularly to the number and quality of the inspections. From, time to time, one hears about problems associated with meat inspection. I have information that when big operators such as Coles or Woolworths are rearranging their warehouses and other properties, the regulations relating to the handling of food are allowed to be bent. Yet the small suburban operator—for example, a butcher—is hit hard by an inspector for not complying with even the smallest letter of the law. The department does seem to be inconsistent in its approach. The bigger operators, obviously with much more political muscle, are allowed to bend the rules a little when carrying out changes to their facilities, perhaps in an effort to upgrade their businesses; whereas the smaller operator, simply because he is smaller, is not allowed to bend the rules and must stick strictly to the regulations. Although this might be crossing the boundary into the area pf responsibility of the Department of Primary Industries, the case of the knackery at Albany Creek was recently drawn to my attention. It is one of only two knackeries in Queensland, the other being located at Laidley. Before Christmas, departmental inspectprs. found on the premises meat labelled "For human consumption", but industry sources informed me that no action was taken against that knackery. One wonders why, particularly when pet-shop operators have to abide strictly by the regulations, as they should do. Mr Davis: Where is Albany Creek? Mr UNDERWOOD: I am not sure exactly where Albany Creek is, but I think it is in a National Party electorate. Food Act and HeaUh Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1809

Mr Davis: Where is the other knackery? Mr UNDERWOOD: The other is at Laidley, in the electorate of the Deputy Premier. That is an example of how the bigger operators are treated. Because there are not enough departmental inspectors they are overworked. The same criticism can be made of other departmental inspectors such as industrial inspectors. The inspectors have insufficient resources with which to work, and I suspect that the Government is more interested in other things. The Minister for Health takes a great deal of pride and pleasure in parading himself before the television cameras to talk about unsafe toys. I believe that 99.9 per cent of the toys he mentions are unsafe and should be withdrawn from sale. I point out to him that some years ago one of my children was given a so-called unsafe toy. Recently I noticed that it was still in his toy box and in almost 100 per cent condition; only a little paint had been knocked off it. But that was one toy which the Minister said was unsafe and should be withdrawn from sale. Two years ago, I noticed some head-gear that incorporated two wobbly spring mechanisms being sold at the Brisbane Exhibition. The Minister appeared on television and warned people that it was urtsafe; yet I noticed that similar head-gear was still on sale at the last Exhibition. That is one case in which a toy has not proved to be dangerous—perhaps it was an exception to the rule—and in another case the toys were stiU on sale a year later. That brings into question the effort that the Government is putting into public safety, and I refer not only to health but also to all other aspects of public safety. This morning, during question-time, the Minister told the House what a wonderful job the Government is doing. The Government's credibility in regard to the protection of public health is seriously at risk. Hot sand is another example of the Government's lack of concern for public health. Because it has nothing to do wUh the Act, I do not intend to canvass that issue in this debate; but I noticed that the New South Wales Government went to a lot of trouble and expense to make sure that people did not have hot sand on their properties or, if they did, that it was properly removed. It conducted a door-to-door campaign over an entire city. On the other hand, the Government of Queensland was prepared only to enter into some financial arrangement if people accidentally found that they had hot sand on their properties. Queensland has a continuing stream of problems related to public safety and lack of supervision of public safety. The Government's policy in the food area leaves much to be desired. Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (3.1 p.m.): I enter the debate not to query the specific amendments proposed in the Bill. Honourable members will recall that this was pioneering legislation. As the Minister rightly pointed out, Queensland is still the only State with legislation based on the model Food Act. I recall the point being made by both Opposition and Government members, when the legislation was introduced in 1982, that some time would be needed to determine how it operated. When dealing with new legislation or legislation untried in other Assemblies, amendments must be expected at some time in the future. I have no argument against the amendments proposed, but I question the enforcement of the law. It is all very well to have the law stated specifically in the statute-book in black and white; but without ongoing enforcement, the law really means nothing; it carries no weighti Recently, through my own office and the Queensland Consumers Association, I became aware of a rash of complaints, one of which concerned a person in a fast-food store buttering hamburger buns with a paint brush. I said that I could see nothing against that in law, although I did not think it was the proper thing to do. There seems to be little difference between spreading butter with a knife and with some other implement. However, I wondered whether brushes contain a chemical compound. Mr Burns: Pigs' hair. Mr WRIGHT: That is the point. The complaint made to me was not so much about the brush not being clean as about a paint brush being used. The woman who complained told me that the butter 1810 6 March 1984 Food Act and HeaUh Act Amendment BiU was heated untU its consistency became oily; the paint brush was then dipped into it and the butter was splattered on. Obviously, refrigerated butter would not go as far as butter of an oily consistency. Complaints such as that should be considered carefully. Over a period the make-up of the bristles in the paint brush could deteriorate, but the brush would continue to be used to dispense a product consumed by ordinary people. It may well be that I wUl have to ask the woman to lodge an official complaint. Ten days ago, when she contacted me, she said she would not do that because she did not want to become involved. She said that she wanted to bring it to my attention. Mr Davis interjected. Mr WRIGHT: The member for Brisbane Central mentioned the use of a roller. I have not seen that used. Another matter of concern that has arisen on a number of occasions is the reheating of food. Because of the use of microwave ovens, it appears that many fast-food stores reheat food. I have called in at service stations only to find that pies and other food are left in the kitchen, without temperature control. When the customer asks for something, it is simply placed in a microwave oven for a few seconds and then served. How much deterioration has taken place in food that is finally served to the customer if it has been left outside, heated and, if unsold, left to cool, and reheated once more? I see nothing Ulegal about the use of microwave ovens. They are very helpful in fast-food stores. However, some control must be exercised. I ask the Minister to use the expertise of his officers to see whether deterioration takes place in food, and to determine whether it is wise for firms to be heating, cooling and reheating food. When food is not refrigerated, it deteriorates, be it fruit juice or food of other types. Control must be exercised. The model Food Act, which was supported by this Assembly, has the controls; but it appears to me that it is not in force. Could that be because the department has not the officers to carry out the job? It cannot have someone walking round to every fast-food store or pie shop every two minutes of the day making a raid. No doubt nine out of 10 of those shops are doing the correct thing and are very conscious of their responsibiUty when it comes to community health; but there are also those who, if they have to throw out a product, see it as a cost to them. Some people have said to me, "If we throw out a pie we lose something like 60c." Recently, I spojce to members of a Lions Club who went to an Australia Day function. They were left with dozens upon dozens of pies. They realised that they could not keep the pies for any length of time, so their intention was to give them to a local foster home. Some people are being responsible but, in a commercial enterprise, that responsibility is not carried through when dollars and cents are involved. My final point relates to what I call the ice rip-off. The Bill deals with the preparation and sale of food. The definition of "preparation" may not cover the pouring of an orange juice into a glass in a hotel or disco, and it should. One of the greatest rip-offs in this State is that a consumer is charged $1 to $1.50 for a small glass of orange juice, but in most instances two-thirds of it is ice. It appears that the people serving in most fast-food stores, cafes and restaurauts, are bound to put that amount of ice into a glass. I do rtot want to pick on one type of business, but recently I went to a Pizza Hut. When I was served a glass of orange juice, I said, "I won't have that. I want a glass of orange juice." The girl said, "What's wrong?" I said, "There is too much ice in it." She said, "That is what we are told to do." I had some witnesses, so I said, "Please explain the situation?" She said, "We are told to fill the glass with ice." That is one of the management's techniques. It is my belief that, because of the way in which the juice is served, the customer gets only about a third of a glass of orange juice. I do not know what legal constraints can be placed on busirtesses that indulge in that practice. They are ripping the consumer off. Recently, a test was conducted to find out how much orange juice was in a glass. Based on the amount of orange juice in the glass, the retailer was getting between $6 and $7 a litre for the orange juice, which can be purchased in most stores for about $2. So there is 300 per cent profit on a glass of orange juice. Food Act and Health Act Amendment BiU 6 March 1984 1811

The authorities are saying to young people and others that they should cut down on the alcoholic content of their drinks. They are told, "You do not want to get caught by the police because you have been drinking more than you should." Yet people are being deterred from drinking fruit juice because of the price and because of the small amount of juice that they get in a glass. I ask the Minister to have a hard look at this matter. He could go into the parliamentary dining-room and carry out an ice test. He would find that people are getting one-third of what they pay for. The preparation and sale of food—and fluids are food—^should be covered by this Act. I hope that the Minister will do whatever he can to stamp out what I believe is blatant profiteering. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (3.8 p.m.): The Leader of the Opposition spoke about putting ice in drinks. I want to talk about beer, which is a type of drink that ice should not be put into, and about the need for the labelling of beer. I have had some experience of families whose children have, as a result of eating certain fast foods and other foods, become hyperactive or over-active and had major developmental problems. I know of a young man whose mother fed him a lot of sausages. He liked them and they did not seem to do him any harm. He was always a fairly difficult lad to control. When he was taken off that diet he changed completely. It has now been proved that the additives in many foods are causing major problems for some people. We talk about hyperactive kids, but have honourable members ever noticed the blokes in the bar? As a result of drinking beer, some become hyperactive or inactive. Some become comotose. Others become amorous or vigorous. Some think they are the best orators in the world and others think that they are the best arbiters in the world. Some think that they are the best fighters. I have a mate who drinks rum. He says that every time he drinks rum his nose bleeds, because someone punches it. I do not know what is in the beer that I drink. I Uke beer and I have never found a beer that I do not Uke or that I thought was a really bad beer, but I would like to know what is in it. An Opposition Member: What effect does it have on you? Mr BURNS: GeneraUy these days it makes me sleepy, but in days past it affected me in other ways. I am not going to talk about those days. The point is that people should know what is in the product that they are drinking. I have knocked round this country all my life. Most blokes in any State or country will tell you that their beer is the best in the world. In Rockhampton some people said that Mac's Beer was the worst beer and other blokes said to me, "Mac's is the best beer. You know why. mate? It's the water." The people in Caims say that Cairns beer is the best beer in AustraUa. They say that it will not travel, but in Cairns it is the best, because of the water. In Western Australia, people say that Swan or Emu is the best beer. In Kalgoorlie, it is Hannan's. In South Australia the best beer is Cooper's or West End. Victoria has Ballarat Bertie, Melbourne Bitter, Courage, Carlton and Victoria Bitter, In New South Wales the best beers are Resch's, Miller's, Toohey's Old or Toohey's New and Tooth's. Mr Austin: You sound Uke Lucky Starr. Mr BURNS: All round the country, people say that their beer is the best beer because of the water. But, by adding chemicals, all waters can be made similar. I am concerned about what goes in to these waters and beers and how it affects people over the years. Eventually what has happened in America will happen in this country. The ingredients are not shown on the bottle of beer. In America a great campaign was run by a number of senators and politicians to ensure that what was in wine was not detailed on the wine bottle and what was in beer was not shown on the beer bottle. While he has been president, Mr Reagan has backed down on this issue because of the power of the American breweries and wine lobbies. I visited the wineries in South Australia. I used to like a particular old sherry until I got to the bottom of the hill at Seppelts and found out what the sherry was made from. I decided at that time to be a jwrt man. It is better to be a port man from the top of 1812 6 March 1984 Food Act and HeaUh Act Amendment BUl the hill than a sherry man at the bottom of the hUl. The grape product at the bottom looked like what is dragged out of the horses' stables at Hendra after it has been there for a month. That grape jwoduct has chemicals added to it. I want to know what goes into Fourex and Carlton. I want to know what is in the bottle that makes some honourable members not only amorous but also lecherous, fighters, arbiters, runners—^you name it! An Opposition Member: What about beer out of a keg? Mr BURNS: I do not know that enough tests are done on beer out of a keg. Despite all the comments made by people everywhere that it is the water, I want to know what is in the water. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Can you feel a Fourex coming on? Mr BURNS: I do not mind a Foster's either. I could have a Foster's instead or feel a Fourex coming on. It would not worry me either way. I enjoy Queensland beers and I have no argument against them but I think that beer-drinkers are entitled to see on the label what is in the beer. In an article, American beer drinkers were warned-^ "that they could be swallowing propylene glycol alginate, chemically modified hop extracts, corn syrup, papain enzyme, potassium metabisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, tannm—" and a number of others that I cannot pronounce. According to the article,. additives to beer, wine and liquor could be major health threats to people with aUergies. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest made this report and published a small paperback entitled "Chemical Additives in Booze", which listed dozens of chemicals used to flavour, colour or preserve intoxicants. The article went on to say that the real issue was labelling. I agree with that. Why is it that beer- drinkers cannot be told what is in beer? If I can go down the road or into the cafeteria and buy a bottle of orange drink I can read on the outside of the bottle a description of the contents. But if I buy a bottle of Fourex or Foster's, I cannot. I am reminded of a story about two blokes who lived in Albury/Wodonga on the border of New South Wales and Victoria. They were the best of mates but argued aU the time. They drank in the same pub. One lived in Victoria and one lived in New South Wales. They worked together and drank together. The Victorian always said that Aussie Rules was the best game and the man from New South Wales said Rugby League was the best game. One would say that Sydney was the best city and the other would say that Melbourne was the best city. They argued mostly about beer. One day the publican said to them, "Look, I am sick of you. You had better make up your mind who has the best beer. Do something about it, or I will kick you out of my pub." The two fellows finally decided that they would put some of the two beers irt bottles and send them off to the CSIRO for testing. Lo and behold, a note came back from the CSIRO stating that the two horses should be put down! Some of the blokes with whom I drink still say that the beer is horses'. I believe that some of the beer that is served in pubs should be described exactly as the CSIRO described the two beers about which the fellows I have mentioned argued so much. The point is that no one really knows what people the drinking. The Americans are able to tell us that some brands of alcohol contain sulphur dioxide as a preservative; acacia, as a form stabiUser for beer; monosodium glutamate, as a beer- flavouring agent; maUc acid to increase the acidity of win^e; bentonite, which is a clay, to improve a wine's clarity; hydrogen peroxide to remove colour from the juice of red and black grapes; sawdust to treat wine; and artificial colours, including Yellow No. 5, So many people are allergic to Yellow No. 5 that the American Food and Drug Administration required that it be listed on food labels. What is in the grog that members wUl drink out in the bar tonight? Why shouldn't we know what is in it? The local manufacturer of orange drink and pineapple drink—Golden Circle—has to state the contents of its products on the outside of the tins or other containers, so why shouldn't we be told what is in beer? As this Assembly has passed a tremendous amount of legislation governing the contents of food and drink, why is not the Food Act and HeaUh Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1813 product that leads to most of the community's troubles included? The newspaper companies in Queensland wiU publish articles about beer before they publish articles about some important subjects. I suppose that beer is the popular favourite of Australians. If beer prices go up or if there is a beer strike, it makes front-page headUnes. In contrast, many important matters about which members concern themselves do not even hit the front pages of the papers. It is time that the Government introduced legislation controlling the contents of beer. I have heard the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs blame grog for the problems arising from absenteeism and accidents on the job. I have heard him say that the cost to the community amounts to miUions of dollars a year. I could go to the hospitals and see the large numbers of people who are in hospital as a result of alcohol-related car" accidents and alcohol-related diseases of the liver and kidneys. Yet somewhere along the Une the brewery industry seems to be protected. The Government is not as severe with the breweries as it is with the manufacturers of butter, margarine or pineapple juice. Although I might have made a little joke about this subject, I am very serious about it. I have seen the problems that are created, particularly for young people, by the contents of the food that they eat. When I see a feUow staggering out of a bar, when I hear of a fellow belting his wife, when I see a fellow who cannot dance thinking that he is Fred Astaire, or when I see a fellow who cannot fight thinking he is Muhammad AU, I wonder what particular drop he drank that day and I wonder what was in the alcohol that he was drinking. It is time that we knew. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health) (3.18 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The honourable member for Ipswich West supported the BiU, and I thank him for that. As to health inspectors—^neither I nor the Government has any intention of amending the relevant provisions concerning the appointment or dismissal of health inspectors. The present power as outlined in the Act will remain, and the Government has no intention at the present time of amending it, I hope that those comments will aUay some of the honourable member's fears. The honourable member asked what type of regulations wUl be provided. The section containing the general regulatory powers enables the adoption by reference of standards, methods and Uke matters published by associations, bodies and institutions. Among the most important of such bodies is the Codex AUmentarius Commission, which was estabUshed jointly by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. Their publications are invariably titled "Recommended standard" or "Recom­ mended method", so it is proposed to permit documents so titled to be adopted, thus avoiding the need to reprpduce the whole text in regulations. That will provide a great improvement in the quality of food that is available in Australia and the food that is coming into this courttry. As to the frequency of inspections referred to by the honourable member—I detected a suggestion in his speech that perhaps there was some degree of discrimination as to whose businesses were inspected. I must say to the honourable member that I was disappointed with his statement. I believe that he has reflected on the integrity of the health inspectors who work within the department and within local authorities. He can accept my assurance that if that is occurring—and I do not believe that it is—there is certainly no intertt by the department or by local authorities that that should occur. HeaUh inspectors who work with my department and with local authorities are honest and reliable. They carry out their duties to the best of their ability. In 1982-83, 233 prosecutions were made under the Act. That is a significant achievement. As to the knackery referred to by the honourable member--I point out to him. that in Australia horse meat cannot be sold for human consumption. The matters that he raised, quite correctly and properly, do not Ue within my portfolio but rather within the portfolio of the Minister for Primary Industries. The Leader of the Opposition referred to enforcement of the Act. I point out to him that not only Health Department officers but also inspectors of local authorities are responsible for enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The Bill takes into account fines and recovery of moneys in relatiort to local authorities. 62182r-€3 1814 6 March 1984 Health Act Amendment Bill

The Leader of the Opposition referred also to the reheating of food. That is a matter that concerns everyone, particiUarly the officers of my department. It is hoped that the new regulations that will accompany some of the new provisions will allow certain conditiorts to be laid down relative to-the reheating of food. Perhaps some of the problems referred to by the Leader of the Opposition will be overcome. As to the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition relative to what he caUs the ice rip-off—first of all, his statements ought to have been directed to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affahs, who is responsible for matters con­ cerrting weights and measiures. The Food Act protects and wiU continue to protect the quaUty of products available on the market. If one takes the opportunity to examme the Director-General's report, one sees in relation to the quaUty of food and drinks avaUable on the market the number of prosecutions. The speech made by the honourable member for Lytton gave me food for thought. In the first part of his speech he raised a vaUd point about food additives. I thank him for raising that matter. At the moment, the department is preparing regulations that will enable the indexing by numbers of several hundred types of additives. That is particularly important to people with allergies and other problems. For years my department and I have been concerned that we have been unable to establish effectively a method by which parents or chUdren can be advised of a particular additive in a product to which they may be sensitive. Under the new indexing system, sulphur dioxide will have an index number of 220. It is hoped to adopt standards that will aUow that number to be published. A list of those numbers wUl be provided to medical practitioners so that when a parent takes a chUd to a doctor and it is determined that the child is allergic to a particular chemical compound, the number—for example, 220 for sulphur dioxide, which I understand can cause asthma—-wiU appear on the label of the product. Those persons particularly affected by an additive, who, of course, will have a particular interest in looking for additives and who have had tests carried out through their medical practitioner, will be able to determine that that product contains a particular additive to which they are sensUive. That is a significant step forward. I understand that Queensland wiU be the first State in Australia to introduce that system. It wiU overcome some of the problems in relation to additives in food—^hyperactive chUdren, and so forth—quite correctly referred to by the honourable member. As to beer—it is true that there is no requirement for ingredient labelUng in Queens­ land; neither is there in any other State. I do not use that as an excuse. Queensland has tried to follow national standards. At present, beer ingredient labeUing is not required under those standards. I point out to the honourable member that although chemical additives are used in the making of beer and wine, because of the fermentation process, very few of them are present in the firtal product. I thank aU honourable members for their contribution to the debate, and I again commend the BiU to the House. Motiort (Mr Austin) agreed to.

Committee Qauses 1 to 13, as read, agreed to. BUl reported, without amendment.

Third Readmg BUl, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time.

HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 February (see p. 1367) on Mr Austin's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." HeaUh Act Amendment BiU 6 March 1984 1815

Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (3.28 p.m.): The OpposUion supports the BUl. In his second-reading speech, the Minister very nicely mentioned the problems that have caused the Bill to be introduced, when he said— "A limited data set relating to congenital malformations, but not to other aspects of perinatal health, .has been coUected in Queensland on a voluntary basis for the last few years. Experience has shown that the information so obtained is not sufficiently com­ plete and accurate and could be misleading. Accordingly, a working party consisting of involved professional groups and the Health Department was set up to make recommendations concerning the establishment of a comprehensive perinatal data collection." In layman's terms, what that means is that doctors have been too busy or too damned lazy and hospitals have been too preoccupied to do their jobs properly as required by legislation passed by the previous Parliament. That is grossly irresponsible of the medical profession and others who have responsibility in the health industry, because the collection of that data is a very serious business as I am sure that at sorne time in the future it wUl lead to some very important discoveries about the environment in which we live and in which our children are reared. That raises the question of how much faith people should place in the medical profession and the health industry as a whole. One wonders how responsibly they carry out the tasks set for them by this and other Parliaments. I say that because we heard cries about it from such fanatical organisatiorts as the General Practitioners Society. They certainly come from the fanatical end of the spectrum. When the legislation was introduced originally, the society cried that it would tear down the fabric of society and that there would be a total breach of people's privacy. It was also said that the privacy of a doctor's surgery would be breached. None of those things has occurred. Instead, the doctors have not responded to the latitude that this Parliament extended to them when it allowed the return of the data to be made on a voluntary basis. The doctors have just not responded, and it is not the first time that they have not voluntarily responded to a request. Only a couple of years ago the annual report of the Director-General of Health referred to the very serious problem of dengue fever and the fact that doctors had failed to respond to a request for details of cases of dengue fever. If one were to look at other requests for information, one would find the same lack of response. It has become quite apparent that doctors will not respond unless some measure of force is used. There is an obligatiort on doctors to respond voluntarily to such requests. Doctors swear the Hippocratic oath to look after the welfare of their patients and the community in general. They have not been doing that, so it is now necessary for this Parliament to legislate to make it compulsory for doctors to return certain data. Not only must it be returned; it must also be accurate. Anyone who has done research or has had anything to do with it would know that incomplete data is often more dangerous than no data at all; yet that is what we have here—^incomplete data. Although the Government is always telling honourable members that it is the leader in many fields, it is not the leader in this area. Although Australia as a whole has been lagging behind other countries, for a long time the Labor States have been the leaders in this area. That brings me to the subject of how much say doctors should have in running their own affairs. When one speaks of "their own affairs", one is really talking about community affairs, because it is the health of the community that doctors are charged with protecting. Many moons ago, this Parliament gave doctors a monopoly on the practice of medicine. In turn, they are supposed to respect that gift and live up to the demands made on them. In other words, they were supposed to put the community's interests above their own, but that has obviously not been the case. To prove that point, I have only to refer to the recent debate about the schedule fee and bulk or direct billing. It appears that, for some spurious reason they refuse to give, a majority of doctors are refusing to bulk bill. I will not deal with that rtow, because we have all heard too much about it. The obvious reason is that a majority of doctors are charging more thau the schedule fee but do uot want their patients to know the truth. They know that 1816 6 March 1984 Health Act Amendment BiU

their patients are in a bind. They know that if a patient likes a particular doctor he will go to that doctor come hell or high water. The doctors know that they have captive patients who will pay up if the doctor says that they must. If the doctor says that they must pay cash before they enter the surgery, they will do so. I know that in Ipswich and in many other places the first question that is asked of a patient is, "Do you have the money to pay? Do you have health insurance?" It all means the same thing, "Pay up before we will see you." At least a veterinarian does not do that. He sees the dog, cat, or whatever, and then asks for the money. I believe that all people should be made to justify the incomes they receive. Doctors believe that they are above that accounting requirement. Most people in the community have to put a case for increased wages or salaries before a tribunal. They do so on a public or semi-public basis. But the doctors believe that they are above that. I believe that doctors should be Uke the rest of the Australian community and have their incomes discussed and decided in a public or semi-public fomm. It is apparent that a number of doctors are abusing the system. In the southern States, hospital doctors and specialists have been screaming because their earnings are limited to $65,000 a year. They say they are concerned about the principle of the matter. In my view the principle involved is that doctors should have a schedule fee. It should be compulsory for them to charge it rather than receive over-award payments that they determine. No-one else in the work-force can determine his over-award payments. Some over-award payments are made, but they are worked out between industry and various industrial groups. The doctors, encouraged by the AMA and the General Practitioners Society, are encouraged to set their own fees. That has not been acceptable in Australia for a long time. These happenings highlight the ethical and practical problems which infiltrate their work as medical practitioners. Because doctors have not collected data voluntarily, it has been made compulsory. Data collection is required because of public pressure and, in Queensland, public pressure has been insufficient to move this Government and the former coalition Government into doing more to protect the environment and public health against the chemicals that are used in the work-place and elsewhere. I wiU now quote an article which appeared in "The Canberra Times" on 4 August 1982. It was based on a question that was asked in the House of Representatives. It is still relevant to the historic problem confronting Queensland. It is titled, "Pesticide Survey Restricted", and is in these terms— "South Australia and Queensland will not be included in a Bureau of Statistics survey on farm use of pesticides. The Treasurer, Mr Howard, who is responsible for the bureau, says this is because agricultural authorities in those States accord pesticides data a 'lower priority' Similar surveys on pesticide and herbicide use—involving at various times NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACTT-have been held since 1975-76. But survey information was not supplied to the bureau by Queensland or South Australia for any of these investigatiorts. Mr Howard was answering a question on notice from Mr Holding (ALP, Vic). He said the information was collected to enable the State departments concerned to identify the regions where herbicides and pesticides were used to control and eradicate weeds and insect pests, the types of crops treated and the methods of application. SimUar information was not sought in Queensland and South Australia because of the lower priority accorded pesticides data by the relevant authorities. The Opposition called this week for a national approach to the collection and analysis of data on such matters. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has told Mr Holding, in answer to another question on notice, that available statistical data 'lacks the detail necessary to identify importers, manufacturers and/or distributors' of herbicides and pesticides. In May, the pariiamentary inquiry into hazardous chemicals was told insufficient resources existed to coordinate the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia." Health Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1817

The situation has not changed in Queensland. That is an indictment of our system of Government and of the Government for not protecting the environment, the people who work in it and the community as a whole. In recent times, members of the Opposition have asked questions in this Chamber about EDB. Only last week, after pressure from the Opposition, the Government finally decided to agree to a National Health and Medical Research Council recommendation to recategorise EDB from category 6 to category 7. I wonder how long it would have taken the Government to do something about that matter had the Opposition not applied pressure. People handling those containers were definitely at risk. That is only one dangerous chemical that is being used. Chemicals such as dieldrin are being used iUegally and improperly, even though legislation controls their use. One way in which to overcome those practices is to be more vigilant and to be more sincere in ensuring that public health is not put at risk through insufficient surveillance and insufficient collection of data. More information is required on these matters before a baby is brought into the world with one of many possible abnormalities. To illustrate the Government's disinterest in this matter, I point out that in the early 1970s the Coalition Government commissioned a committee of inquiry to look at the use of chemicals. The majority of people on the committee represented rural interests. Unfortunately, some people in rural industries believe that it is not in their best interests to adopt a more posUive attitude towards the use and control of chemicals. I am not limiting that criticism to rural interests; many other industries are involved. I have noted that over the last few years, Ron Wade, who conducts a very interesting gardening program on radio on Saturday mornings, has changed his attitude towards the use of chemicals in the home garden. That shows that the community is waking up to its responsibiUties to the present and future generations. The Government must adopt a similar attitude. It is time that it accepted its responsibiUties in this area. This legislation is long overdue, and the Opposition suports it. However, I ask the Minister to explain a couple of matters. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to a "prescribed person" and a "prescribed time" What is actually meant by a "prescribed time"? What checks will he introduce into the system to ensure that doctors and hospitals provide the required information? It is all very well to say that it is the main responsibility of the various hospitals boards and of other authorised persons to provide the information, but that is not good enough. A reasonably fool-proof system is needed. Of course, it is appreciated that anything involving the human element has problems. As I say, it is not sufficient merely to place the onus on hospitals boards and other prescribed people, and I ask the Minister to elaborate on what measures he proposes to ensure that the information is provided. The legislation provides for a penalty of $200 for anyone who fails to provide the information. That is not a sufficient penalty to compel doctors and others to provide statistics promptly and accurately. It is important that those statistics be provided promptly and accurately because they could throw up a problem area. At some time in the future people might wish to obtain adequate compensation from corporations that are responsible for causing disabilities to them. The Oppositiort supports the provision that the Director-General of Health and Medical Services be empowered to allow scientific research as outlined in the Minister's secortd- readirtg speech. I must commertt on that very fractious and extreme group of fanatics, the General Practitioners Society. That society does its profession no good. Its members have made statements about schedule fees in what the society claims is the Medicare debacle. Extremists from the AMA could be tied in with that group. Because of the action of that society, and because the medical profession has proven itself incapable of carrying out its responsibiUties to the public, this Parliament has now had to introduce legislation to provide for compulsory restrictiorts and requirements. Because medical practitioners have a monopoly to minister to the public, they must give back in equal kind or greater and carry out their responsibilities to the public. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health) (3.48 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ipswich West for his contribution to the debate and I thank the Opposition for its support of the legislation, because it is very important to the people 1818 6 March 1984 Health Act Amendmertt BUl of Queensland. It is true that there was a voluntary code in operation that did not work. It appears that people in private industry are simply too busy or consider it to be at the bottom of their priorities to try and provide the sort of information required by the Depart­ ment of Health and perhaps by other Government departments. On 16 February 1982 it was decided that a working party be estabUshed. The members of that working party were as foUows— Dr K, Donald (Chairman)—Deputy Director-General of Health and Medical Services Dr E, Esler—Medical Superintendent, Mater Mothers' HospUal Dr J. Provan—Medical Superintendent, Rockhampton Hospital Dr I. Ring—^Director, Cancer Registry Dr J. MoFarlane—'Director, Division of Maternal and Child Health Dr R. Tiernan—Paediatrician Dr G. Bourke—^Visiting Medical Staff, Mater Hospital Dr E. Bevan—Director of Neonatology, Royal Women's Hospital Professor F. Schofield—'Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, UniversUy of Queenslartd Dr D. O'Connor—College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Queensland Miss E. Abell—^Director of Nursing Services Miss H. Batchler—Nursing Superintendent, Royal Women's Hospital Ms J. G. Christensen (Secretary)—Chief Statistician, Central Statistical Unit, Depart­ ment of Health A representative of the Australian Medical Association was also a member. As can be seen from that list, the working party had broad representation. The working party submitted that a comprehensive perinatal morbidity data coUection, similar to those operatirtg in the other States, should be established in Queensland. I accept the criticism from the honourable member for Ipswich West that Queensland has relied on a voluntary submission of information. That information was not forthcoming. That is why it has been necessary to make it compulsory to submit that information. In submUting its recommendations, the working party noted that the information would be used to— provide comprehensive information on neonatal morbidity; monitor the incidence of congenital malformations; assess the patterns and standards of obstetric and neonatal care and of the use of resources for this care; provide information for issues concerning the development of services, for example, deliveries in small hospitals, caesarian section rates, etc.; compare trends in Queensland with those in other Australian States and to provide information to the National Perinatal Statistics Unit for the compUation of Australian national statistics; educate trainee midwives, medical students and the public at large on issues of obstetric and perinatal health; and establish a basic research tool contairtirtg irtformation on obstetric and neonatal care. As the honourable member for Ipswich West recognised, this is a very important piece of legislation. The honourable member raised a number of other matters that require some comment. He referred to EDB and claimed some credit for asking a question about it. The honourable member may or may not know that on about 16 or 18 February—I cannot recall the exact date—"The Age" of Melbourne contained a report indicating that the honourable member's Labor coUeagues in Victoria acted at or about the same time as the Queertsland Government acted. I must say that at the time when the honourable member asked the question actiort had already been taken. I am not trying to detract from the honourable member's sincerity in relation to EDB, but I am sure that he will accept my word that action was in train at that stage. I thank him for raising that matter then. The honourable member asked what follow-up action would be taken by the Health Departmertt to ertsure that the provisions in the amendments are complied with. At least two sections of my department will be responsible for the follow-up in this area. As the Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1819 honourable member would know, the department has a statistical unit, and the chief statistician was represented on the committee. It wiU be responsible for foUowing up the information. As weU, Dr Rmg, the director of the Cancer Registry, will follow up the information. I have no doubt that the conrtotation is quite obvious to all honourable members. I thank the honourable member for Ipswich West for his support for the Bill. I commertd it to the House. Motiort (Mr Austirt) agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without ameudmcrtt.

Third Readirtg BiU, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time.

HOMES FOR THE AGED BILL Second Readirtg—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 February (see p. 1369) on Mr Austin's motion— "That the BUl be now read a second time."

Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (3.54 p.m.): Basically, the Opposition supports this BiU, which provides for the establishment of homes for the aged and other persons and the management and control of those homes and for other purposes. We see the BiU as one that supersedes the Charitable Institutions Management Act of 1885. as was outUned by the Minister. However, members of the Opposition wUl refer to the lack of Government supervision and support in relation to the care of the aged. I raise again what seem to be constant problems experienced by the Government in discharging its responsibilities relative to the supervision of public health. Those problems are particularly apparent in care of the aged. I could refer to the quality of the food supplied; the accommodation in which people are required to Uve; the activities provided during the day and at other times; the staffing problems in nursing homes; the training of staff in those places; the Govemment's attitude towards financing aged institutions; and its general approach to intergovernmental relations with the Federal Government. It is all very weU to say that there are health inspectors and various food regulations and standards. It is easy for the Minister to do as he did earlier this morning during question-time and say that a handbook has been issued to nursing homes about the quality artd quarttity of food and the type of food that should be given to persons in nursing homes. However, it is another matter to ensure that the food is presented as required and as suggested by nutritionists and health authorities. If I heard the Minister correctly this morning, he said that 151 inspectiorts of nursing homes in Queensland had been made last financial year. Mr Austin: That is right.

Mr UNDERWOOD: I was correct. I point out that there are more than 151 nursiug homes irt Queensland. Those inspections were carried out in the last 12 months. That presumes that only one visit was made to those 151 institutions. I suspect that more than one visit was made to some of them. That means that less than 151 nursiug homes were inspected or, at the very least, visited by the relevant officers of the Health Department. That is just not good enough. Probably every member of ParUament has been approached from time to time about the problems experienced at nursing homes. The majority of nursing homes provide adequate care for residents artd patients. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. From 1820 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

lime to time honourable members have been told about the problems with the quality of food and the way in which food is stored in nursing homes. It comes back to the problem of staffing. Many nursing homes operate merely to provide a profit for the proprietors, the investors or the company that owns the homes. That has occurred under successive Governments. The investor—^it may be an individual company or some other combination of persons—^provides the capital for the Govemment, and the Government provides what might be described as running expenses towards the general operation,. As the private sector provides the capital, that is a cheap way out for the Queensland Government and for the Federal Government. The financial records may appear to be satisfactory; however, the system leads to a deterioration and/or lack of standards within particular nursing homes. The problem is not restricted to nursing homes operated for profit. From time to time, simUar problems arise with charitable institutions. The Salvation Army home at Red Hill was the subject of recent media attention, particularly by the television program "Nationwide". Some of the specific problems that existed at that institution were brought to light and have since been sorted out. Those problems should never have been allowed to occur. I understand that there is no specific legislation or regulation governing such institutions. That is amazing. I call on the Government to take some initiative—of course, it is not contained in the legislation before the House—either jointly with the Federal Government or on its own, to make sure that legislative provisions exist in relation to nursing homes, rest homes, wayside inns, or whatever term one might use to describe them. That is a problem that must be tackled. The Government must protect the people who reside in those institutions. They are the down-and-outs; they have no poUtical muscle. Every now and again the "Telegraph" or some other newspaper carries a story about somebody being found dead in a gutter after a stormy night or somebody being found sleeping in the mud under a tree. That makes good press and sells a few newspapers. But that is about the limit of public support and pubUc and official concern for tbose people who are forced, because they have nowhere else to go, to make use of the resources and services provided by charitable institutions. The community has a responsibility to look after the helpless, those who have no-one else to look after them. Because they have no political muscle, it is very easy to forget them. Nursing homes, including the "Everttide" homes, cover a wide variety of accommodation —from the "hot houses"—the old style hospital wards that have been converted into dormitory accommodation—to the brand-spanking-new residences and wards at "Eventide", Sandgate, and the lovely wards in some of the private, charitable and religious institutions. At the bottom of the scale one finds the impoverished State institutions in which one can smell faeces and urine, particularly if the management has not been expecting a visit or an inspection. That reminds me of an institution in the north that I visited last year. The management complained about the number of times that the officials of tbe Health Department had made visits—two or three times in that year—but many problems stUl existed. Although the older citizens of the community may be confined to bed or need constant nursing care, they need a high startdard of accommodatiort. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Mao Tse-tung irttroduced the great idea of sertdirtg the bureaucrats, the peu-pushers aud the decision-makers into the paddy fields so they could find out what it was like to be a peasant and to know what hardship really meant, I know that was an economic catastrophe, but I still think it was a great idea. Very often in Governmertt departments or semi-Government instrumentalities those in charge have air-conditiorted, carpeted offices and big, easy chairs. I remember an occasion last year when, at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, there was a discussion about the basic safety conditiorts for maintenartce workers at that hospital. The first room the authorities ushered me into was a plush, carpeted office with a large chair with six-inch padding. At the other end of the spectrum were the patients. That is just not good enough. Although it would not be irt lirte with the Government's phUosophy, the Parliament should decree that the bosses be the last to get the lurks and perks, that patients and residents should have the best accommodation and the workers the next best. If that were to happen, perhaps the aged people of the State, whether they be in private, charitable, reUgious or State institutions, would receive much better attentiort. If a boss has to sit irt a Homes for the Aged BUl & March 1984 1821 hot office, he wUl be better able to realise just how hot conditions are for his staff than if he occupies an air-conditioned office. Administrators spend most of their time in their offices sorting out problems, arbitrating on disputes and doing the various other' things that are required of them. Because of that, it could fairly be said that they are separated from the reality of those who are in their care. It would be quite easy for a Govemment member to say now that I am casting aspersions on the credibiUty and wiUingness of officers to care for their patients. Although 99 per cent of them display a great concern for those in their care, that does not mean that they are 100 per cent aware of how those under them are facing the pressures of day-to-day living. I turn now to staffing, which the Minister has handled very badly. That is why the two nursing unions have waged such a fierce campaign, although I should state that the Royal Australian Nursing Federation has been much quieter because it does not have a high mdustrial profile. The staffing problem exists not only in hospitals but also in nursing homes, be they State, private or charitable. It would be fair to say that there is a staffing crisis with registered trained rturses and back-up staff, such as enroUed nurses and nurses aides or whatever one wants to caU them. It all comes back to a question of money and profit or, in the case of charitable and religious instUutions, donations and support. Both the State and Federal Goverrtments face a severe problem in the coming decades in finding money for the care of the aged. Population statistics show that Australia is a relatively young country compared to many European countries which spend much more than Australia on the care of the aged. AustraUa is at the bottom of the graph and is just starting to climb the hiU conceming the cost of the care of the aged. This Government sbows a very disconcerting attitude towards the proposals and initiatives of the new AustraUan Government. Since day one this Govemment has adopted an attitude of total confrontation in any attempt to prepare this country, and this State in particular, for that climb up the financial spiral in the cost of caring for the aged. It is irtteresting to note that when the Federal Government asked each State Government for its ideas on new guide-Unes for nursing homes, this Government was one of the last to submit its ideas. New South Wales was one of the first. The reason New South Wales was one of the first was that it had all its ideas worked out. It knew where it was going and what it wanted to do. It had given the guide-lines a lot of thought, even though it might not have had the mopey or the support of the previous Liberal Federal Government. This Government has not developed its policy because it does not have the resources and because there has been no incentive from the top. The Government has no desire to get in and work in that area. I suggest that, combined with the Government's confrontationist attitude towards any Federal Labor Government proposal—^be it good, bad or indifferent—^there has been a lack of preparedness, a lack of initiatives and ideas and a lack of concern about and awareness of the problems, and that this has resulted in Government's approach to the new guide-lines. One particular example that springs to mind is a nursing home in north Queensland. Similar stories appeared in the "Daily Sun" The Mirtister blamed the Federal Government for the delay in tbe implementation of the new guide-lines. He said that, because the Federal Govemment was stalUng on the guide-lines, dozens of people would be thrown out into the cold. He said that, even though his Govemment had rtot even made a submission on the guide-lines. The statement that he made in the press was totally irresponsible. It frightened the elderly people of this State who have enough problems of their own. I outlined some of them earlier in this speech. It was political skulduggery, and its purpose was to frighten the elderly people of Queensland. The Minister was being hypocritical because his Govemment was not even attempting to expedite the framing of the new guide-Unes. I have mentiorted the stories in the "Daily Sun" and referred to north Queensland. The Minister well knew that the Federal Government was trying to update the method of financing nursing homes and was trying to get that message across. It was attempting to discover the type of accommodation required in certain areas and how to overcome the problem of over­ crowding. It was attempting to provide accommodation where it was urgently needed. There is a proposal for a new nursing home in the Burdekin area. 62182—64 1822 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

The Minister, with much skulduggery, encouraged both the local National Party and Liberal Party candidates to make ill-gotten poUtical gains by using scare tactics on the elderly people of north Queensland. The Minister used that tactic for cheap poUtical gain and to draw attention away from problems that the Governmertt is causing for the elderly people of Queensland and those in charge of the nursing home industry. I will now quote a slightly dated press article which outUnes the history of the problem in (^eensland and the lack of attention given to it by the Govemment. On 23 November 1980, the "Daily Sun" published an article headed, "Nusing Home Loses Licence", which was in these terms— "The Ucence of one Queensland nursing home has been revoked after a lightning Health Department inspectipn. The department would not give detaUs of the home but said it did not meet strict standards. Health ^Hnister Sir William Knox announced the license ban after receiving a report on investigations into the State's 157 private nursing homes. Sir William looked closely at Queensland's nursing homes after an AustraUan Consumers Association report. The report said it found two nursing homes had appalling conditions. ACA members paid surprise visits to many homes. Investigators found people tied to commodes, unshaven men without teeth eating their meals in urine-isoaked clothes and rooms with no heating. The report also alleged some pensioner patients were pumped with dmgs until they became immobile vegetables. 'The article highlighted some very disgraceful aspects of two particular homes and we made a point of the fact that this only related to two homes out of a large number,' Sir William said. The two homes were not in Queensland." The problems referred to occurred in the south. The report covered the whole Australian scene. "Choice" is the magazine of the Australian Consumers Association. Fancy the present Government, or the former coalition Govemment, having to wait until the maga­ zine printed a report. It was only then that the Government moved. That highlights the problem of inspections and the lack of maintenance standards that I spoke of earlier. Nothing has happened since then to correct the problem. These difficulties surface from time to time, as happened with the Southport or Gold Coast case. That terrible situation, which was corrected, was responsible for the preparation of the handbook on food that the Minister referred to during question-time today. Another problem area arises relative to profoundly handicapped people in Government institutions. Once again, this group is without poUtical clout. I think particularly of the Halwyn Centre of Intellectually Handicapped, which caters for kiddies and aduUs. They have been suffermg since the inception of the centre, although I admit that they came from other institutions in which they were in a worse situation. Their troubles arose from staffing problems^ compounded by the difficulties caused by untrained staff. That problem is common throughout the nursing home industry. Employees work virtually under duress i because of excessive work-loads. They either do not have the experience or the training. Employees who have the experience often do not have the training. I do not suggest for a hioment that people who have not been trained do not have compassion and do not, have the interests of the patient at heart. People without training sometimes have a: great deal of compassion and a deep feeUng for the interests of patients. In isolated; instances, trained sisters have been more interested in being in charge of a ward or wing.-^ They have sat at the top table and have not ensured that patients were properly attended to. I direct the Minister's attention to the problems at the Halwyn Centre; they have not changed. Programs need to be introduced to train people to work in such centres. I am not suggesting for one minute that the people who work in them must have ai Year 12 education or a certain tertiary entrance score. If that were the case, it would preclude many good people from taking part in programs that are designed Jo care for thes^ people. Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1823

I refer to mature men and women who have had the experience of raising a family. Often, because of their rough-and-tumble Ufe, they have more compassion in caring for people. Maybe a training course should be conducted for people who do not have the necessary secondary education qualifications required these days for people who wish to work in a semi-professional or professional area. Sometimes, those people have more to offer than the people who are trained in a tertiary institution, given a piece of paper and told, "Right. You are a professional. Go and do the job." There is a need in this State for nurses to be trained as bush nurses. Bush nurses are required to do all sorts of work, such as caring for the young and attending to road accident victims and people with cuts and scratches. They are also required to care for the aged. A training course is needed. I do not know whether it should be included in the present training courses or be a separate course in bush nursing. I know that some nurses in the Queensland Nurses Union believe that there is a need for such a course. I leave it to the experts in this field to recommend to the Government and to the ParUament the exact nature of the course. Probably more debate is needed within the profession. The problem needs to be tackled. Properly trained staff needs to be provided for aged people in country areas. Nurses who have general certificates or general and midwifery certificates have a problem in caring for the aged, and many of them will not take on that task. They believe that they would be at risk, legally and professionally, if they took on that task because they feel that they are not adequately equipped to tackle the job properly. They believe that they could make a mistake and face serious legal and professional problems. These comments are not limited to caring for the aged. Intensive care is another area in which nurses feel that their training is inadequate. People in the health field are now taking up the challenge of caring for the dying. Some good work is being done at complexes such as Mt Olivet Hospital at Kangaroo Point. Increased speciality in caring for the dying is needed. The need to care for the dying has not been neglected. It is becoming popular and popular causes, when they take a hold, become Government policy. But the Government should not wait until it becomes a popular cause before it acts. I must mention how the Government treats the aged financially. I referred to this matter briefly in my opening remarks. I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in "The Courier-Mail" on 24 December 1980. The then National-Liberal Government imposed a rule under which pensioners were forced to pay, and still pay, 80 per cent of their pension to the Government if they are in hospital for more than 60 days. After 60 days, those people are regarded as nursing home patients. It was one of the most miserable, petty, mean Christmas presents ever handed out by the Government, The Governmertt introduced that charge at the behest of the Jamison royal commission, which was instituted by the Fraser Government. The Minister for Health could easily say that other State Governments irttroduced the charges as weU. However, I point out that the former Government—I keep forgetting that it is only the National Party now and that the Liberals do not count—waited until after the 1980 State election to introduce the charge. Mr Austin: So did the New South Wales Government.

Mr UNDERWOOD: The New South Wales Government did not introduce it. Mr Austin: It did it another way. Mr UNDERWOOD: No, U did not introduce U. But that is the attitude of the Queenslartd Goverrtment. The Jamison inquiry said that statistics showed that aged persons were occupying large numbers of day beds, particularly in country areas. That was one way that the country hospitals kept their doors open. It still happens today. Many people who do not really need hospital care are kept in hospital beds to keep the doors opeii and to bring money in. In many country towns, that is the only way that any kind of nursing home accommodation can be provided. However, these people were hit for six by the Government. Disabled people were alsp hit for six. They are a politically neutered group—^they have no political muscle at all—and the same charge was imposed upon them. From time to time the press followed this issue up. The "Sunday Sun" of 8 May 1983, carried the headline, "HospUal Shock For Aged!—State grabs pensions" The story was about the Princess 1824 6 March 1984 Hcanes for the Aged Bill

Alexandra HospUal, The Government, or the hospUals boardj I should say, because they have nothing to do wUh each other, was losing money collecting this levy or tax from the pensioners. Of course, I should have called U a fee because Queensland has no high taxes. That indicates the stupidity of this particular petty tax; it is costing the State more to collect it than it is collecting. A new nursing home complex was constructed at Warwick. Recently the Minister tried to create a smoke-screen to cover his own inadequacies and his GoVernirtent's lack of policies by blaming the Federal Government for the Queensland Government's problems. The Minister accused the Federal Government of reneging on granting approval for the Warwick nursing home to be attached to the Warwick Hospital. I, wiU not go into details because the honourable member for Warwick did. In fact, in the local press, he attacked the Minister for Health in a very nice way. There have been many red herrings concerning that nursing home. Of course, a few days later he was reported as having praised the Minister. The headline was, "Booth praises Austin". That, of course, was more on the subject of additional money coming in for the hospital than on the problem at the nursing home. Someone had fouled up the application procedures, which had been agreed to by this Government and the previous Government. Those procedures were controUed by a committee on which this Government has joint representation. Therefore, this Government and the Minister's department well knew the recognised procedures to be foUowed in relation to appUcations by nursing homes, whether they be private. State or charitable. Through the lack of information and the lack of access to the Government concerning its activities and those of the Health Department and the hospitals boards, the Govemment sought to trick the people of Warwick into beUeving that the problem reaUy was one for the Federal Government, whereas in fact it was the Minister's problem and that of his department and Government. They had been lackadaisical in carrying out the procedures to which both this Government and the previous Government had agreed. The guide-lines to which I referred earlier are now up for reconsideratiort. I am led to beUeve that rtow, finally, the Govemment has put in a recommendation concerning them. I have canvassed the problems that exist and have not received the attention of the Government. Today the Minister talked about issuing a book concerning food. Apparently he believes that that wiU solve the problems arising in relation to food. Several years ago. Sir William Knox ordered an immediate irtvestigation into nursing homes foUowing the publication of a certain magazine. But nothing has happened since then to overcome the problems arising in nursing homes. Sleepiness and drowsiness in Government supervision have taken over. The people at the work-face—the nurses—^have raised the problems conceming staffing. They have stressed the need for broadening the training into country areas. They have referred to the speciality of caring for the aged, the dying and others. The Government has engaged in poUtical attacks on and abuse of the care of the aged people of this State. It has indulged in scaremongering for cheap poUtical gain. It has set out to terrify the aged people. The Govemment has shown a lack of planning and a lack of preparedness to meet the demands of the care of the aged. It did that 10 years ago and five years ago. However, instead of talking about the past, let me taUc about the future. What wiU the State Government do in the remairtder of this certtury coucerning care for the aged? It should smarten up its act, otherwise time wiU overtake it and care for the aged wUl deteriorate further. The Government must put an end to its confrontationist attitude towards proposals put forward by the Federal Government. It should sit down and adopt a commonsense approach towards the Federal Government, because, m relation to health, the next Federal Budget will deal mainly with the provision of funds for the care of the aged and with improving the supervision and control over financing. The community wants to see an end to the cheap poUtics that the Queensland Govem­ ment indulged in during the Medicare debate. The final result is that the State Govemment is back to square one. It signed the agreement, as it could have done in the first place It could have saved the people of Queensland not only the expense of hundreds of miUions of dollars but also the drama, uncertainty, concern and worry that It caused the Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1825

people of Queensland. They are UteraUy worried sick about what would happen concerning their health care. The Queensland Govemment deliberately promoted misconceptions. Action of that sort should no longer be infficted on the aged people, who least of aU can afford to be worried by the poUtical tactics of this Govemmertt. Mr WARBURTON (Sartdgate) (4.30 p.m.): I rise to speak in this debate for two main reasons. Like a number of honourable members, I have a real concem about where we are heading in respect of care for the aged people in our society and the problems with which we all know we will be confronted as time goes on. From time to time those problems haVe been canvassed in the Queensland Parliament and also in other Parliaments throughout AustraUa. Queenslartd has an aged population that is increasing. It would seem to me that not only the Queensland Government but also other Governments throughout Australia have not been in a positiort to apply themselves to the task of handUng this immense problem, nor at this stage do they seem to be planning for the increasing problems of the aged. The other reason why I entered the debate was to refer to a particular institution with which I am very famUiar and to which the Bill makes specific reference, namely, the "Eventide" home at Brighton. I have had a long association with that establishment. From time to time, over a period of 15 years, I have visited "Eventide" I doubt whether there would be artybody in this Assembly witb more experience than I have had with what has happened to "Eventide", Brighton, or "Eventide", Sandgate, as it is commonly called, over that long period. I do not often find myself in agreement with the Minister for Health. For some time we have been at loggerheads over the problems of nurses in Queensland. When the Minister referred in his second-reading speech to the new "Eventide" complex at Sandgate, he mentioned the facilities that he beUeved are second to none. I would bave to agree that the nursirtg home facilities artd other facUUies provided for aged persons at "Eventide", Sandgate, are a credit to those who planrted the project and those who have been involved in its construction. Mr Underwood: That is because they have an exceUent local member. Mr WARBURTON: I did not want to say that. Having a hard-working member in the area and somebody who is prepared to represent the people properly has its advantages. I know also that the members who preceded me, particuarly Mr Harry Dean, paid a great deal of attention to that part of the affairs of State. It is to Mr Dean's credit that the project has come to fruition as a result of the work that he carried out and the submissions that he made. ' Initially, I expressed my concern about the direction in which our health services are head­ ing, particularly m relation to care for the aged. Recently, when I spoke about some of the financial problems confronting this State, I was accused of not correctly assessing the 1982 Commonwealth Grants Commission report. It bears repeating that if one can beUeve the Commonwealth Grants Commission report—and I am one who does—under the item titled "Health services" one sees that on a per capita basis Queensland spends the least for a number of health services provided, namely, $214.29 as against the six States per capita average pf $243.41. I accept that some arguments tend to show that that figure might be slightly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Grants Commission states that that is the ppsitipn. I tend' to agree with the Grants Commission against those persons who would argue otherwise. The position is the same with welfare services. Queensland spends $20.13 as against the six States per capita average of $28.10. A comparison of the figures one by one shows that Queensland's position is not good. At this stage", I will stop short of criticising the Government but, to be fair, I must say that Us position is not good. My electorate contains the "Eventide" home, which is a public institution, large nursing bomes, large homes for the aged, such as the Masonic home,' St Martins, Symes Grove and many private nursing homes, so I am involved with literally hundreds upon hundreds of persons who depend upon these places, in many cases for their very existence. Because of that I can speak with the satisfaction that I am telUng the truth. Everyone should be proud of "Eventide" I can remembeir many years ago—certairily not to the days when the establishment was moved from the Dunwich Asylum, a word that did not help institutions^when, despite the attention given to old people by dedicated 1826 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU staff, frankly the condUions were deplorable. I am pleased that words such as "compound" have been done away with. To see old people in the institutions of a number of years ago was abhorrent. One has to take the opportunity to go to these places to see for oneself just what being old is like. It is now a great pleasure to go to the new "Eventide" complex and see at long last the people there being treated as seiuor people in our society. Perhaps the Minister might explain why the Govemment seems to have a lower acceptance of responsibility to house aged people. Certainly the Govemment can buUd places such as "Eventide" at Brighton and be very proud that it has such complexes with many facilities, but how can it explain to old people, at a time when demand for this type of care is ever increasing, that it is catering for fewer of them? For old people the question is where they can reside and where they can be properly cared for. A very valid argument can be advanced that, because of current medical facilities, people are living longer. Certainly statistics show that that definitely is the case. However, in 1961, "Eventide" Sandgate catered for an average of 926 people but, in the 1970s, it dropped to 868 and, in the period 1980 to 1983, the figure is down to 587. I understand that when the complex is completed the round figure wiU be approximately 5(X). Since 1960, that is a drop of something like 400 available beds in a home such as "Eventide" When there is a growing need, it is very, very difficult for me to believe that the Government is accepting its full responsibility for aged people. I know that it supports other nursing homes round Queensland. I know the great job that is done at the Masonic home and the dedication of the staff at Symes Grove and St Martins, but I fail to see why, in Government institutions, if I can call them that, the Government is catering not for more people but for fewer. The figures are there, and they concern me. They are well known by the people in my electorate who have seen the change occurring over a period. I know that other homes have opened, but "Eventide" has been a significant home for the aged for a very long period. Almost daily I receive requests from people for assistance to get into "Eventide". I am concemed that this drop in numbers over a long period has been deliberate. I took my figures out of the department's report, and they date back to 1961. They show a drop from 926 to slightly more than 500, so that 400 fewer people are being catered for by "Eventide" Sandgate, and that is a significant drop in a home of that kind. But it is even more significant that only 20 years ago, in much poorer times, that place catered for nearly 1 000 people, admittedly in not very good conditions. I want to comment on private enterprise nursing homes. Honourable members ought to know what is going on. I am advised on reasonably good authority that ordinary patients in private nursing homes are currently subsidised at the rate of $26.65 per day, with extensive care patients receivirtg an additional subsidy of $6 per day. The fees charged are determined on application to the department. Patients at religious and charitable nursing homes are charged 87i per cent of their pension. I understand that the Federal Government pays for the deficit in the home's operation. Additional capital funds are available from the Department of Social Security and the State Government. Some of the private nursmg homes—some homes in my area are in this category—are charging pensiorter patients in excess of what they receive by way of pension, and that is a cause for concern. In other words, if the patient is lucky enough to have a family, that family would be required to pay an additional amount to the nursing home. Of course, if the pensiorter does not have the necessary funds, that is his bad luck, and he is obviously not aUowed to stay in that sort of accommodation. The Federal Government provides the same subsidy for the "Eventide" homes as for a private nursing home, and I understand that it determines the classification of patients as nursing patients or otherwise. That is the current position. Of course, the definition of a nursing home patient is one who requires the services of a trained nurse for a significant period of the day. Thereby hangs a tale. I probably have a better understartding now why certain changes may be taking place in some of the major homes for the aged. When I was investigating the position, I was told on reasonably good authority that many Queensland country hospitals have become little more than nursing homes, that they are reaUy run on a nursing-home basis, with long-term, nuring-home-type patients in hospUals attracting the much higher hospUal subsidy. Mr Austin: In relation to the subsidy, no, because they are classified. Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1827

Mr WARBURTON: If that were so, if would be a matter of grave concern. During my investigations, I was told that under Medicare requirements, for the hospital benefits to continue, after 35 days in hospital, doctors wiU have to certify that patients are still acute-care patients. That problem will be difficult to overcome. The State Department of Health and the Minister should not be the only ones involved. An urgent need exists for a group of people to join together to look at the problems Queenslartd wiU be facing in the next decade in looking after its aged population. It is all very wel^ for the Government to say that it is encouraging hundreds or thousands of people to come to Queensland. Those of us who know the category of people coming here realise that many of them are in the 60 or 65-plus bracket. Many retired people are coming here. Those who are in the know realise that they will place a tremendous strain on our over-extended facilities for the aged. If something is being done that honourable members do not know about, I hope that the Minister wiU tell us about it. If nothing is being done, I urge the Govemment to pay close attention to the problems associated with caring for the aged.

Mr HENDERSON (Mt Gravatt) (4.47 p.m.): Concern for people in need, together with the recognition and alleviation of those needs, occupies a large and ever-growing area of parliamentary activity and governmental expenditure. Honourable members are only too well aware that by far the greater part of their daily work-load is intimately involved in the bringing together of available resources in the relief of individual and family dis­ advantage and distress. Quite apart from the work of Government and the zeal of honourable members in their electorates, most people in the community are aware of the extensive and invaluable machinery of the various professional and voluntary organisations and institutions, and the specific areas of need with which each identifies itself. I know that honourable members will join with me in expressing appreciation of the dedication and resolve of all those members of the public wbo give generously of their time and money in the most worthy of all human activity, that is, concem for their fellow human beings, especially concern for the aged, the most vulnerable group in society after infants. When I said earlier "most people in the community are aware", I should, perhaps, have qualified that in the context of the broad picture of organised charity at work in the visible and tangible world with which we are familiar and the many elements of it that usually gain our attention, such as— The magnitude of needs merely in terms of head counts; The notabiUty and personality of the people who are involved in developing such activities as nursing homes; The reserves of funds and the administrative expertise involved in collecting and dispensing them; The professionaUsm (quite often cost-hungry) in areas of publicity; and The armies of paid or voluntary workers whose commitment to their particular worthy causes ensures that the good work can be carried out. All this, and the goodwiU and generosity of the public at large, is already well- documented. But what about the virtuaUy imknown but none the less uncomplaining good Samaritans in this State of Queensland—the people who are quite often slaves to the task on hand and never really sure whether the sun is shining or whether it is raining outside? No beauty-queen spectaculars or AustraUa-wide TV helpathons are held for them; and, in most oases, there is no apparent evidence that they even exist. They are the people who look after invaUds, especially the aged (many of whom are totaUy incapacitated), in their homes. Who are these unknowrts? Who comprises this captive, silent minority? They are people who simply care for others—^usually relatives—entirely within the home environment. In the majority of cases, one believes they are mature-aged women caring for a disabled spouse, child, sister, brother; but, of course, one hears also of men performing these tasks with equal dedication and capability. 1828 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BUl

What do they do? They attend to virtually every need of the person they are caring for. In some cases they feed their patient by hand, tum them regularly in their beds, attend to their toilet needs, wash their bodies, control their prescribed medication, and so on. AddUionally, they will maintain the immediate surroundmgs in order to make a pleasant environment out of a situation which is often of extreme distress. How do they do it? The answer to that is an expressive and compelling one. May I suggest, out of my own deep conviction and the conviction, I hope, of honourable members, that the answer to that question is, "God only knows." Is there any evidence of the selfless devotion of these good people? Usually none, since these very real human dramas take place within the confines of residences. At this point, I direct my attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Department of HeaUh makes available to these people a domiciliary allowance of $3 a day in an effort to encourage them to stay home and look after invalids in the house. I feel, with great conviction, that that is totally inadequate, and that to provide anything less than $10 a day is really not understanding the problem at aU. What concerns me most of aU is the hospital mentaUty that many of us have; the feeling that once our aged get beyond a certain age, they are naturally and inevitably destined to spend their life in a nursing home. I do not accept that argument. Rather, the resources of our society should be dedicated towards encouraging famiUes to look after their aged and invaUds at home. What can honourable members do? May I suggest that, having due regard for the limitations imposed by residential privacy, this House will be increasingly alerted to the recognition of the quite often uncomplaining plight of those people who, in their private home, care for those suffering long-term sickness. What we are looking at here is not some 9 to 5 sinecure or baby-sitting situation. This is largely an unknown world and almost inconceivable in its demands, a place of duty where one is totaUy on call and mentally and physically prepared and capable of meeting the very survival needs of another human, day and night, 24 hours a day. And when that is done, the compellirtg and cmshing cycle of events starts all over again. It calls for little imagination to see that this kind of commitment to a fellow human being contains aU the mgredients required to produce another physical or mental casualty— that is, unless some well-organised and suitably funded aid is urgently brought to bear on the problem. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am therefore asking honourable members to address themselves to the matter of what is becoming more widely known as respite care. In other words, the ways and means of ensuring that the good Samaritans of whom I have spoken may have some prospect of "getting a break", both literally and metaphorically. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, honourable members are aware that much work is already being done by relatives, friends, service organisations such as the Blue Nurses and the like in providing relief periods for those who care for the incapacitated. Much more help is needed. Nursing homes are able sometimes to provide temporary beds for aged and invalid patients, but even this resource has relocation problems and is difficult to secure with any degree of certainty. It has also become progressively costly. What I am proposing, therefore, is a much needed inquiry into the field of respite care. Tbat investigaticm, wherever possible, will give some understanding of the dimensions of this problem and a greater measure of extension and co-ordination of the work already being undertaken, at least where it is acceptable to those people already involved. One sees the needs of those ertgaged irt constant attendance on invalids as being quite diverse. Some may just wish the comparative luxury of being able to enjoy, at appropriate intervals, 24 hours to rest undisturbed, attend tP their personal business, visit relatives and friends, go shopping, etc. Others, who may have been involved in care over a period of years, may weU need weeks of complete rest or holidays in which to refresh and restore themselves. In the extreme case, there could well be people of no lesser couscience or comjpassion who may be seeking to extricate themselves—and understandably so—^from a domestic predicament that they are no longer capable of sustaining either from exhaustion or a real fear that they are no longer compatible and thus putting their invalid charge at risk. It is time that Governments stopped talking about pourmg every cent of the health.,dollar into nursing homes and started talking about how the comrnunity cart keep relatives at home Homes for the Aged BiU 6 March 1984 1829 and support them at home. The concept of home support is not a new one but, sadly, it is neglected. The place in which people feel most comfortable, most at home and most cared for is in their own home. I caU on the Commonwealth Health Department and this Govemment to carry out the following steps. Firstly, the domiciliary aUowance should be increased urgently. This aUowance, which is currently $3 a day, should be increased to at least $10 a day. There is a degree of opportunity in famUies for a family member to remain at home and care for aged relatives. This does not become a drain on the State but actually saves the State money. It is the hospital mentaUty that most people have that makes us insist on putting our aged in nursing homes rather than attempting to care for them at home. The second need that I see is for benefits to be increased for those who give up work to remain at home. Under the Fraser Government, there was an extension of many of the benefits for those people. The special benefit is currently equivalent to an age pension and these people are now entitled to free medical and dental care. However, the whole range of benefits avaUable to them must be considered. That could extend to granting them free travel on the public transport system so that they can have a break away from the duties they are performing. Thirdly, I think that it is time that a study was made into the cortcept of mobile home support task forces. The QE II hospital is near my electorate. Rather than people going to the hospital, an opportunity exists to take the hospital to the people. I would lUce to see a few home support task forces set up. A task force would consist of a trained nurse assisted by a nursing aide. Its job would be to call on the homes of a number of people in an area who are in need of medical care and support but who remain at home. Lastly, I think that a famUy advisory service should be set up to help allay the fears that many people face when they decide to care for a relative at home. I now bring to the attention of the House two types of problems, instances of which have arisen in my electorate in recent months. The problems should receive Govemment attention. One example concerns two senior citizens, one aged 83 and the other aged 84, residirtg in Tenby Street, Mt Gravatt, just beside my electorate office. The lady, who is 83, suffered a stroke in front of Coles New World at Mt Gravatt and fell and broke her hip. She was admitted to a nursing home at Greeubank. Her husband, aged 84, is in quite good health but could not be admitted to a nursing home because he was not ill enough to be certified worthy of admission. One member of the family was confined to a nursing home at Greenbank while the husband of the family was living and trying to support himself in a home at Tenby Street, Mt Gravatt. For ages, other persons and I have been trying to get those people together. However, no real facilities exist to enable that to be done. It is time that some sort pf motel accommodation associated with nursing homes was established. Couples could be housed in such accommodation instead of being split up as I have mentioned. I also want to direct the attention of the House to a family who live in Canterbury Street, Mt Gravatt. That family consists of a lady, who is aged 83 years and who is sufferirtg from a wide variety of health problems, and her son, who suffers from spasticity on the left side of his body. In an act of graciousness, another of the woinan's sons gave up his job and decided to stay at home to care for both his brother and his mother. That is not an easy task. It is one that took a great deal of commitment. The sad feature is that the. Commonwealth has decided not to pay the $3 a day domicUiary aUowance to the son who is looking after his brother and his mother. That is a grave miscarriage of justice. I noted with interest the comment of the honourable member for IpsWich West that it is time that the Government sat down and talked about the funds avaUable at Federal level in the health budget. I take up the hortourable member's challertge and say to him that I hope that he and his fellow-members, who belong to the same political party as the members of the Government in Canberra, sit down and talk to the Federal Government but that when they talk to it they not do so with a nursing home mentaUty. They should talk to their Federal colleagues with an open mind and support schemes that are designed to keep aged people at home. That is where aged people are most comfortable, that is where they want tp be and that is where, I suspect, the vast majority want to die. 1830 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

I have cared for a member of our family for four and a half years in exactly the type of sUuation about which I have spoken, so I speak not simply because of an academic interest but from a great deal of personal experience and with personal commitment. When honourable members speak about nursing homes they do a grave disservice to themselves and to the community if they believe that nursirtg homes are restricted to the aged. It is time that members looked at the needs of the severely handicapped. I support fully the honourable member for Ipswich West in his comments to the effect that the particular needs of the dying requhe attention. The hospitaUsation in unfamiliar surroundings of people who are put there to die is a regrettable blight on our society. These days, society has a throw-away mentality. It started with throw-away papers, it went to throw-away cans and bottles and now, somewhat sadly, it has arrived at the ultimate indecency—throw-away people. Certainly many people in nursing homes are there for a very real and important reason, but hundreds of people should not be in nursing homes at all. Instead they should be at home being cared for by their families. However, because their families do not have the resources, the confidence or the training, that cannot be done. That is a grave injustice. One additional area of need requires urgent and comprehensive investigation. I refer to the need for some form of respite care for parents and teenage children who are in conflict. I am impressed with the shelter concept similar to that being conducted by the brothers and nuns in the Roman Catholic church at Sunnybank and Woodridge. They maintain a home at which shelter is provided for adolescent boys and girls who seek temporary escape from a situation of conflict in their home. I conclude by saying that I am, at all appropriate times, prepared to receive and collate any information on the subject of respite care. Should honourable members so wish, I will attend—^and chair, if necessary—any private or public discussions that may be proposed. I sincerely wish to thank my good friends George and Betty Sharkey of Mt Gravatt for their assistance in this matter, I also place on record my sincere thanks to organisations such as the Blue Nurses and various church mirustries that are involved in the care for the aged. But most of all I thank the House for having listened to me with courtesy and sUence, Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (5.5 p.m.): As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Ipswich West, the Opposition supports the Bill before the Assembly. It is timely that the name of the Act has been changed. It is fitting that the Charitable Institutions Management Act has been replaced by the Homes for the Aged Act, which relates very closely and specifically to the aged. The change of name and other measures, such as the control of traffic within aged persons homes, wiU be supported. Because of the problems experienced in Rockhampton there is a need to ensure that the Traffic Act is extended to cover traffic within aged persons homes. The provision relating to trust funds was expected, because in "Eventide" Sandgate and "Eventide" Charters Towers the residents put their money into funds. As the Minister considers this matter further, I ask him to ensure that those persons who contribute to the funds are able to have some say in the expenditure of the interest earned. Moneys in the trust fund shall be applied as directed by the resident, otherwise it would seem that management would have tbe total say as to what would happen to those funds, although it has been pointed out by the Minister that they are to be used to provide amenities. Because there has been a move in the "Eventide" homes throughout Queensland to set up resident committees and support committees, I hope that at least those organisations that represent the residents have some say. There is a need for dialogue to take place with the residents. Many years ago, following representations made to me by the aged for the purchase of a billiard table, I spoke to a former Minister for Health. He saw nothing wrong with that proposal. Ultimately an area was set aside near an old kUchen complex and a biUiard- room was set up. The billiard table may not be used in the way in which Charltort and others would use it, but I can assure honourable members that tbe residents have a great deal of fun. Any honourable member who thinks that he is good on the felt should come to "Everttide" Rockhampton and be tested out by some of the residents at eight-ball. Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1831

billiards, or snooker. I ask the Minister to allow some participation by the residents in determining how the money should be spent. They should be allowed to consider the type of amenities that they set as their priorities, Mr Austin interjected, Mr WRIGHT: That is so in theory. However, I notice that the Bill states "by direction" I suppose that means direction by the Minister to the management. The Bill contains a provision relating to the power to accept gifts. Through my service club, I am involved wUh a group in Rockhampton called Care. It is considering the purchase of a pianola. At the moment the women's committee of my service club is raising the money required. In the past, members of my club have contributed to the cost of dances and offered assistance. However, at a recent meeting one question was raised as to what would happen if a pianola was purchased and it was not used. Is it possible for management to dispose of it? A long time ago the members of my service club also purchased a push-button organ. I do not know whether U is being used or whether U was sold. There is a need for control over gifts. I know that that provision in the Bill will be welcomed. The Bill contains a measure that relates to anyone who refuses or fails to allow an inspection to take place. That is a vital provision. It ensures that anyone who tries to stop an official visitor or anyone else carrying out an inspection faces a penalty. I draw to the notice of the House that the maximum penalty is only $500. Mr Underwood: You would expect them to lose their licence? Mr WRIGHT: I make the point that complaints could be lodged about the quality of food, the treatment of patients— Mr Austin: It only appUes to Government institutions. Employees in private institutions can be sacked. Mr WRIGHT: What control is there over the 151 institutions in Queensland if they refuse to let an inspector in? What can the Minister do about it? Mr Austin: There are enormous powers under the Health Act. Mr WRIGHT: I hope that they could be exercised. It is very difficult to pursue some issues because they pertain mainly to overcrowding. People have been placed on verandas. I recall that not far from the Minister's electorate people were "put downstairs" because of the pressure placed on accommodation. It would appear to me that a reasonable and balanced approach should be taken in this matter. I do not want people to be fined because of an acute accommodation shortage. Surely some controls must be exercised over the quality of accommodation provided and the services rendered to the aged. In the Minister's second-reading speech he stressed that the Government has an exceUent record and has recognised the need to provide facilities and services for the elderly. I applaud the establishment of a program of geriatric rehabilitation and the development of assessment unUs and day hospital facilities in the provincial cities and the metropolitan area. The staff involved are committed to caring for tbe aged and are especially sensitive to the needs and expectations of the aged. Credit must go to the Health Department and those involved in this type of health care program. Also, credit must go to the Federal and State Governments for the support programs for those aged people who desire, or who are required, to stay at home. I refer to the home care services. Assistance needs to be given continually to the chronically ill and the disabled in their homes. The supportive services that have been introduced over a period, such as the supply of oxygen, wheel-chairs and other facilities, have certainly been recognised by the Opposition artd I also applaud them. I recognise and applaud that part of the Government's role, but I question whether or no^ it has a record that is worth while applauding in the provision of nursing homes. I do not thmk the Government has anything to crow about in that regard. I am well aware that the Government can say that it is a matter of Federal Government negotiations and guide-lmes and that there are still some disputes about funding, subsidies and what in fact will be approved nursing homes. The Government has to start to reaUse that there is a serious 1832 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU problem. I suggest that throughout Queensland the accommodation of the aged is almost at a crisis stage. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the aged can be cared for in the home, because there are clear limitations on home care. They could include distance, isolation in some small area with a low population or a lack of avaUabUity of back-up support from members of the family, not because they do not love the aged folk or do not care for the aged mother or father, but simply because they realise that the quaUty of life in the total family is being adversely affected by the presence of that aged person. In many instances people just do not have the necessary skills. Often, they do not have the time. Parents must look after young chUdren and do not have the time to care for their aged relatives. Others simply cannot carry out their responsibilities because of work schedules; for instance some are on night work. Simply because of the lack of rooms in a home, there is a Umited ability to accommodate aged people. As aU honourable members know, most Queensland houses have either three bedrooms or two bedrooms and a sleep-out. FamUies with daughters and sons need three rooms. No aged person likes being put out on the verartda; rtor do children, especially when they reach the age when study is important. They need to be able to carry out their responsibilities too. So, because of the number of rooms— simply the accommodation factor—there is a limit on the abiUty to maintain home care. Even the structure of Queensland homes works adversely against home care. Many aged people simply cannot live in some Queensland houses because they are on stumps. Elderly people are unable to negotiate those stairs and, because they become isolated in the home itself, they find life difficult. Unless the house is low and has a suitable ramp, they find it extremely difficult to move round artd they become non-ambulent. Admittedly the attitude of the aged themselves is important. Many elderly people are very, very proud and do not want to be cared for by families; they want to be on their own. I appreciate that problem very much. When my grandmother died, her body was not found for something like 28 hours. She had a stroke, had fallen out of her bed and died in misery, in tremendous pain. My grandmother lived well away from me and other relatives and was cared for by one of ber neighbours, who happened to go away for the week-end. I am sure that many honourable members have suffered the experience of a loved one who has died because of the inadequacy of home care. It is not because the service is inadequate but simply because it is impossible to maintain 24-hour care for these people. In the many years that have passed since my grandmother's death, I have often wondered whether she could have been saved had she been in an aged persons home. I also point out that she did not want to go to one. She was an independent person; she wanted to live in her smaU cottage because it was her home. The neighbours lived some distance away and she could not caU out. As a result, she died a death of misery. Community health workers have told me of other cases of old folk who have fallen out of baths or beds and have broken their hip artd virtually starved for almost two days before somebody has fouud them. There is also the general attitude of relatives. It is not a question of lack of love, but it comes down to the fact that relatives simply cannot cope with the sUuation. Relatives have come to me and said that they would love to keep mum or dad but that to do so would totally destroy everything in the family, and sometimes even the marriage. So I stress that when the physical deterioration is added to the stress factor, wbich is a major factor because the aged people cannot cope and the relatives cannot cope, it is not good enough that there are only three State nursirtg homes irt Queertslartd. It is not good enough that they are in such widely separated areas of the State. It is not good enough that some of the facts and statistics have shown that, despite the growth in the number of the aged in recent years, the number of people actually being catered for in those homes has dropped relative to the population growth. I believe that years ago at Sandgate the figure was about 900, bUt now it has dropped to about 500. The same thing has happeued in Rockhampton, not because the Government was trying to push people out but because it was trying to improve the quality of life for people in the home. I fully supported that idea. One of the community health doctors drew my attention to the situation, and I backed him in his proposal to try to increase the amount of space in some of the wards. But, in doirtg that, the Government had to cut down the numbers. In improving the lot. of the residents, it increased the waiting list. - There is art ongoing problem in trying to accommodate the State's needs in the three State nursing homes and also in the private nursing homes. I say to the Minister that there is an urgent need to meet with the Federal Government to, put pressure on.the authorities Homes f6r the Aged BiU 6 March 1984 1833 to ensure that the guide-lines can be set, to ensure that moneys are available to start increasing accommodation and ward numbers for the aged throughout the Stated The waiting Ust is huge. I do not know the actual figures at present, but it was not so long ago that it was at least six months for women in Rockhampton, and for men, too. I do not want to be parochial, but I have a responsibility to promote Rockhampton's case. The home there is very old. The cottages are archaic, but they are clean. The staff are committed and are very sensitive to the needs of the patients, but it is a very old place. I am concerned about D ward, which is sometimes, unfortunately, called the drunks* ward. Some of the men would never want to leave because it is a home away from home; but, really, no ordinary person would cop it. If one looked at it as accommodation for a children's camp, one would not have it. One would not allow people to live in some of the cottages. They are very old, and must be upgraded. In my area there is a very real need to embark upon a major reconstruction program to upgrade and expand the services that are provided. As I said, the waiting lists are extremely long, and there is a need to acknowledge the problems that will arise with home care services. The Government simply cannot fund those types of services to meet everybody's needs. The member for Mt Gravatt (Mr Henderson) mentioned earlier how desirable it is for people to live with their families. I have seen it in aU parts of the world. In Korea, Taiwan and mainland China I saw the emphasis on the young looking after the aged. But there are Umitations on how far one can expect relatives to care and how far one can expect community services to meet the demands and needs of home care patients. There is an immediate need to upgrade the number of nursing homes in the State. I realise that Brisbane's needs must be met, as should Toowoomba's. Rockhampton must be expanded, and TownsviUe must be considered. The solution simply canrtot be left to the privately owned nursing homes. I say that for a number of reasons. I was concemed at the recent criticism of private hospitals, which are in many ways acting as pseudo nursing-homes. Some time ago I pointed out that these doctor-owned homes or hospitals are charging the chronically iU up to $136 a day or $952 a week. In Canberra at the week-end I took part in a discussion about how dear motel accommodation was in that city. But one can still obtain very high-class accommodation in one of the best motels, with two meals, for under $100 a day. Yet here we have Queenslanders, aged people who cannot care for tbemselves, being charged $136 a day, in many cases for poor quality accommodation. It is certainly not motel standard accommodation, and yet they are being charged almost $1,000 a week. The vast majority of these so-called private hospitals are really looking after chronically ill people—not acutely Ul—and I suppose the legal question arises: how can they do it? Originally it was provided that after 60 days they had to pay an additional fee in public hospitals and in hospitals generally. It appears to me that someone is falsifying the records or the categories. If people are chronically iU, not acutely iU, the subsidy is lower. I do not want to start a campaign against doctors—although I may be accused of doing iSO—^because • of the way they have not been caring for i)eople generally. They are able to rip off the system, not the individual aged person, by charging almost $1,000 a week when the vast majority of nursing homes charge $40 a day, or less than $300 a week. I A) not know what the Minister can do about that. I do not know whether he has any control. However, I do know that in the latter part of the proposed legislation, under regulations, reference is made clearly to fees and charges by homes for the aged for patient accommodation, medical nursing and anciUary services. If that aM>lies only to "Eventide" at Charters Towers, Rockhampton and Sandgate, it should be changed. If the Minister has the power—and I beUeve he should be given it—to contrcd the fees charged in pubUc homes, he should have power extended to him to supervise and control the fees charged in other homes throughout the State, because people are being ripped off. I know that doctors believe they are giving a special type of care. After talking to the relatives of patients, I know that the care is what one would expect to be given in an ordinary nursing home. The patients are chronically iU, not acutely ill. On that basis, I cannot believe that a charge of almost $1,000 a week can be in any way substantiated. 1834 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

I spoke earlier of the need for the Federal and State Govemments to get together. I do not know the reason for the breakdown or why the guide-lines have not been deter­ mined; I do not know the reason for the hold-up. It is not the bureaucrats or the poUticians who are suffering but the tens of thousands of aged and chronically ill Australians who desperately need nursing care. The other people suffering are the families of the aged who are forced to go beyond their ordinary commitments to try to care for the aged in their homes. Priority should be given to this matter. No aged person should be forced to live with relatives. The aged should be given the best possible care, either in a home or in their own residences. Surely that is an argument for increasing the number of nursing accommodation units throughout the State. I do not want to see a continuation of beds on the veranda or people being put downstairs, but I cannot accuse the nursing homes of not doing their jobs or carrying out their responsibUities when there is no alternative. I should like to take on one home at which the person in charge needs a touch-up. but there is nowhere else for the people to go. I am also cognisartt of the fact that the vast majority of workers irt the nursing homes are very sensible, committed people. That is true throughout the State. The quality and variety of service rendered throughout the State is of paramount imx>ortance. I bave had arguments about the quality of food and about the lack of care and attentipn given to aged men who are left in urine-stained trousers for hour after hour. The staff members in nursing homes are overworked. They have so many people to care for that they simply cannot cope. Opposition members could call for an inquiry, but I do not know that that is the answer. I am sure that the Minister is concerned. He brought forward this measure to try to improve the situation legislatively. The dedicated people mnning these homes must be backed. The Government must ensure that people are put first, and that those who put profit first are dealt with. The demand on nursing homes must be reduced by expanding home care and by providing new accommodation. I have one point to make about "Eventide" at Rockhampton. As Leader of the Opposition, I do not often have a chance to speak about local issues, but today I ask the Minister to carefully consider the further upgrading of recreational facilities at "Even­ tide" at Rockhampton. For some time, a few of the older occupants have been saying to me that they would Uke a one-rink bowUng green. Apparently "Eventide" at Sandgate has that faciUty, but I do not know. When I was at "Eventide" at Rockhampton recently, I looked round the back and saw that there is room for a one-rink bowUng green. I am prepared—and I make this comment pubUcly, especially for the Minister's benefit—^to use Rockhampton service clubs to assist in the provision of a raised, indoor bowUng plank, I have seen a diagram of something that is used in New Zealand. Aged men and women are able to stand up, send the bowl down, and the bowl is returned by a device down the side of the rink. The service club is prepared to fund the project. We knew that legislation deaUng with moneys, trusts and so on was being introduced. I would like the Minister to send one of his officers to Rockhampton to speak with me and with some of the aged men to see what can be done. More cottages are needed. Other cottages need to be modernised. Work is needed on the verandas because most of them are unprotected. In wild and windy weather, the verandas are a very unpleasant place to be. Just as the Government has been able to encourage the community to come to "Eventide" and to work with Mrs Gky Milder and her staff in a very proper and effective way, I ask it to act in this area. I know that local service groups will subsidise any moneys that the Government provides; A bowling green is needed. Recreation faciUties need to be upgraded. I have made niy plea for Rockhampton. I support the legislation in principle. I make a final plea that every effort be made to increase the amount of accommodation available, particularly nursing homes, for the aged.

Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (5.26 p.m.); Our spokesman has said that the Oppositiort supports the Bill, although it is very much a change-of-name Bill. Very little benefit wiU accrue from any developmental programs that are provided under this legislation. Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1835

In introducing the legislation, the Minister said— ". the Government has recognised the important need to provide facilities and services for the growing number of elderly citizens in this State " In many ways, the Minister, in his speech, crows about how well the Govemment is doing m providing programs for the aged. Of course, the facts are different. The 1982 Grants Commission report shows that funding by Queensland of programs for the aged and the infirm was more than' 60 per cent less than the Australian average on a per capita basis. It means that the Government provides fewer subsidies for rate rebates and bus fare concessions and for helping to provide home care and Meals on Wheels. On a per capita basis, the whole process is worse in Queensland than in any other State. I note that the Minister is shaking his head. I shall look at the assistance given for home care. Since I have a been a member of this Chamber, I have noted some rather startling changes in this field. Originally, there was a hardening of the Government's attitude. It tried to push home-care patients on to their families. That became a positive policy. If a patient had a family, the care had to be provided by his family. The Commonwealth Government halved its rate or subsidy, from $2 for $1 to $1 for $1, What did the State Government do? It actually saved money. Services that were formerly pro­ vided weekly, were provided fortnightly, and much more severe means-testing was introduced. People who were receiving slightly less than the age or invalid pertsiort, or who had meagre savings in the bank, were disqualified from receiving benefits. That was ridiculous. The most ridiculous case occured in my own electotate. Two old sisters lived a few hundred yards apart. Unlike the member for Mt Gravatt, I shall not give their ages or the street in which they live. One of them broke, her leg, and she moved in with her sister. They were both in receipt of home-care assistance. When one moved in with the other, both of them were disqualified from receiving home-care assistance. That was the most outlandish proposition that I had ever seen. Their aggregate incomes were lumped together and they were disqualified from receiving assistance. This Government's record in the home-care field is abysmal. It has been penny-pinching, and it should be condemned most strongly. I congratulate the people who provide the geriatric services. They are very good people. They do a good job under the conditions. The Government is responsible for setting the guide-lines, and tbe buck has to stop with the Government. I wish to make an observation that is arguably correct and with which people should not argue. Programs for the aged that are provided by both the Federal and State Govern­ ments have not changed in any real sense for the past 30 years. Programs for the aged have an institutional bias. Too much importance is placed on providing funds for institutions and not enough on domiciUary care services that wUl keep people in their own homes and local commuruties. For many years the Federal Government has spent almost 94 per cent of its vast budget of $600m or $700m on nursing home and hospital accommodation and only 6 per cent on providing services for keeping the aged in their own familiar environments. That is very unfortunate. The domiciliary care allowance of $3 a day is necessary but I am concerned that, because people do not have the Blue Nurses caUing to help them care for their infirm partners and aged relatives, they are not aware that such an allowance is payable. It should be publicised. For over a year, a lady in my electorate looked after her husband, who was suffering from cancer. He lingered on and on and it was only after she found it impossible to care for him, in the last six weeks of his life, that the Blue Nurses came in. She was then told that she could apply for the allowance. The Blue Nurses applied for it. She received two payments after he died, but has to pay that money back. She cannot afford to. What concerns me is that she did not know that she was entUled to the allowance. I join with other honourable members in congratulating the voluntary sector for what it is doing for the aged. In my electorate many organisatiorts are caring for and concerned about the aged. As an example, I mention the East Brisbane Community Centre which has a interlink program through which people take the responsibiUty of befriendirtg aged persons. About 20 people are involved in that program. It has no special structure but the volunteers attend to the aged people daily, are supportive of them and become their friends. It is a marvellous program. 1836 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

This Govemment—^indeed any Govemment—should take an irtterest in day care centres; they are absolutely vUal. Day hospital care exists, and it is marveUous, but there should be day care centres to give assistance to the locked-in aged persons. They cannot go to. senior citizens centres but could go to a day care centre, have a meal, enjoy social intercourse and become involved in programs that would get them out of the doldrums. It is time that the State Government found the funds to do much more to support the voluntary sector, particularly with regard to day care centres. I am concerned that Meals on Wheels programs are struggling. Recently the one in West End closed down because it could not get a cook and fooUshly tried to pay a full-time cook. Of course, its funds did not allow for that luxury. Luckily the commumty got together, public meetings were held and two other Meals on Wheels programs in the area have, in a short time, shared the load. The people involved should be congratulated. I am concerned that, if the waiting-Usts for nursirtg homes irtcrease and if the predominance of profit-making nursing homes continues, Queensland could fall into the trap that the United States of America fell into. The record of private nursing home care in the USA is absolutely abysmal. I have heard reports of intimidation of old people in those nursing homes. Because the nursing staff wiU not look after the patients, they are getting bed sores. These reports are coming in regularly. The staff at the private nursing homes tell the wives or husbands or children of the patients that they have a waiting-list a mile long so they can put up with the care that is offered or do what they like. The market system is not working in the USA because whUe the waiting-lists are large, the homes are abusing the system. That concerns me. Philosophically, of course, I support only two types of nursing home care; the religious and charitable homes and tbe State-funded homes. The Greek community set up a nursing home in the Highgate HiU area. It is conducted on the basis that the Commonwealth Govemment picks up the losses. It is not conducted on the basis that the residents in the home pay 87^ per cent of their pension. They have the dignity of possessing money to buy the things that they need. They do not have to ask their children for them. People lose dignity when they have to beg for money to buy soap or medicines, and they lose dignity when they do not have money to buy presents for their grandchildren. When residents in a nursing home are required to pay more than their pension for their accommo­ dation, they find themselves in a situation in which they lose their dignity. I am concerned at the lack of nursing home care for aged members of our community. I am pleased to see that the Bill makes provision for an official visitor. Some matrons and other persons in charge at nursing homes intimidate their elderly residents. Apparently two philosophies prevail in the management of nursing homes. Some managers believe that old people are doddery, really do not know what is going on and therefore have to be bullied rather than cajoled and pushed rather than helped. I am told of aged persons who are intimidated and made to feel that they are merely pieces of furniture. They tend to lose their individuality and self-respect. Some managers of nursing homes adhere to that philosoi^y and, by^o doing, cause distress to the residents. It is time that both the State Government and the Federal Govemment stopped merely paying lip-service to care for the aged. Governments should develop the type of programs that are needed. The poorer members of our aged society are not simply those in receipt of social security benefits but also those who have to pay rent. Very little is being done to provide adequate accommodation for them or to give them the support that wiU enable them to live in their own homes. I applaud the Labor Party's poUcy of creating mobUe granny flats. I suggest that the Queensland Government put on the Labor Party's best clothes; it might even steal that policy from the Australiau Labor Party artd run with it. The Government should provide accommo­ dation for aged persons at a price that they can afford. For those persons who remain in their own homes, the Government should provide assistance and support. The Government is too mean and penny-pinching in the provision of resources for home care. It provides very Uttle support for the voluntary sector, without whose help most programs would collapse, thereby resulting in a total disaster in the community. It is time that the Government looked again at the development programs that are relevant to the 1980s in the care of the aged and infirm. Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1837

Mr BURNS (Lytton) (5.38 p.m.): I share the concern of aU other honourable members about the problems experienced in trying to care for the aged and in the conduct of homes for aged persons. As the Minister knows, an excellent State Govemment nursing care unit, the Moreton Bay Nursmg Care Unit, functions in the Lytton electorate. Many people believe that, because that nursing home is in my electorate, they have only to write to me or telephone me to gain admission to the home. People believe that I, as the local MP, have some magical way of gaining admission for them. In many instances, people write to their local member and subsequently say to themselves, "The home is in Tom Burns's electorate, so we wUl write to him." What that does is make me acutely aware of the long waiting-list of people who are trying to gain admission to nursing homes. I accept the argument that the community should try to keep people in their own homes for as long as possible and out of the nursing homes. However, there comes a time when mum and dad cannot care for themselves and when kids cannot care for mum and dad. So the parents have to be domiciled somewhere. On many occasions when I am trying to gain admission to a nursing home for someone, I have a little bet with myself. A Government Member: Do you win? Mr BURNS: Yes, I win almost every time. I bet myself that if I telephone every nursing home in Brisbane and ask whether a bed is available immediately for someone who is seeking nursing home accommodation, the answer will be, "No." As I said, I nearly always win. The only other way is to read the death notices in the newspaper. If a person has died in a nursing home and one telephones that nursing home, one finds that the bed has been fiUed before the call was made. Although the resident may have died yesterday and the funeral notice appeared in the newspaper this morning, because the operators of the nursing home receive an allocation per day per bed, the body of the deceased person has been sent to the morgue or placed m a holding area and another person has been allocated the bed. Even though it sounds callous, I have no grouch about that. Those beds are needed. As the Minister said, I write many letters to hun on behalf of constituents and people from all parts of the State who write to me about the Moreton Bay Nursing Care UnU, which is an exceUcrtt home operated by the State Govemment. It is a beautiful, happy place. If at some stage during my life I had to be admitted to a nursirtg home, I would Uke to be admitted to the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit. Matron Farrell and her staff are marvellous people. Through the Colmslie Trust, I have a great deal to do with them. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr BURNS: The honourable member is probably taking me away from the comments that I was going to/make. It is true that many of us wUl probably be too old. Has the honourable member ever thought about the people who are too young to be admitted to such a place? A young man who is about 21 or 22 years of age and who resides in my electorate was compelled from birth to live his Ufe in a wheelchair or with the aid of mechanical devices. He said to me, "My mother and father are getting too old to care for me. My mother and father will probably ertd up in a nursing home. What will happen to me? Where will I go when I am 25 or 26? What future do I have?" He will not be admUted to the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit because his circumstances do not fall within the services provided by that organisation. In many homes, which are Umited in number, no provisiort is made for incapacitated persons or persons in need of fuU-time care and assistartce. It is true that I might be too old when the time comes, but there are many people in the community who are too young to be admitted to the type of nursing homes that are being buUt. We should look more closely at what we are doing and where we are going as far as those people are concerned. One of my closest experiences with nursing homes has resulted from my involvement with the Moreton Bay Nursing Care UnU and the Colmslie Hotel Tmst, which conducts Christmas parties at that nursing home. From time to time, the trust purchases equipment that wUl provide assistance to the home. 62182—65 1838 6 Man;h 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

Many people placed in nursirtg homes are divorced completely from their families. Quite tmthfuUy, to some U is just a way of getting rid of mum and dad; to others it is a place that they visit, provide assistance and show that they care. Some marvellous people visU those homes, such as Red Cross and other community organisations, whose members sing and dance. Young children from schools visU the homes to sing, and play in their bands. When the families are invited to the many functions that are conducted, very few turn up. Those aged persons can be divorced from the community, In some cases a social worker will say, "We do not want them institutiOnaUsed. But I say we need more nursing care centres." A further eight or nine acres of land is avaUable adjacent to the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit. I know that the matron and Pthers may say that it would make the home too big. However, people are queueing up for the beds that are available. Most of the persons who write to me stating that they want to be admitted to the Moreton Bay home die before there is ever a chance of their admission to that home. Mr Wright: The waiting-list is so long.

Mr BURNS: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. In the electorate of Lytton, Nazareth House is conducted by the Poor Sisters of Nazareth. The home is being extended. The Uniting Church conducts Pleasantville and WesleyViUe in a caring situation. Another organisation works from a small house at Morningside. The Blue Nurses organisation operates out of Pleasantville. The St Luke Nurses work in the area, too. Many .commimity organisations work in my area. In the 12 years that I have been a member of Parliament, never have I been able to say to. the family of a man or,woman in need of immediate nursirtg care that I could provide immediate help. I do npt like the situation in which the hospitals say to a family, "You have to get mum and dad out pf there." I know that it has been denied 100 times that they are sent home, but I have been tOld by persons in the hospitals system that they must go. I can understand their problem; because of the acute accommodation problem, all beds are occupied. Because the Government has made no ptovisiPn for further nursirtg home beds, there is nowhere to put them, ko people are told that they have to get their parent out of the hospital. That happens not only with State hospitals but also with the repatriation hospital. On one occasion a lady in a position of responsibility at Kenmore said to me that she would put an old person in a cab and send him home. That does not display much heart. It is not much of a community if a person's mother or father cannot be cared for at home and the family is placed in the position in which there are no private nursing-home beds and no public nursing-home beds available. If they are really honest with themselves, the State Government, especiaUy, and probaWy to some degree the Federal Government—I have not really looked at the Federal Government's involvement—must admit that, in the areas of domiCiUary care and Meals on Wheels, they have bludged ou those volunteers who have worked so very hard, especially those in Meals on Wheels. Most of the Meals on Wheels organisations that start out with great heart and great enthusiasm are run by people who grow older and then there is a dearth of drivers. The little bU of subsidy that the Government gives them just keeps them going and that is all. Surely when the Government knows the rteed is there, it should realise that this is the cheapest way of providing some help. Meals on Wheels deserves more support, both physically and financially. I cannot understand why the Government ever reduced the amount of money for domi­ ciliary care by those who would do a little bit of washing, ironing, transporting people around or doing their shopping and things of that nature. The Government was paying a few lousy bucks per hour to women who were earning a little bit of money to spend on their own kids. However, they were giving a great deal of help and happiness to people, and I cannot under­ stand why a government that is supposedly earning millions out of coal, oil and other great riches in this State cannot find money to care for those who have already made their contribution to the community. To me, the cutting back of the money in that regard could not be called simply a retrograde step; it was a lousy, rotten action—^there is just no other way to describe it! Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1839

The community depends very much on church groups. Those honourable members who have some involvement in their electorates with electoral visitor votes or postal voting at election time and who visit people in their electorates or go with the local Meals on Wheels have learnt,a lesson in life by seeing people who are very independently trying to care for themselves in their own homes. The Government should be trying to help those people. For instance, at one end of my electorate I have a very strong Uniting Church organisation that mns Pleasantville and the Blue Nurses, who help very much at Wynnum. At Momingside, Jan Qialmers and the other people at the Balmoral Uniting C3iurcb have done a great deal with very little money. They have had next to no assistance. Maybe it would be more in the interests of the people of Queensland if the Government would spend additional money in subsidising the efforts of these wonderful people. I have seen the balance sheets of some of the organisations and noticed the small amounts of money that they tum over. In many cases, they spend peanuts each year but do a tremendous amount of work for those who are in need. The Government needs to aUocate more from its Budget to help church groups, St Vincent de Paul, the Blue Nurses, the St Luke Nurses and all the others who help people who do not want to be put in a home. I can remember the former member for Toowoomba North (Dr Lockwood) making a plea in this place for more old people's homes in Toowoomba. I have spoken to people involved in nursing homes in my electorate about a point that he raised and they have said that it is quite true that, because there is a shortage of nursing-home beds, people start to line up mum and dad well before they need to go into a nursing home. So, because there is a long waiting-list, people put their parents into a nursing home as soon as there is a vacancy, which may be five or six months before they really need to. I am worried about what is happening in the community with those people who are starting what are called retirement villages. Some of the bludgers who have been around in the real estate industry and whom I have watched over the years have now tumed up as supposedly caring people concerned in nursing homes, particularly on the north and south coasts. The Uniting (3iurch mns Pleasantville and Wesleyville with contributions from the community and from the people in the homes. That helps to buy more homes and to extend greater care. Because there is no personal profit motive in it, that is great. They are doing that as a Christian mission to expand the care for aged people. However, when someone uses that same principle and decides to get people in on the basis that when they die a certain percentage of the home will revert to the management, the management is bludging on those old people; there is no other way to describe it. They should not be allowed to do that. That is not private enterprise. It is a miserable misuse of people's needs as they grow old. Finally, I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister's departmental officers who help so very much with the long list of people who come to me—^as I say, mostly from outside my electorate—seeking admission to the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit. The officers really are helpful. The Minister always writes back in a helpful way and says that people have been placed on the Ust. I would like to see the length of tbe Ust. I think it is a fairly standard letter stating that people have gone on the list, but it does give them a Uttle hope. There is a need for a couple of social workers who could try to convince people of the need to look elsewhere. Mr Austin interjected.

Mr BURNS: Yes, but more than anything else it would be a good opportunity to go into the home situation. A couple of people in a car could travel round and talk to people. In many cases people get to the stage where they are completely and utterly fmstrated. They know that their mother or father needs care that they cannot provide, but they cannot find an answer anywhere in the community. They have rung all the nursing homes but no beds are available. They come to me or to the Minister and, on many occasions, we fob them off with a poUte answer. At least we give them some hope, show them some Ught at the end of the tunnel. But what they really need is someone to sit down and explain the situation to them and see what can be done. The social workers in our hospitals have a major problem in trying to jget people out of the hospitals. Their urgent job is to move people from the Princess Alexandra Hospital or the Repatriation General Hospital irtto something else. 1840 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged Bill

A measure of the problem today is that people from my area have been shifted to a place called Hester Haven at Pimpama. I do not know what Hester Haven is Uke. I should imagine that it is a nice, modern nursing home, but the point is that it is weU out of town. It is a long way from where most people's relatives would live, and it is away from the pubUc transport network, Mr Underwood: It is Uke being sent to Siberia. No-one wants to go there.

Mr BURNS: I would not like to say that Hester Haven is Siberia, but if a pers

Mr BURNS: The honourable member suggests that U should be put in WaveU. I am pleased to have the steel miU in my area. It will provide more work. However, I should like it to be further away from the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit, and the residential areas. Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1841

The Government should act to help people. I have a great deal of trouble trying to cortvuice people to put their parents into Mt Olivet at Kangaroo Poirtt. In earUer days, Mt Olivet was known as the Mt Olivet HospUal for the Incurably Sick and Dying. That name has stuck. It should never have been named in that way. I am not criticising the church authorities, but people tell me, "I do not want to put mum in there. It is a place for the incurably sick and dying." It is a fact that virtuaUy no-one put into a nursing home comes out, other than when they pass on. But no-one likes to be told they are sick and dying. When the Government builds another nursing home it should try to give it a warm, friendly name. I like the way the matrons and staff of nursing homes go about their business. They try to convince everyone that a nursing home is not a place of isolation, that in being placed in the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit, Pleasantville or Nazareth House people are not dragged away from their famUies and put into isolation, but that they are entering a new way of living, a way of meeting other people in a new community. It is wonderful to see the great spirit at the Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit when people from the Princess Alexandra Hospital and others visit. The staff and volunteers try to make the residents feel part of a family. Visitors who watch the way the staff care for tbe residents get a wonderful, warm feeUng. Mr Austin: Are you Sauta Qaus? Mr BURNS: I do a Uttle of it. The honourable member for BuUmba also plays the part of Santa Qaus. A few other people have done so over the years. It gets very hot at Christmas-time. We all have a few beers, provide all the inmates with presents and try to show that we care for them. I do not know the answer, but more money must be spertt in caring for the frail aged. More people are living longer and more problems are confronting the famiUes that finaUy have to put mum or dad into a nursing home. It is all very weU to say that mum and dad should stay at home. In many irtstances, the families cannot keep them at home. In the circumstances, they need assistance. The present approach must be changed. [Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.] Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (7.15 p.m.): Before turning to the subject before the Chamber, I wish to compliment the member for Lytton for the concern that he expressed in this ntatter and also for the impeccable timing of his speech. In fact, he concluded his speech at 6 o'clock. The subject before the Chamber concerns nursing homes. Because nursing homes are situated in most members' electorates, members are concemed about them. There is a sort of universal problem in that regard. For many years, I have been associated with many families in the community who were responsible for housing their aged parents at a time when it was felt that they needed nursing care. For many years, "Eventide" Rockhampton was the only institutiort that was able to take large numbers of aged people. Of course, since then there has beert a growth in the number of private and Government establishments. Many aged residents from Rockhampton were accommodated in a centre at Stanwell outside Rockhampton which, for many years, was a clinic. The families of many of those aged people had to travel about 30 km to visit their parents, relatives or friends. They always expressed concern about the difficulty that they experienced in visiting those aged people at the centre in Stanwell. Over the years, efforts have been made to accommodate those aged people in centres nearer Rockhampton. I compliment the Government on the estabUshmcrtt of the new Norman Road 40-bed nursing home. An additional one is urtder construction. Perhaps one point that has not been raised yet is that, with modern medicine and techniques, people are living longer. Doctors and specialists are able to keep people alive for longer. We have missed the boat, to some extent, in not catering for them by buUding nursing homes. I agree with other members who have said that it is easy to say that a family should continue to care for its aged parents or grandparents in the home. Because of the present life-style, even small families are finding it difficult to care for their aged parents. Con­ sequently, they look for alternative accommodation for their aged parents so that they can be cared for at aU times. 1842 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

The base hospital in Rockhampton has a geriatric ward that is controUed by a local doctor. He does a very good job. He looks after the aged people irt that ward. He has the responsibUity for allocating other accommodation to them. He is a very firm believer in caring for aged parents in their home ertvirortment, and quite often he artd I cross swords on that question. My colleague the member for Rockhampton mentioned that it is not easy to overcome those problems. Over the years, "Eventide" has catered for: those aged people but, here again, it needs updating. It is worth mentioning that the facilities in Rockhamptort have to cater for people west to Emerald and Blackwater, south-west towards Gladstone, and east to the Capricom coast, which is fairly close to Rockhampton, and that taxes those facilities. The Norman Road Nursing Home is half completed and three complexes of 40 beds are to be constructed. Late last month, during constmction of the second stage of that nursing home, the building frame coUapsed on to the foundation. Interest was expressed by the local community as weU as the media. One of the main reasons for that interest was that pubUc money had been expended on this constmction but no Government spokesman wanted to talk about the accident or advise me, the media, or my coUeague the member of Rockhampton, what had transpired and what was beirtg done. Later the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Minister for Works and Housing about the accident and the Minister indicated that an inspectipn showed that the coUapse was caused by unsatisfactory erection work and insufficient bracing in the buildings. That was an admission of the mistakes made by the tenderer or contractor. To date, to my knowledge, the contractor has made no public statement. Tlie first section of the nursing home has been inspected foUowing the ccrilapse of the framework and everyone concerned has been assured that the building that is occupied is in a safe and well-constructed condition and nothing should happen to it. Although the Minister for Health is not involved with the funding of the building, he is responsible for the operation of the nursing home—I do not think that I am incorrect in saying that—and I suggest that he might take the trouble to make some irtquiries. I am concerned about the ongoing constmction. I am led to believe that the contractor who did the first stage also did the second stage, as is the pattem, and presumably wiU be tertdering for the third stage. I do not know whether the blame has been laid at the feet of the workers constructing the frames, of the foreman in charge of the operation, or of the contractor. Because pubUc money is being expended on this constmction, it is not good enough that no explanation has been given. The Minister for Works and Housing should take the trouble to teU the community what has happened to assure it that these things wiU not happen again. I would like to know whether the contractor discussed.what happened with departmental officers. An open and frank statement should be made to the public as to the outcome of the departmental irtvestigatiort. The subject of care for the aged is of concern to all members of ParUament' because we all have aged people in our electorates, and that wiU always be so. 1 can only reiterate the comments of other honourable members that there is a need for moire money to cater for aged people in the community. To this end the Minister for Health should be pursuing a hard line with the Treasurer and the Cabinet to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, his Budget aUocation is increased. The Minister must have at his disposal all the figures and statistics from throughout the State as to where people have applied for nursing home accommodation, particularly in Govemment-mn instituticms. A greater effort must be made by the Government in this very vital area of nursing care.

Mr CAHILL (Aspley) (7.24 p.m.): I rise to add my corttribution to the debaite on the Hoines for the Aged BiU. AU honourable members would agree that anythirtg that can be done for the aged should be done. I am sure that the Minister will state irt his reply that the entire House has commended everypne and everything that gets us along the way towards helping the aged pepple in our community. For some time it has been felt by almost all honourable members that a great need has existed for upgradirtg the faciUties for the aged. That is what this Bill seeks to do. The aged who are fortunate enough to be in the homes are cared for.extremely.well. Homes for the Aged BiU 6 March 1984 1843

My electorate of Asjrfey coiitains two homes for seraor citizens. They are the Uniting Church home and the Holy iSpirit home. They, Of course, are not under State jurisdiction; they receive Federal funding. I am sure that all honourable members would agree that the Federal Government should be pressed to make sure that its funding keeps up so that the splendid work that is done at places such as the Uniting Church home in Gympie Road and the Holy Spirit home a little farther on can continue. I am sure that all honourable members agree that the men and women who work in the aged persons' homes in Queensland deserve our highest commendation. Today they have been given it by many speakers. Of course, their job is an onerous one and not one that all of us" would want. Those men and women are dedicated to their task and they ought to be, and in fact are, supported by this Parliament. If I might digress for a moment from the principles of the Bill—I pay a tribute tp the work done in my electorate at the Uniting Church and Holy Spirit bomes. It is not often that members are givert a chance to say how good the staff in the nursing homes are and how gpod the work that they do is. Recently I visited "Eventide" Charters Towers—a place that is well outside my electorate. That borne is to be commended for the work it does in the splendid surroundings in which it sUs. This measure covers work to be done at "Eventide" Charters Towers. It woUld dp the hearts of aU honourable members good to see how the elderly folk of our State are cared, for at "Bventide" Charters Towers. I have an aunt who lives there, and I visited the place to see her. She is now the senior citizen in a community of senior citizens. She will be 99 years of age in a couple of months' time.She is extraordinarily happy in that place, looked after by the Government, of Queensland. She has been there for approximately 16 or 17 years. She is indeed happy .to remain there, and she is. very happy with the work that is being done for heir. I, as her next-in-Une relative, also commend the manager, the nurses and the staff of ''Eventide'* Charters Towers for the work that they do. Of course, they would like more money. Who wouldn't? However, this Government is endeavouring to make sure that the homes for our elderly citizens are upgraded and continue to be upgraded, so that the people who have to be in tbem, for whatever reason, are looked after. One of the things that have to come out of this debate is the work that is done by the people at nursing homes. Under some difficulty. Their job is not easy, nor is it light. But it has to be done. Not a great deal of glamour is attached to nursing geriatric patients and the eWerly. There is a great deal of reward in it. If there was rtot, obviously the people would not be there. Recently I had reason to visit the nursing side of the Calvary Hospital in Caims, which is ai^other splendid institution in which people are cared for so weU. I paid a visit to an elderly relative at that hospital. The whole tone of the debate on this BUl has been the concern and care expressed by every member of this Parliament. The Government is exhibiting its concem. Several members of the Opposition who have contributed to the debate have also shown their concern. It has been good to see that this has not been a debate for cheap political pornt-scoring, nor of interjections and, except on very rare occasions, even a lack of interest by one or two members. It has been good to see that the entire Parliament is concerned for the care of our senior citizens. That has been the major thmst of the debate. It was good to hear the Leader of the Opposition congratulate the Minister for HeaUh on the measure that has been brought before the Parliament. It was good to hear the member for Lytton do likewise, bringing certain problems to the Minister's attention. I have fuU faith that the Minister wiU give attention to those problems. When we talk about a measure such as this, one of the matters on which we must concentrate is that we care in Queensland for the people who made U the great State that U is. If we cannot do as much as we would Uke to do, that is a sad situation. But we cannot always do everything that we want to do in every single situation. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I cortgratulate the Oppositiort Ort Us corttribution. I hope that this entire Parliament can take some satisfaction from the fact that such a serious matter has been faced in such a serious manner. 1844 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (7.33 p,m.): The most pleasing aspect of this debate has been the fact that the debate has been non-polUical. I thirtk that the Minister recognised that earlier. The debate has been non-political because of the fiUman aspect involved in the BiU. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr EATON: I am sure that that is something that the Minister remembers. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament, my first delegation was to the Minister for Health. I made representations to him about the replacement of the old hospital for the aged at Herberton. At that time I was a nervous new member. I might have been the first member to meet with the Minister for Health. We summed up each other. I do not know whether we made a good summation or not. I was very pleased that I met the Minister on that occasion. He received me in the proper manner. He was very helpful to me, and for that I was grateful. The Herberton Nursing Home is going ahead in leaps and bounds. I am sure that it wiU not be long before the Minister for Health or some other prominent Government member wiU open the new buUding in Herberton. The people of Herberton fought for the nursing home for many years. It will be with great pleasure that the people of that area see the project come to fruition. One sad aspect about the erection of the new nursing home in the grounds of the Herberton Hospital complex is the fact (hat so many people were waiting to take their place there. Because the old buildings were condemned and because of a lack of space, many pioneers who had reared their famiUes id the district and had seen their grandchUdren grow up in that area were unable to finish their last days in the comfort of the nursing home at Herberton. They passed on before that could happen. Orte of the pleasirtg aspects of the BiU is that it will result in the older people from the vast rural areas of the State not having to be taken to the cities to be cared for. Although the Govemment has the responsibiUty, throughout the State the community as a whole, through service clubs, various church orgaidsations and the Masonic fraternity, is coming to the party to help older people. In the last 20 years or so north Queensland has seen the completion of nursirtg homes such as the Carinya Home for the Aged at Atherton, the Warrina Home at Innisfail, the Garden Settlement in Mareeba, and two church homes in Cairns, Bethlehem and the Good Samaritan. All of those homes work in conjuncti

older ones get to the stage that they have to enter these places. However, the care and love given by those who run the homes is a great comfort to them. Quite often I sit and have a cup of tea while they are having their meal. The old people Uke to be recognised and the exchange between tbem and younger ones in the community is a great thing. The legislation is a step in the right dUrection. I know there is a role for the two Govemments to play and that the State Govemment cannot be asked to carry the burden of the cost of these homes on its own. Because of the increasing number of aged people in the community today, as has been mentioned by other members, there is a shortage of beds in all homes that care for the aged and geriatric people. Perhaps there wiU rtever be enough beds but, because this subject is so important to the community, I hope that in the future the Government will manage the State's economy in such a way that expenditure in this area does not have to be cut. Anything that can be given to the elderly in the community is a just reward for their life service to the community and the State. They have paid their taxes and made their contribution so it is the State's duty and responsibility to see that they are catered for in the twiUght of their life. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (7.40 p.m.): I congratulate the Minister and the Govemment on their efforts to increase and improve facilities for the aged and to introduce new con­ cepts in patient care. It was obvious from the remarks of previous speakers that this subject is important to all members. Differ^it methods are utUised to care for the aged, I have recently had drawn to my attention some problems caused by the reduction in the term a patient may spend in hospital before be is reclassified as a nursing home patient. Members will be aware that the period' has been reduced from 60 days to 35 days. In both cases that were brought to my attention, patients were terminally ill and their wives were concemed about what would happen to them. Both women were told that they did not have to take their husbands home, that they could be cared for in a nursing situation in the hospital and that their pensions would pay for the cost of care. But both women were put through an ordeal that will leave a big mark on them. They experienced the problems, faced by many relatives in a similar situation, of what to do and where to go to for help. In those circumstances, I question the need to reduce the length of stay from 60 to 35 days. The reduction has caused greater problems than would normally have been experiertced, and it is the result of a recommendation by a co-ordinating committee set up by the Commortwealth and Queensland Governments. I understand that the Federal Department of Health made the decision that meant that in the last 12 months no approval has been given for the building of any new nursing homes in Queenslartd. The hospitals board in my area has raised sufficient money to constmct a nursing home. It has had $1.5m on hand for 18 months and is anxiously waiting to spend that money on a 40-bed nursing home. Members can imagine my-fmstration, and that of the board, that approval has not been granted to construct that home, particularly when one; bears in mind some of the other problems that the board has encountered along the way. One of the major obstacles has been finding a piece of land upon which to construct the-home. Even though that problem has now been overcome, the board still cannot proceed because of the decision made by the Federal department. Although a large number of private individuals have contributed $1.5m, the board has not been able to proceed. A couple of weeks ago the Minister came to Gympie and met the board to discuss the problem. It has changed its plans to include a matemity section and other general wards jn the hope of increasing its chances of being allowed to build, and the plans bear little relation to what was originally envisaged. The Minister is well aware of the problem. I am sure that we can look forward to the constmction of part of the project in the near future to meet this very real need. I agree with earlier speakers about the need for nursing home accommodation. Even if the 40-bed nursing home were to be constructed immediately, the number of people in our hospitals who need such accommodation would more than fill the number of beds that would be made available. A very real need is created as more and more people reach their twilight years. 1846 6 March 1984 Homes fpr the Aged Bill

I do not underestimate the service given by volunteers who work for Meals on Wheels. A big problem has to be overcome by Meals on Wheels personnel to provide meals five days a week. Over the years, I have been closely associated with the volunteers w^^o work for Meals on Wheels. My wife is closely connected wUh the organisation and .acts as cook and roster clerk. The staffing difficuUies can be readily visualised when volunteers may be available for one week but not for the next. The recipients of the service provided by Meals on Wheels waU eagerly for the volunteers, knowirtg that they are the only visitors they wiU see. Many of them are lonely, but they want to remain in the homes in which they have lived happUy for a number of years. Although honourable members may not be happy to live in such an environment this is the way in which those people prefer to live; The Meals on Wheels organisation is playing a wonderful part in helping to make their last years a little easier. Mr Davis: It is a pUy your Government didn't put more subsidy into Meals on Wheels.

.. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member for Brisbane Central could refer to subsidies on a number of other matters, but I have not seen him put his hand in his pocket and say, "Here is some more money by way of taxation to pay for the subsidies that are required." •A Governmertt Member interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member for. Brisbane Central puts his foot in his mouth regularly. I am surprised when I attend the various meetings of organisations in my electorate to hear so often the statement that more subsidies, grants and assistance are required. At the same time, people say that they would prefer to pay less in taxes. Somewhere along the line people must decide whether they want more subsidies and grants or whether they would rather pay less in taxes. When the answer to the question becomes clear, the Govemment might be able to give a more acceptable decision. I commend the many thousands of unhesitating volunteers on the service they perform throughout the State. The Blue Nursing Service does a wonderful job in helping older people to remain at home a little longer. The service prpvided keeps the old people more contented and helps their famUies to cope a little more easily than might otherwise be the case. The Blue Nurses are dedicated to an ideal. Some people may say that the Blue Nursing Service should receive a bigger subsidy; but the subsidy has been increased over the years. The service also receives a great deal of financial support from community fund-raising. Voluntary collections and distributions are probably the most efficient method of helping such worthwhile organisations. For every dollar collected the Government gives a subsidy of 50c or 60c. Volunteers go door-knocking, and every dollar they raise is distributed to the particular services. That is well worth while. I congratulate the Mirtister for introducing this legislation, and I commend him for the work that he is doing.

Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (7.50 p.m.): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part irt this debate. I realise that most of the problems in this area have been mentioned by members who have preceded me in the debate. The debate has proved one point to me, and that is that the problems in this area are many and complex. I am gratified that the honourable members on both sides of the Chamber are prepared to get up and say that there are problems in this area. I realise that all the problems cartnot be overcome easily, but some problems that have been raised must be looked at closely. The Government needs to play a greater role in this area in the future than U has played in the past. I do not think that many people realise that social pressures have changed considerably over the last few years. We should look, in a non-political way, at the problems that are faced in caring for the aged artd the infirm in this State. The social pressures of today add to the prpUems. I refer to the very high unemploymertt rate and the fact that one in every three marriages ends in divorce. That creates the sUuation in which many families are unable to cope with the problems of looking after aged people. Society today fails to realise that there are greater problems in caring for the aged in'this State. Homes for the Aged Bill 6 March 1984 1847

I shall.look at some of the problems that I have encountered since I was elected to this Assenlbly as the member for BuUmba. I respresenf an area that has a very high percentage of aged people. I have encountered problems that I did not think existed to the degree that they do. The major problem that I encountered was the loneliness felt by many old people today. Two people Uve together in the same house for Up to 50 years. They form a friendsbip with many people in that area. They shop in the same shops. They have an affinity with the environment in which they Uve. Suddenly, one of the two partners dies and the remaining partner faces loneliness that I do not think many of us understand until we constantly come in contact with the problem. I am always sad when I leave a house in which the remaining partner is living under those circumstances. The Govemment can do more in this area by providing assistance to people to remain in their own suburb. I know that it is not feasible to say that everyone who lives in, say, BuUmba should be able to remain there for ever after his or her partner dies. The Government is not doing enough to allow people to remain in their own environment. Perhaps all Govemments should provide more nursing homes or even half-way homes in various suburbs to aUow people who have contributed so much to our society over the years to remain in their own suburb. The people who should benefit from nursing homes may have worked for many years for one firm and, on retirement, have been presented with a gold watch or some other gift. They are told by well-wishers to enjoy themselves and to relax in their retirement. But it does not always work out that way because in quite a number of cases that I know of, tragedy has struck and these people are faced with the loneliest and saddest part of their Uves. That should not be the case because these people have put so much into the community and deserve something in return. The Bethany Home, which is run by a church group, is situated directly opposite my electorate office. It is a very well-presented and well-run home and the people associated with it are very proud. It provides separate units for couples, and people who need constant nursing care are accommodated as weU. It is a good example of how nursing homes should be run. I congratulate Mr Austin and his wifcj who manage the home, and all of the staff who do an enormous job for the people living there. I was shocked to learn, when I was first elected as the member for Bulimba almost 3i years ?igO, that four people had been killed at the pedestrian crossing outside the home. The home is situated on Wynnum Road, which is an extremely busy thoroughfare. That pedestrian crossing .has now been removed and I am sure that all honourable members are aware of the problems that pedestrian crossings without lights pose for older people. About 100 yards down Wynnum Road, almost adjacent to the New Farm ferry, is a set of lights. I often see old people from the home walking across Wynnum Road. That frightens me. All honourable members have come into contact with old people who do not seem to realise the dangers of traffic. Approaches have been made to the Brisbane City Council and the State Government by me and people from the home about placing a pedestrian crossing with lights in Wynnum Road outside of the home. However, the only response was that there is not enough pedestrian traffic tp warrant the provision of pedestrian lights outside the home. It is easy fOr us, as elected representatives, to accept that there is not enough pedestrian traffic for the provision of lights in that area but it is not good enough for us to accept that four people have been killed trying to cross Wynnum Road outside of that home and that we should do nothirtg about the crossing untU another four are killed. The Govemment should take individual calses into account when making its decisions in these situations. It has that responsibiUty. I urge the Govemment to consider any requests for the provision of pedestrian Ughts at the Bethany Home. Another issue that I came into contact with very early in my term in public office was the threatened closure approximately five or six years ago of the Bulimba Hostel when it was conducted by private enterprise. That hostel catered for single aged persons from aU walks of Ufe. It was to have been closed, but it was taken over by the Trades and Labor Coitiicil of Queertsland with the help of the State Government and the Federal Government. Full credU is due to the then Queensland Minister for Health and the Federal Minister for Health, who gave financial help to enable that hostel to remain open. 1848 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

Two residents at the hostel committed suicide when they were told that it would be closed. They had lived there for many years. Suddenly they were told that they were to be shifted, in one case, to Ipswich and, in the other, to somewhere on the north side of Brisbane. Over a lengtby period they had formed friendships and had got into a way of life that they felt they could not get out of. They could not accept the fact that at their age they would have to begin a new way of life. That iUustrates the type, of problem that Govemments tend to overlook when introducing legislation. AU BiUs such as this should contain a humane clause that covers situations in which, personal hardship occurs. Before I conclude, I pay a tribute to the voluntary workers in all the organisations that care for the aged. Before I entered public office I did not reaUse that in my electorate there were so many dedicated people who worked in voluntary organisaticxis. I suppose that that remark appUes to aU honourable members and to aU eleCtoirates. Suddenly a member realises that in his electorate he has organisations which are of great benefit to the community and of which he was not aware previously. AS I say, I pay a tribute to the people who voluntarily help irt a vast number of areas. Over the years I have had a good deal of contact with Meals ort Wheels in my area. That organisation does very good work, with only Uttle asMStance--from the. Govemment. That matter was raised by previous speakers, and I agree w^^h them that it should be Ipoked at clOsely. Insufficient Governmertt assistance is given to Meals on Wheels. Meals on Wheels is aimed at keeping people independent in their private homes for as long as possible. An earUer speaker referred to the fact that some aged persons are admitted to nursing homes before they need to be admitted. Reference has been made to the shortage of beds and to the difficulty associated with a person's gaining admission to a home that is located close to his or her family or relatives. Perhaps some people are admitted to nursing homes prematurely. Meals on Wheels plays a tremendous role in keeping people independent for as long as possible. Any extension or improvement to Meals on Wheels is a step in the right direction. My area contains various voluntary organisations. One that comes to mind is the Balmoral Uniting Church Community Centre, which is a tremendous organisaticxi. The voluntary work that is done by the members of that organisation is unbelievable. On many occasions people have attended at my office and I have not known how to handle their problems. I have contacted people who work at the Balmoral Uniting Qiurch Community Centre and said. "I have been confronted by a person with a serious social problem. Can you help me?" Within minutes petrie have offered their help. They pro­ vide not only immediate assistance but also foUow-up assistance. Not ertough credit is given to voluntary community orgauisations. The Government should play a more involved role in providing welfare services for the aged. That can be done on a non-political basis. A non-political and nort-party com­ mittee should be established immediately to examine the problems that have been mentioned during this debate. The Govemment should be obUged to provide adequate assistance. From what has already been said, it is quite obvious that that is not happenirtg at present. The Government has an obligation and a responsibility to keep abreast of changing times. As I pointed out earlier, many problems that have arisen recently because of the social pressures that are 'presently being encountered, did not arise in the past. The Govemment must adopt a more humane attitude towards some of the problems that are being encountered. I hope tbat the Minister takes note of some of the problems to which reference has been made during the debate. Mrs CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers) (8.7 p.m.): I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill. I am sure that each and every member in this Chamber realises that sooner or later the Bill wUl have an effect on their lives as well as the lives of their constituents. We know only too well that none pf us can escape growing old; in fact some of us grow older more quickly than others. ' One problem that must be faced is the way in which those persons who come to the age of retirement are housed. All too soon it comes upon those of us who are left to provide homes for aged persons and to make sure that their retirement is much easier than it has been. In its wisdom, the Govemment places the provision of housing for the aged Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1849 above most other things. The problem of finding homes for aged persons is paramount. The cost of providing housing for the aged is sometimes far beyond the reach of the normal family who would Uke to be able to provide a home and to look after their aged parents when they reach retirement age. Many aged people reside m the electorate of Pine Rivers. I am pleased that the council has allowed the constmction of granny flats as an addition to private dwelUngs. By doing that, accommodation is provided for elderly parents at no cost to the Govemment. EarUer, Opposition members said that insufficient subsidies are provided. I am concemed that the Federal Govemment may introduce an assets test. It is deplorable that any person who has paid taxes all his Ufe should be subjected to an assets test. That is one matter that troubles a large number of persons. Not only must a person face the prospect of growing old but also he must face the possibiUty of art assets test. It is to be hoped that in his wisdom Mr Hawke will reverse bis decision and say, "There wiU definitely be no assets test." Mr Hawke should say that it is not something that his Government wUl consider but something that it will definitely cross off the agenda. There should be no assets test- none whatsoever! Those who are affected are not in a position to pay anythirtg, whether it be based on a means test or on an assets test. The means test was scmbbed for the over-70s and they should not be subjected to a means test or an assets test. Those who are now reaching the age of retiremetit did not have the use of an automatic washing machine or a dish-washer. They were the people who pioneered the country, but aU too soon they are forgotten. It is easy for people to forget about them. Hpwever, they need housing and they need to be looked after by those who are more fortunate. The churches are definitely a great help in providing adequate housing for the aged. They make sure that the aged are comfortable and looked after in a very generous fasbion. I pay tribute also to those who operate Meals on Wheels, which enables elderly folk to remain in their homes and be looked after on a daUy basis. Without that type of help, an elderly couple who live together and who are happy in that environment, which they have known for so many years, would not be able to survive. My mother-in-law, who is well into her 70s, and my father-in-law, who is over 80, have Uved in Ipswich all of their lives and would hate to leave that area. They are able to look after themselves very weU. However, I have seen many people who live in that area who are unable to do that and definitely need housing to be provided for them. It is very important that everybody does all within his power to make certain that that housing is provided. Mr Milliner: It is a pity your Government does not do something about it. Mrs CHAPMAN: The honourable m^u^ber has no idea of the heart-break that his Federal coUeagues are bringing to people by the threat of an assets test. The attitude of Mr Hawke is to be deplored; it is an absolute disgrace! Opix)sition Members interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: The Opposition has stated that members should take a non-poUtical stance in this debate. That is definitely so, because, especially to the elderly folk, it should not be a poUtical issue. However, as I said before, the mention of an assets test definitely makes it political. Opposition Members interjected.

Mrs CHAPMAN: Members of the Opposition can scream about the subsidy if they lUce but the assets test is what is causing the trouble. The elderly folk have paid taxes aU their Uves, so why should they be put through another gruelling. It is just not fair. I am sure that the members of the Labor Party who voted for an assets test are aU very weU off. I wonder whether, when they reach retiring age, they wiU stiU want to be subjected to an assets test. Certainly not! Housing is the real issue, and I am very glad that the Mmister has mtroduced the Bill. Never can too much be done to help these people. The pertsiortcrs of today did a tremendous amount for this country; they pioneered it for us. Now they need the assistance of the community, and part of that assistance would be the scrapping of the proposed assets test. 1850 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged Bill

Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health) (8.13 p.m.), in reply: I thartk aU honourable members for their contribution to the debate, which I found very enUghtening. Most members spoke in a similar vein. It is clear to me that perhaps there is some lack of understanding of how the nursing home industry and nursing home beds operate in this and other States of Australia. Probably it wiU be beneficial if, instead of going through each contribution and responding individually to each member, I respond in general terms. I give an undertaking that I wUl write to each honourable member on the specific problems of a parochial niature that he has raised. The nursing home industry is really made up of three sectors: the church and voluntary sector; the private sector; and the public sector. Each of those sectors depeuds to some extent on the tax-payers, either Federal or State, for the operations of their nursing homes. The church and voluntary sector nursing homes operate basically on what is called deficit funding, and that funding is on an agreed budget struck between the Commmiwealth and the group operating the nursing home. A mamtenance or contribution fee is charged to the individual patient in the nursing home, and the balance is made up by the Federal Government to that agreed budget. As to private nursing homes—most members wiU be aware that the Federal Government makes a contribution to the upkeep of the patient in a private nursing home, as well as to tbe payment by the patient for a bed day cost in that nursing home. In relation to the pubUc sector, if a bed is classified as a nursing home bed, there is both a Commonwealth and a State contributiort artd a patient contributicm to the maintenance cost of the patient in that bed. Far be it from me to be political. As each and every member knows, it would be unusual for me to become political in a debate such as this; but I simply cannot resist taking the opportunity to advise members of the attitude of not only the present Commonweailtb Government but also past Commonwealth Governments towards the care Of the aged. I do not speak specifically as a parochial Queeuslartder in this debate when referring to Federal Govemments, because each State, hrespective of the ppUtical per­ suasion of the Government in power at the tinie, has experienced dreadful problems with both present and past Federal Governments. Every State Government is concerned, as are all members, with the CMe of the aged. It bas been suggested this evening that there have perhaps been insufficient negotiations between the Queensland Governmertt and the Federal Government in relation to such care. Let me say that we really have not had the opportunity to have any significant or substantial discussions with the present Federal Ciovernment in relation to care of the aged. The negotiations that have taken place so far have gone a little like the .Medicare negotiations, in which the State was presented wUh a take it or leave it situation. It might help members if I went back a little in time to March last year when the present Federal Government was elected. There were two major parts to the Federal Govemment's health platform, the first being the introduction of Medicare and the second being the introduction of a new aged care poUcy that would encourage the expansion and developmertt of aged care faciUties in the home—in other words, an increase in domiciliary care to take pressure off the demand for the number of nursing home beds in the community., Just about -every member who spoke in the debate referred to the number of people coming to his electorate office inquiring about admissions to nursing homes. I am concerned that the present Labor Government Has a policy of reducing the number of nursirtg home beds, which really follows on from the poUcies of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. I am trying to be as non-polUical as possible, but, as I said, it seems to me that there is a contiuuirtg battle between the State and Federal Governments. Of course, U obviously gets dowu to funding. An examination of the minutes of recent Health Ministers' conferertces would indicate that what I am saying tonight is absolutely correct. Homes for the Aged BiU 6 March. 1984 1851

As for the present Federal Government's policy, if I may dweU on that for a moment— there will be a reduction in nursing home beds in the community. Let there be no doubt that fewer nursing home beds will be avaUable for member's constituents during the reigrt of this Goverrtmertt. Mr Underwood: You are saying that the current numbers are going to drop? • Mr AUSTIN: Yes, and I wiU teU the honourable member why. The guide-Unes of the previous Governmertt were 50 beds per 1 (X)0 population over the age of 65 years. The new guide-lines, which the Federal Govemment has not yet implemertted, I must say, but I understand that it wiU Mr Underwood: Subject to the agreement of the States. Mr AUSTIN: Everything has been subject to the agreement of the States. If we do not agree» the Federal Government implements U anyway. The new guide-lines are 80 beds per 1 000 of populatiort over the age of 70 years. Irt real terms, when the figures are examined, that means a reduction in nursing home beds in the community. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr AUSTIN: That is not so. If the honourable member were to take out the figures he would see that it does not mean more beds. If he were to ask the Federal Minister he would find that the Federal Government is concemed about the escalating cost of nursing home beds. That is in the Labor Party's policy speech, which sets out deliberately to reduce the number of nursing home beds in the community. Mr Underwood: It does not. Mr AUSTIN: Yes, it dOes. The Commonwealth Government wants to provide more nursing care in homes by way of granny flats and domiciliary care. The direct impact of the policy iis to reduce the number of nursing home beds. That wiU result in a real reduction in the number of nursing home beds in the commurtity. As the number of nursing home beds in the corrtmunity starts to be reduced—and as the aged population grows, it wUl be a real reduction—I hope that every member of Parliament on both sides of the House, irrespective of his political persuasion, lodges a protest with the Federal Minister for Health about the reduction in beds. I say that with a great deal of compassion and sincerity. I see every State in Australia facing real problems. Funding is one of the main problems in care for the aged. Funding is a problem in all health care. Some honourable members spoke about 87^^ per cent of the pension being taken from people living in Government nursing home beds. That is taken after 60 days when a person becomes a long-stay resident after obtaining a bed in one of our nursing homes. Under the new Medicare arrangement the 60 days is reduced to 35 days. The honourable member for Ipswich West irtterjected that no direct Federal policy is aimed at reducing the number of nursing home beds or nursing home patients in the community. The current Federal Government irttroduced a classification in the hospital system. The honourable member referred to that in his speech. That classification caused a great deal of distress in the community. It caused distress because it appUed pressure on hospitals to remove the long- stay patients from the hospital system. If no nursing home beds are available in the community, the Federal Government will effect a considerable cost-saving by changing the contribution rates that those people are entitled to receive under health-care arrangements. The Federal Govemment has made a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of nursirtg home type of patiertts irt the community. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Conversation in the House is becoming louder and louder. I can hardly hear the Minister. If honourable members wish to hold committee meetings I suggest that they hold them other than in the Chamber. I want more sUence in the Chamber. Mr AUSTIN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious subject. Care pf the aged has become very confused under the Federal Government's new policies. The Queensland Goverrtnient does not object to a policy of trying to keep elderly people in their homes as long as possible, but it does object to a classification change in the hospUal system that discourages long-stay patients when there has been no infrastructure set up to look after these people in their own home. 1852 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BiU

Mr Underwood: You are being inconsistent. Mr AUSTIN: No, I am not. That is not true. I heard that said the other day. It is not true. As I said, the Federal Government has a policy, but it has put the cart before the horse. If it were serious about reducing the number of these patients in hospitals, it should have implemented aged programs in the community, had them in place, and then brought in the classification system for hospitals so that the infrastructure would have been provided in the community wben it was required. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr AUSTIN: The only reason that not one person was put out of hospital lis that Dr Blewett was running scared. When the policy was announced the phones were running so hot that he had half his cronies running round telling people, "We will get a review." As I understand it, only one hospital has been reviewed. Mr Hamill: Which one is that? Mr AUSTIN: I think it is the one Mr Wells got involved in. Mr HamUl interjected. Mr AUSTIN: Was U Ipswich? It would be Mr Hayden, in that event. If Dr Blewett has a limited budget, which I understand he has, for every hospital for which he ups the classification he has to pull another one down. There has to be some sanity in the policy for the care for the aged, and it is certainly not coming from the present Federal Government. As I said before, I am not being political because we got just as much sense out of the previous Federal Government, and that was none at all. Basically, the responsibUity fpr caring for the aged is being forced onto the State, and the tax-payers have to pick up the tab. The member for Sandgate referred to the development at Sandgate. The Cjovernment is spending about $20m on the development of facUities at "Eventide" Sandgate. It is important to mention that fact in this debate to show that the Govemment, within its financial means, is developing and expanding facilities. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr AUSTIN: That wiU come at a later date. I did propose to say somethmg about that matter tcmight, but I do not have the figures with me. An honourable member tried to draw attention to a matter that I have heard raised in this Chamber before, and that is the comparative spending by the States on health. The honourable member for Ipswich West raised that matter. Some figures were quoted tonight so I think U is worth while referrmg to the Federal Government's esthnates of identified health grants for the States and the Northern Territory for 1983-84. The payments are $454.8m to New South Wales, $300.5m to Victoria, $93m to Queensland, $9,5m to South Australia, $140.Im to Western AustraUa and $5.2m to Tasmania. I shall leave New South Wales and Tasmania out of the comparison. Their figures really do not apply as they were operating under the old 50/50 cost-sharing agreement. I shaU refer to the payments to Queensland and Western Australia. Queensland received $93m in identified health grauts which included a sum for dental heaUh care and commurtity heaUh. Westem Australia received $140m irt identified health grants. Queensland's population is 2 500000 and the population of Western Australia is 1370000. I mention those figures with no crUicism of the present Federal Government. Recently, I have heard the member for Ipswich West say that I did not criticise previous Federal Governments in the same way that I have criticised the present Federal Labor Governmertt m relation to heaUh care. QuUe honestly, that is a load of nonsense. I have heard him on television and in this place use my quotes about the Fraser Government and what It tried tO do to the Queensland Goverrtment. What I have said tonight is a clear mdication of what can be done wUh fieures It i« simply nonsense for OpposUion members to stand in this place and try to compare health Homes for the Aged BUl 6 March 1984 1853 spending on a State-by-State basis. To do that, one has to examine the individual hospUal systems. I have said publicly that U is like trymg to compare a Holden sedan with a Falcon sedan. People in the community say that one is better than the other. I shall tell honourable members a few facts about the two hospUal systems- Queensland has never had a charge system in its public hospital sector. If one takes the number of clerical staff in hospUals in the other States and includes the cost of those staffs, one gets an astronomically high figure. I shall quote some nursing figures. Victoria and New South Wales fudged on the community health program. Queensland was honest and paid for its community health nurses as pubUc service employees through the health Mr Underwood: They did not want community health nurses. Mr AUSTIN: I ask the honourable member to let riie finish. Mr Casey: It is not in the BiU. Mr AUSTIN: Yes, it is. Queensland employed Us community health nurses through the pubUc service. As I understand the position, Victoria and New South Wales employed some community health nurses through the public service and sneaked some in under the.50/50 cost-sharing agreement, because that agreement operated on an agreed budget at the time. It was absolute cheating. One simply canrtot compare the costs of operating hospitals in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. One State can be singled out. Every State Health Minister agrees that Western Australia gets far more money than any other State for the operation of its hospital system. Paul Grose, the national economist who writes for "The Australian", said that Western Australia is the only State that can run a Rolls Royce hospital system for a mini-Minor population on a mini-Minor budget. Every other State is struggling to run its hospUal system. I hope that that dispels some of the nonsense that went on about funding and about how other States spend their health dollars. It is impossible to check unless the individual operations of every hospital system are known, including every category of staff and every type of staff. For example, in Queensland, there is no fee for service. I used that example in the media recently. A private practitioner who operates in a Queensland public hospital gets about $70 or $80 for the session. He might do three procedures in one hour for the $80. In New South Wales he gets $200 per service. If he does three procedures in an hour, he is paid $6(X). Mr Urtderwood: Do you thirtk that's right? Do you think it should occur? Mr AUSTIN: Of course it should not. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr AUSTIN: No, it has never happened here. Mr Underwood: Do you think it should? Mr AUSTIN: No, I do not. Mr Underwood: You just said that they do it in New South Wales. Mr AUSTIN: What I am saying is that that is how one can distort the figures, by saying that more is spent in New South Wales than in Queensland. In actual fact, more is spent on the New South Wales hospital system because money is wasted in New South Wales. I do not want to hear the honourable member for Ipswich West, now that he has agreed with me, say that more is spent in New South Wales than in Queensland per head,. It depends on the individual hospital system. I now turn to two important miatters that were raised about nursing homes. Mr Casey: I hope you're going to talk about the BUI. Mr AUSTIN: I inform the honourable member for Mackay, because he was not in the Chamber all afternoon, that aU of these matters were raised during the debate and it is a shame that he does not care about the aged people in his electorate. 1854 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BUl

The figures showing the contributions by the State Goverrunent and the Federal Govern­ mertt for nursing homes are very interesting. The approximate capital cost of a 40-bed nursing home is $1.3m to $l,5m. Honourable members must bear in mirtd that those figures are only approximate. I now want to speak about the fees that come back from nursing homes. The operating cost of a 40-bed nursing home is approximately $865,(XX). In a Goverrtment-mn institution, there would be an 87.5 per cent pension contribution, which would return $165,000. The standard nursing home benefit is $370,000 and for intensive care patients, it is $80,000. The State Government contribution is $250,000 and the Federal .Government contributes about $450,000. I mention those figures to indicate that it is important, when an application is made to the Federal Government to construct a nursing home, that it approves the construction as a nursirtg home. That is because, if the Government has long-stay beds in the hospital system, the contributiort that it receives in return for that nursing home bed is 87.5 per cent of the pension. Mr Underwood: Are you talking about the Warwick Nursing Home? Mr AUSTIN: No. t am talking about nursing homes in general. It is important that members understand that when the Queensland Government asks the Commonwealth Governrtient to approve a nursing home bed, it is for the benefit of Queenslanders and Queenslartd tax-payers. When the Govemment asks the Federal Government for approval, it hopes that, because the Commonwealth has a larger tax purse than Queensland, it will carry its fair share of the burden in contributing funds for the aged in the community. I am not being political. I cannot stress it enough—^it has hapi^ned with successive Governments. In conclusion, I refer honourable members to a report about care for the aged which was commissioned by my predecessor in the portfoUo (Sir WUliam Knox). Some members expressed concern that the Government was not planning for the future. The care for the aged report was prepared by a number of professionals from inside and outside the Depart­ ment of Health. It made a number of recommendatiorts. The Government has seen fit to adopt a number of those recommendations and to that extent it has set up a bureau of aged care. The functions of the bureau are to co-ordinate State programs, to work closely with the voluntary sector, to identify areas of need and give advice on action required, to provide information services for the aged and to provide information and training programs for the aged. The bureau will have a senior officer of the department in charge and it will work via the Division of Community Medicine. The bureau wiU be continuing and ongoing. Its establishment indicates that the Queensland Government views with great concern the care for the aged in the community, as I believe every honourable member does. Again I say that I am delighted with the response from all honourable members to the introduction of the Bill. I seek their support when, in the future, battles erupt with the Federal Government, irrespective of that Government's poUtical persuasion. I seek that support in an attempt to provide the best possible care for the aged people of Queensland. Again I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Austin) agreed to.

Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) m the chair; Hon. B. D. Austin (WaveU—Minister for Health) in charge of the Bill. Qauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5—Homes for the aged— Mr UNDERWOOD (8.37 p.m.): A couple of sweeping statements made by the Minister when concluding his reply call for an answer. The history of the matter as stated by the Minister was rather short and should be exteuded. In talking about what some States have and other States do not have, the Minister should have gone back to the years of the Whitlam Government, when it was quUe clear that battles such as those that the Minister has encouraged members to engage Homes for the Aged BiU 6 March 1984 1855 in with the Federal Government resulted in Queensland's niissing out on many programs in the field of health. That is one of the reasons why Victoria has a great many nursing home beds; the Victorian Liberal Government of the day did not go into battle with the Federal Government but instead got as much as it could for Victoria. SimUarly, South Australia has such a great land system because it got into the land program, and Western AustraUa has the best staff-to-patient ratio in tbe country. That does not mean that Western Australia has the best hospitals, but it certainly has more staff in its hospitals than any other State has in its hospitals. Of course, that is one of the reasons why the Western AustraUan hospital system is one of the most expensive in the country; The people of Queensland have just witnessed a faked battle over Medicare. In the Whitlam years, as a result of a faked battle over Medibank, Queensland's hospital system lost $7m, and that is why this State still has the cheapest hospital system in Australia. Of course, "cheapest" does not mean "best" Other States, such as New South Wales, although experiencing problems for different reasons, have a better hospital system than Queensland. Those States offer a wider range of services in more communities, whereas Queenslartd's services, particularly specialist services, tend to be concentrated in the Brisbane area and on the Gold Coast. The. wealth of the Gold Coast area and its demography attract specialist services. It was only in recent times that an expansion of specialist services to Townsville occurred. As to community health—it was the Queensland coalition Government under Mr Bjelke-Petersen that, through its Minister for Health, gave the instmction that nobody working for State Government departments, particularly the Health Department, was allowed to have anything to do with the Federal Government's community health program. So it is fallacious for any Govemmertt member to claim that that program was the Queertslartd Goverrtment's baby. In fact, the Queensland Government went out of Us way to sabotage that program which, since its incorporation into State affairs, has been of tremendous use to the people of Queensland. The Queensland Govemment instructed Us officers not to attend the meetings when the then Federal Minister for Health (Dr Everirtgham) decided that, as the Queensland Government was totally obstructionist and refused to have anything to do with the program, he would invite people to a public meeting. Fortunately, some persons with professional ethics attended those meetings, even though they did not participate verbally in them. Ultimately, community health centres were established in Queensland. The only centre at which doctors work actively with the pubUc on a consultation basis is at Inala, because of the historical and political circumstances there. That is why a similar operation does not exist at other community health centres. Queensland did very well out of the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangements, despite the poor spending on facilities. This State was able to organise its financial arrangements to such an extent that, because of the generous nature of the Federal Labor Government, the former Minister for Health (now Sir Llewellyn Edwards), became known as the Minister for. opening doors. Had there not been so much obstmction, Queensland would have done much better with all the other programs that were offered. When members travel interstate they should take the time to find out about the various health services provided elsewhere..They will be amazed by the programs that operate in other States. When they return to (Queensland they will see how poor in comparisort is the range of depth of services provided' in this State because of the battle over which the Minister for Health has been calling us to arms. We have just seen the debacle and the cost to Queensland of the Medicare debate. The State Government gained nothing from it. As a result of the efforts of the Leader of the .Opposition, other Opposition members and myself, the rescue grant concept was inUiated. The Ciovernment would not have obtained anything. All the Govemment wanted to do was fight the Federal Government. It would not even talk to the Federal Government. Mr Austin: What about the $l(X)m rescue grant that Hawke promised Us? Mr UNDERWOOD: He never promised that. Mr Austin: Didn't he? 1856 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged BUl

Mr UNDERWOOD: The Minister for Health should read the article in "The Courier-MaU" Mr Austin: It is in there. Mr UNDERWOOD: The Minister should show me where. Mr Austin: It is in there. Mr UNDERWOOD: That is the Minister's public relations machme. Had it not been for the Opposition's irttercession, Queensland would have done much worse because of the attitude of confrorttation adopted by the Government. The Queensland Government was not interested in negotiating or obtaining a better deal; it was interested only in playing politics, indulging in Canberra-bashing and putting everybody offside. Instead, it should have sat around the table on a person-to-person or man-to-man basis and negotiated an agreement. That did not happen. Queensland wanted to fight, kick, get down in the gutter and tell lies about financirtg, and scare the elderly members pf the community and people

Hie State Govemment and local authorities should be playing a bigger role. The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police (Mr Glasson) would know that in his area of western Queensland the local authorities are about the only ones that are able to finance the construction of old people's homes or retirement viUages. Some local authorities have stepped into the breach and done an excellent job. It is not a matter of somebody coming into this Chamber and saying that it is all the responsibility of the Federal Government; in fact, it is the responsibUity of Governments at all levels. However, I emphasise that the State bas the most important role because it is sitting in the middle and can exert pressure either upwards or downwards. It is all very weU for the Govemment to sit back and let some of the other States become a little more involved and then follow, but somebody must set an example. At one time, it was the Queensland Governmertt that set the example in health care in this great nation of Australia. Consequently, Queensland was the first State to introduce a free hospital ischeme and a completely free out-patients scheme for aU. However, the Bjelke-Petersen Government is not prepared to play a leading role other thart as a critic. It should be prepared to lead by example, get out in front and show the.other States what can be done for the care of aged people by co-operation between State, Commonwealth and local authorities. The State Government has been prepared to sit back and let the major part of the work fall on the shoulders of the CThristiart churches irt the commurtity. Those bodies have done an excellent job, but their resources are strained to the utmost. I guarantee that no member in this Chamber can point to any church-run home anywhere in his electorate that is not feeUng the pinch in some respect. Because of the number of full-time staff needed to run the homes, the churches are finding it more difficult every day to meet the challenges, to maintain and rertew equipment and to upgrade the homes, particularly the nursing care sections, to modem standards of efficiency. I suggest to the Minister that there is one way in which he and the State Govemment can set an example. I refer to the buildings at the Mackay Base Hospital that were replaced by the new hospital buUt approximately two years ago. Although those buildings were built in the 1920s or the 1930s, they were excellently maintained by the Mackay Hospitals Board and have a very good position on the banks of the Pioneer River. There are fairly well developed garden surrounds, and the site could be developed as an old people's home to help reduce the tremendously long waiting-Ust in Mackay. I heard a large number of members referring to the same situation in their electorates. The member for Lytton said that a great many people on the waiting-list are dying before they ever get a chance to get into a home. So the State Government should make a move and set an example. It could do so in Mackay in the manner that I have suggested. I do not want to make a request of the Minister and get a knock-back here and now, so I ask him to have a study undertaken of what it might cost to set up such a home. If the Minister is prepared to undertake such a study I will make a commitment to organise a community group that will mn that home as an additional facility to help elderly people. Most of the facilities in Mackay are very weU- ran,- but they are becoming very large and overcrowded. TTie last thing we want is major complexes containing bank after bank of buildings in which elderly people feel lonely and neglected. When elderly people get into too big a complex, they get lost. We do not want an old people's home to become an impersonal colossus. If the Minister is prepared to undertake the study that I have requested, I wiU organise a group to run the home. Mr UNDERWOOD: I want to lay to rest one of the accusations made against the Federal Government by the Minister a few moments ago. He said that the Federal Govemmertt would reduce the number of current beds in the State. I have just been in contact with the office of the Federal Minister- Mr Austin: I said that, relative to the increase in the age population, the nuinbers wiU reduce. Mr UNDERWOOD: We had better clarify that now. I have been given an assurance that the, Minister's assertion is incorrect and that there wiU be no reduction in the real number of beds in nursing homes. Mr Austin: There wiU be; just waU and see. 1858 6 March 1984 Homei fof the Aged BiU

Mr UNDERWOOD: The assurance I have received is that the Commonwealth Crovern­ ment wants to reduce the rate of growth of new beds. Mr Austin: What about the population increase in that age group? Mr UNDERWOOD: The Minister should waU untU I finish the message. The Com­ monwealth Government wants to reduce the rate of growth of new beds. It wants to increase the number of beds in hostels and domiciliary accomrtiodation. Mr Austin: That is what I said in my speech. Mr UNDERWOOD: No. Mr Austin: Yes, I did. Mr UNDERWOOD: No. The Minister tried to make out that there would be a reduction in beds. ^ . Mr Austin: I did not try to make that out at all. Mr UNDERWOOD: As long as we have it clear now, . Mr Austin: There wUl be a reduction in cursing home beds available, because as the population grows there will be a real reduction, Mr UNDERWOOD: I was told that the Commonwealth wants to reduce the rate of growth. There wiU be more beds, but the growth rate wUl not be as great. It is all a matter of mathematics, Queensland should not get itself into the same sort of situation as it: did with Medicare, It charged off into the distance, like Don Quixote, on a false campaign about nursing homes. The Government has scared elderly people with its campaign. Mr AUSTIN: I do not intend to become involved in a debate on Medicare. Those issues have been well canvassed in public by the Premier and me. The honourable member for Ipswich West has obviously mng someone in Canberra. The figures he quoted during his Speech indicated that there wUl be a larger proportion of aged pe6jple in our community in the future. If there is not a significant or a similar growth in tbe number of nursing home beds, there will be a shortage of such beds in the future, irrespective Of what he says about developing policies in the community. I accept that, and I said that during my speech. In fact, I said that our Govermnent supports that policy. There will be a real reduction in the number of available beds in the community as that proportion grows, and there has to be— Mr Underwood: A reduction in the rate of growth, Mr AUSTIN: No, it is not. The honourable member should wait. It he thinks there are queues at the moment, he should come back to me— Mr Underwood interjected, Mr AUSTIN: Seeing that the honourable member raised the issue, I inform him that the Federal Govemment has not approved one new nursing home bed in'the 12-months that it has been in office. The proportion of people requiring aged care is increasing every year; the demands are becoming greater. Every member who has spoken tonight, and a number of others who have wrUten to me, have asked, "What are we going to do? We can't get beds for the aged people in our commurtity." Mr Urtderwood: You people are to blame as much as they are. Mr AUSTIN: No, we are not, not at all. Mr Underwood: You were one of the last to get your submissions in. Mr AUSTIN: It has nothing to do with submissions. I have heard so much nonsense about Queensland being the last State to get submissions in. Why would we want to get a submission in when there has been an existing policy of co-operative federalism wUh the Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committee? Mr Underwood: Which you blokes are doing your best to destroy. Homes for the Aged BiU 6 March 1984 1859

Mr AUSTIN: No, we are not. We are doing our best to encourage U to make decisions. That commUtee simply is not called together to make decisions. The Federal Government has rtiade a decision not to caU the committee together because it is embarrassing it. So many applications are banking up from private people wanting to develop nursing homes that it is becoming ridiculous. None have been approved, irrespective of what the honourable meinber may say about nursing home beds. Mr Underwood: How many requests have you made to have the committee meet? Mr AUSTIN: The Commonwealth/State committee? I could not teU the honpurable member offhand. The honourable member for Ipswich West has displayed little knowledge of the operations of the Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committee. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr AUSTIN: I was waiting for the honourable member to raise the matter. .:^ The Federal Government has had a deliberate policy not to increase the number of nursing home beds. That is borne out by the statement read out a moment ago by the honourable member. Mr Underwood: That is not true. Mr AUSTIN: The short statement the honourable member read a moment ago indicated that there would be a deliberate policy. MT Underwood interjected. Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member is playing with words. Like Dr Blewett, he is being pedantic. Quite honestly, I do not beUeve anything Dr Blewett says either via the honourable member or at Health Ministers conferences. I have had first-hand experience of Dr Blewett's coming along to a conference, making a policy statement and going away to have his officers belt him in the ear, only to come back about two hours later to change it. He also goes to conferences without any authority from the Federal Cabinet. The honourable member for Ipswich West does not have to accept my word for it. I know the honourable member will say that he does not agree with me but, in 12 months' time, I expect the honourable member to stand up here honestly and sincerely, and say, "The Federal Labor Government's policies have resolved the demand for nursing bome beds in the public sector, the private sector and the church sector." But he will not be able to do that. Indeed, he will not be able to do it after three years or five years if the present policy continues. ., Qause 5, as read, agreed to. Qause 6—Charges for maintenance— Mr UNDERWOOD: (8.57 p.m.): This clause provides that every resident shaU pay the amount prescribed on account of his maintenance in a home for the aged. Witb the increasing;; range V of services, particularly day care centres, is it intended, now or in the future, to'introduce charges for services wben people come in for the day? It could be considered that they would be charged for maintenance under this legislation. Is there any intention to change the currcrtt fee of 87i per cent of the pension? Mr AUSTIN: It is not proposed to change the 87^ per cent contribution rate. I am unable to answer the question about day care because, as I said—^and indeed as the honourable member said—^negotiations between the State and the Commonwealth on those i)olicies are still at the discussion level. I cannot enlightcrt the hortourable member about what will transpire in the next few months with the Commonwealth Government relative to its policies. Qatiise 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 13, as read, agreed to. Qause 14—Application of Traffic Act— Mr UNDERWOOD: (8.59 p.m.): I presume this clause wiU apply to the roadways. WiU they be designated as proper roadways? What is to be their designation? Does that mean that outsiders, non-residcrtts and staff will be able to traverse the property without permission, or will restrictions be applied to traversing the property although the Traffic Act is in operation? 1860 6 March 1984 Homes for the Aged Bill

Mr AUSTIN: As I understand the posUion, there have been some complaints about vehicles traveUing through "Eventide" Rockhampton. The Leader of the Opposition referred to one. This clause wiU allow for suUable traffic control measures to be provided for the grounds of any home for the aged. I expect that all the signing that is contained in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is the handbook for the Main Roads Department and the Brisbane City COuncU, wiU apply. The penal provisions under the Traffic Act will apply to people who commit offences within the grounds of these institutions. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15—Regulations- Mr UNDERWOOD (9.1 p.m.): I know that this clause is virtually a rewrite of the section in the present Act. I raise the question of staffing and the industrial problems that arise wUh the staffing of "Eventide" homes. Under the cover of regulations, many sins are committed by Govemment management. They amount to breaches o( the State's industrial \aws. For example, for some time a large number of temporary staff have been employed at establishments such as "Eventide" Sandgate. The Minister will be aware, from represent­ ations that he has received from various unions and from certain individuals, that this temporary staffing arrangement has resulted in claims being made about victimisation of staff members who fall out of favour with various people in authorityj for example, at "Everttide" Sandgate. The threat of dismissal is always hanging over the head of the temporary staff. That seems to be one way in which management can keep, people in line. I put it to the Minister that that is unacceptable. People are entitled to be employed on a permanent basis. The large number of temporary staff should be reduced and people should be placed in permanent work. Intimidation in the work-place is foreign to the Australian way of Ufe, even though the Government would like to see more of it. As much as possible, the Govemment should do away with this temporary or casual staffing arrangement. That brings me to the question of contract labour, particularly contract cleaners. People employed by contract cleaners at establishments such as the Wolston Park Hospital were beirtg forced, under the threat of losing their job, to work under two names, lliat was one way in which the contractor could avoid paying tax, which is a breach of the law. The State Government should not be encouragaing situations in which contractors breach Federal law and State industrial law. Many injustices are being infficted upon people who work in State institutions, and the Minister should address himself to that matter.

Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member may or may not be aware that, on Monday, Cabinet appoirtted Price Waterhouse Pty Ltd to carry out an audit of the salaries and rosters of staff and to make art irtdepertdent report on the staff numbers at "Eventide" and at psychiatric hospitals. That report is due to be completed by the end of June 1984. It will address matters such as those that the honourable member has raised. Agairt I am not being political but, under programs Offered by successive Federal Governments, no State Government was guaranteed funding over a number pf years to employ what could be called permanent staff. The Federal Government offered to pay for one year, two years or three years, but would not give a guarantee of continuity of funding past that period, so that it would be ridiculous for any State Government to guarantee permanent employment when thie employee is funded by sources other than that State's taxation. That is not the Only reason, but it is one of the reasons. Over recent years, because of cut-backs in Commonwealth funding for specific programs and for specific staffing levels, there has been a reduction in the number of temporary employees. However, over a very short period, that matter will be stabilised.

Mr UNDERWOOD: That is all very weU, and I accept the Minister's statement, but it is easy to pass the buck to the Federal Government. What I am specifically addressing is the practice by management and submanagement, if that is the term to use, of intimidation of Transplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment BUl 6 March 1984 1861 staff. The Minister is well aware of those problems, and they cannot be Uamed on the Federal Govemment. Surely the people who are basically working on a permanertt basis are entUled to be treated in practice, if not on paper, as permanent employees and should not have the threat of dismissal hanging over their head just because they might speak up for themselves in the work-place or because they might have a sharp tongue and exchange words with someone in authority. It is not good enough that if an Australian stands up for himself in the work-place someone in authority heavies him and tells him that if he carries on like that he will lose his job. This is Australia and people are free to express their point of view, particularly in the work-place. Mr AUSTIN: I am rtot aware of the intimidation of which the honourable member speaks. I will try to find out what he is talking about. However, I assure him that when the Price Waterhouse report is completed, everyone will know who is being intimidated and who has been getting all the benefits and lurks and perks from the system. At some stage I will be informirtg the Parliament who is intimidating whom and give an undertaking to investigate the matters that he has raised. However, if that sort of intimidation is investigated, every other sort of intimidation must be investigated. The intimidation of workers by management cannot be singled out and the honourable member for Ipswich West knows, as I do, that there may be intimidatiort amongst employees from which management is excluded. It would be best to wait and see what the Price Waterhouse report discovers and I might be in a better position to advise the honourable member then. Qause 15, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Third Reading BUI, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time,

TRANSPLANTATION AND ANATOMY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 February (see p, 1364) on Mr Austin's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (9.9 p.m.): This Bill is to amend the 1979 Act that makes provision for the removal pf human tissue for transplantation, for a post-mortem examination for the definition of death, for the regulation of schools of anatomy and for related purposes. As outlined in the Minister's second-reading speech, the BiU contains a number of minor amendments, to which the Opposition has no objection, and also a major amendment, which the Opposition welcomes. That major amendment relates to the donation of regenerative tissue by living children. The minor amendments relate to the Mater Misericordiae Public Hospital. It appears that legal opinion sought by the Government is that the Mater Hospital may be excluded from the Act. The Bill merely includes the Mater Hospital in the Act. The BUl also provides for reasonable inquiry Umits for the next of kin. The Opposition believes that that provision is reasonable. The designated officer wiU not be required to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths to contact a next of kirt. The BiU contains provisions concerning the estabUshment of schools of anatomy, the notification of the Registrar-General of the receival of a body, and the forbidding of advertising of tissue for sale, which, as the Minister outUnes, has occurred in one particular instance. The amendments contained in the Bill are acceptable. As I have said, the major amertdment concerns the donation of regenerative tissue and, in particular, the donation of bone marrow by Uving children. Iliis provision is welcomed. I congratulate the Leukaemia Foundation on the work and lobbying that it did over a period and for waiting patiently for this legislation to come before the House. I know that it has been on the go for a long time and that people have been waiting for it to be brought forward. It is unforturtate that the Government cannot introduce legislation much sooner to overcome certain problems, particularly problems in connection with the transplantirtg of bortc marrow. People have had to wait for the legislative process of this State, which is rather slow, to take effect. The recommendations put forward in the Bill are in line with those of the Law Reform Commission. 1862 6 March 1984 Transplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment Bill

As m other fields, in this field Queensland is not the leader. Victoria, South Australia, Western AustraUa and the Australian CapUal Territory have led the field, so the boast that the State Crovernment is leading in this field does not apply in this instance. Mr FitzGerald: Did you ever suggest that it come forward? I have never heard you speak about it in the House. Mr UNDERWOOD: The honourable member is hardly ever here, so U is uo wortder that he has not heard the matter raised by the OpposUion. Mr FitzGerald: Have you ever spoken on it in the House? Mr UNDERWOOD: Many times. The BiU provides for certain safeguards. The Opposition accepts that the advice given to the Minister that the safeguards do provide adequate protection to people is correct. An element of risk is involved in bone marrow transplartts. The" Minister listed the risks, and he went on to say— "Irt such cases a speciaUst paediatriciau, a specialist anaesthetist and another medical practUioner wUl be required to certify- That the chUd, by reason of his age, is not capable of understanding the nature and effect of the removal and the nature pf the transplantation. ., That the brother, sister or parent of the cbild, in his opinion, is likely to die unless the tissue specified in the consent is transplanted to the body of that brother, sister or, as the case may be, parent. That the risk to the child, in his opinion, is minimal." The Minister outlined that the rights of the child and the parent, as weU as those of the officers concerned, are safeguarded. As outUned in the Bill, no operation and no removal of tissue wUl occur unless all parties concerned agree. That provision is a good one. The Bill does raise some questions that the Minister might artswer. For example, it refers to certification in cases in which a chUd, by reason of age, is not capable of understandirtg. I ask the Minister to explain how one determines that. WUl common sense or a bench-mark be used* or will a formula be worked out? I raise the question of what wiU happen if a child, a teenager or an adult is inteUectually disabled in some way or is of unsound mind and there is a move to involve that person in a transplant operation. Are the two categories to which I have referred to be excluded from the legislation, or does the BiU contain some provision that conld involve them in the transplantation of bone marrow? The Opposition supports the Bill. The Opposition also congratulates the Leukaemia Foundation on the tremendous work that it has put into the presentation of this Biir and in makirtg sure that it has come before the Parliament. I congratulate and thank also the persons who hiave helped the Leukaeiriia Foundation with its furtd-raising efforts in the past. I hope that they'wiU continue to provide that assistance in the future. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (9.16 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly on the BiU. That is not a reflection on the importance of the BiU. Although one cannot say a great.deal about the BiU, everything that one must say about it is compUmentary. The Bill does not. affect many people, but a large number of those persons who wiU be affected by it are children. That makes the Bill a very sensitive and a very important piece of legislatiort. Anything to do with Children is enormously importartt in this State. I agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Ipswich West when he referred to the impact of the BiU. I am sad, however, that he introduced an element of politics into the debate by accusing the Government of not introducing: it; with the alacrity that he would have liked. One would agree in some ways with that, criticism. However, in many ways, it could have been sUghtly dangerous. It is a matter about which the community is very concerned and an area into which one cannot leap withput care. It is unfortunate that it was not irttrodqced earlier, but we should be appreciative, that it has now been introduced. , ' Few of Us would lack an understanding of the proWems of leukaemia. It is an appalling and debilitating disease. Anyone who has had personal experience of it would understand the very real problems associated with it. As a young person in Grafton, New South Wales, I had a friend who suffered from leukaeniia. I did not understand why that Transplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1863

child was so different from the rest of us. He was cosseted and looked after. Both his parents Were doctors. They showered gifts and toys upon their child. I was enormously ertvious of the material things that he had. Because I was only seven, I did not understand what it was all about when he died. The word "leukaemia" has stuck in my craw ever since. Over the years I have known two or three sufferers of leukaemia, all of whom have died. It is a disease that casts a feeling of fear, almost like cancer, and has done so for many years. The word "leukaemia" to most people was similar to a death sentence not so long ago. Nowadays, medical techniques have improved. Drugs are available to treat some forms of leukaemia with heartertirtg success. The drugs have a capacity to get rid of some of the bad cells. As a result, the good red cells work and the people can survive. In some cases there is total remission. However, during the last century the majority of leukaemia sufferers haye died. Another technique in the treatment of leukaemia is the bone marrow transplant. Until now, that has been illegal in this State. I will now refer to the legislative position in other States for the donation of regenerative tissue by living children. I think that this matter was referred to by the member for Ipswich West. Legislation in the Australian Capital Territory and South AustraUa provides for the removal of regenerative tissue from minors. Victoria has recently passed similar legislation, which in the next few months will become law; so we are not far behind the other States of AustraUa. Victoria tends to put itself forward as one of those States that is very quick to implement social legislation. Of course, the removal of such tissue has been legal in New South Wales for many years. Concern has been expressed by not only the medical profession but also the community as a whole about the problem of bone marrow transplants from children, because in many ways the community "is afraid of transplant donations and the abuse of children. Representations have been made by paediatricians, other medical people and the wonderful Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland for the Transplantation and Anatomy Act to provide for the donation of bone marrow or regenerative tissue by living children. To a degree, the term "living children" is a grim-sounding term, which may have put many people off the whole concept of the aims of the Bill. I think it is an unfortunate term but, from a legal point of view, it is probably the best one. The only chance for children who suffer from severe, acute aplastic anaemia is bone marrow transplantatiort. For many years the medical profession and those who are involved in looking after children with leukaemia have held reservations about such operations because of concern about problems related to anaesthetic. With the number of operations that have been dorte over the last five or six years, that concern has proved to be over-exaggerated! As a result, more and more sufferers are now being treated, but unfortunately most of the Queensland children who have had to undergo the operation have had to travel to southern States. The operation is still not perfect. In an ideal instance, when the patient has an identical twin, a bone marrow transplantation operation would almost guarantee recovery from leukaemia. How often does one find a child suffering from leukaemia who has an identical twin? Not ofteh! So the legislation will not save many of these poor Uttle kids who suffer from leukaemia, In other caseS there is one chance in four of a donor identical with the patient who would provide a suitable donation for a marrow transplant; so the problem of leukaemia is still not totally alleviated, but this is a marvellous step forward and should receive unanimous approval. I commend not only the Minister but also his depart­ mental heads for making these operations acceptable in the community generally. The other problem associated with this matter is a place in which the operations can be performed. A transplant unit cannot be set up overnight. In this area the Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland should be highly commended, as it has already raised $750,000. Construction of the building's shell at the Royal Brisbane Hospital is expected to be completed by May. Another $750,0(X) has to be raised by the middle of next year for the provision of faciUties adequate for the performance of bone marrow transplant operations. An Opposition Member interjected.-

Mr BAILEY: I am surprised to hear an interjection like that on a subject such as this. If the Opposition cannot be concerned about dying children, U will not be concemed about 1864 6 March 1984 Transplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment Bill

anythirtg. We on the Government benches have been criticised for an unfortunate interjection about rape. A member who thinks it amusing to make a facile comment ort a subject Uke this stands equally condemned. The Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland needs to be supported to raise the extra $750,0(X) that will ensure that the new unit at the Royal Brisbane Hospital is adequately fitted out so that some 25 or 30—^perhaps even 35—young Queensland children can be saved by a bone marrow transplant that this Bill has enabled. I commend the Bill tp the House and I also congratulate the Minister for introducing it. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (9.24 p.m.): It is a pleasure to support the Minister in his move to legalise the transplant of bone marrow in this State. There wUl be pr(^r safeguards for minors, and the cortscrtt of all appropriate people must be obtained. It is not intended that the Bill cover the transplant of organs, and the worry of a few people about that has not been weU founded. I commend the Minister for the action that he has taken to help people who are, unfortunately, afflicted with leukemia. It is to be hoped that this advance in medical science wiU be followed by further advances as more work is done. Any assistance that we in this Chamber can give those unforturtate individuals is to be commended. .-.,

Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health) (9.25 p.m.), m reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on what is indeed a.very serious subject. I thank them particularly for the praise they have given to the Leukemia Foundation for its work in raising funds to provide a facUity in the Royal Brisbane Hospital complex. There are a. couple of matters that I should bring to the attention of the House. The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission have been mentioned. I point.out to honourable members that Queensland was the first State to introduce legislation to implement the Law Reform .Commission's recommendatiprts in relation to the definition of death, and so on. That recommendation has been included in the Transplantation and Anatomy Act. So, contrary to the assertion of the honourable member for Ipswich West that Queensland was the last State to take action, it was in fact the. first, and the other States foUpwed suU. There was one exclusion. That was for the transplantation of regenerative tissue in children, which is now being implemented in this BiU. One of the reasons why the legislation was not brought forward earlier was that no facUity in this iState was capable of carrying out that work. Honourable members might question why a facility was not provided in the past. Let me simply say that members come frpm all over this State, and they would be well aware that it is impossible' for the Government to provide every medical or surgical facility in every town artd city throughout the State. In other words, there is a need to rationalise services and to provide those services only in Certain areas. Because no funds were avaUable—and I say that unashamedly—^the Government decided as a matter of policy not to construct a special building. It decided that, instead, it would pay the full cost of transporting patients to Sydrtey to have the procedure carried out. In addUion, it transported relatives and, obviously, the donor. The Government accepted the fuU cost of transporting patients to Sydney. Surely that is no different from transporting a patient from TownsvUle to Brisbane, because the trip from Sydney to Brisbarte is shorter than the trip from TownsviUe to Brisbarte and would impose less strain on some people. So it seems to me that, during the period when the faciUty was not available, it made good sense, and was good medical practice, to transport patients and relatives to Sydney. The splendid work of the Leukemia Foundation, which has provided this facUity, has enabled the Government to participate in a service that it had always wanted to provide but for which it has simply not had the resources. I again thank honourable members for their sincere contributions to the debate, and I commend the BUl to the House. Motion (Mr Austin) agreed to.

Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) in the chair; Hon. B. D. Austin (WaveU—Minister for Health) in charge of the Bill. Police Dogs BiU 6 March 1984 1865

Qauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Qause 4—New Division 2A of Part II—

Mr UNDERWOOD (9.29 p.m.): During the second-readirtg debate, I raised the question of certifications by children not capable of understanding by reason of age. What wiU the definition of age be? What is the position with intellectuaUy disabled children or adults and people of unsound mind?

Mr AUSTIN: I apologise to the honourable member for not addressing myself to those questions in my response. As to new sub-section 12D, which relates to certifications where a child is not capable of understanding by reason of age—the responsibiUty wUl really rest with the medical practitioners to determine whether the child is capable or not. As to the other two categories of patients—^it will not be available to those people. Qause 4, as read, agreed to. Qauses 5 to 10, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Readmg BiU, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time.

POLICE DOGS BILL Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed frOm 2 February 1984 (see p. 1371) on Mr Glasson's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr HAMILL: (Ipswich) (9.33 p.m.): After erttering a restaurant in the course of his duty and being chased out by an irate, cleaver-wielding restaurateur, one poUce dog was heard to remark to another, "What happened to me should not happen to a man." I am pleased that the Govemment, in seekirtg to overcome these artd other injustices, has brought down a BiU that is designed to redress such instances of discrimination against man's best friend. The dogs that constitute what the Premier has described as the thin blue line have suffered years of prejudice and discrimination. At last those years are over. They wiU now enjoy many of tbe privileges accorded to their handlers. At least there wiU now be a situation in which man and man's best friend are given roughly equal status. Mr Underwood: And female handlers?

Mr HAMILL: Yes, female and male handlers. In a way, the Minister has presented something Uke ERA in the States^—^a sort of equal rights legislation for poUce dogs. The legislation wiU overcome a number of anomalies that have inhibited police dogs and their handlers in the proper execution of their duties. Mr Underwood: Will you be able to take a police dog before the Police Tribunal?

Mr HAMILL: The honourable member will hear later about aU the peculiar privileges and rights that will accme to police dogs and their handlers under this Bill. Mr Underwood: What about superannuation?

Mr HAMILL: The honourable member wUl hear about that, too. The Dog Squad of the Queensland PoUce Force, as the Minister pointed out, was estabUshed in 1972, wUh 22 dogs and 22 handlers. The activities of the PoUce Dog Squad have eamed the highest praise and commendation from a wide range of people in the com­ munity and, indeed, from the (^position. 1866 6^ March 1984 Police Dogs BUl

The functions of the Dog Squad are very impprtant. As the Minister outlined in his speech, the Dog Squad consists of highly skilled handlers as weU as highly trained dogs. The range of tbeir duties is enormous and irtcludes such important facets of police work as tracking lost persons, tracking missing persons, investigating crimes, searching buUdings, drug detection and, as the Mirtister pointed out, in future the detection of exploisives. High expectations have been held for the activities of the Dog Squad. However, it has come to my attention that, whereas handlers are human, dogs are canine, and even some of the best laid plans of mice and men in the Operation of the squad have come undone, because of the essential quaUty of poUce dogs. In one instance in which a three-year-old was lost the Dog Squad was quite properly brought in to assist in the search for the chUd. Irt that instance, the handler knew that the dog in question would be assisted in finding the chUd if an item of clothing or a particular possession of the child was obtained so that the dog could get the scent. The distressed parents quickly came forward with an item of clothing. The dog was led up by the handler to get tbe scent from the clothing. Obviously the dog was a very well-trained animal and quite experienced in that sort of work. It sniffed the garment in question and ran up and down. The handler realised that the dog had the scent and that it would only be a short time before the dog led the handler and the search party to the missing child. The dog raced off into the scmb and came racing back. The handler knew that the dog had found the scent for which it was looking. It was getting most anxious about the scent. It ran round to a nearby tree and annointed the tree as dogs do, artd went to sleep. I suppose that the Minister would readily admit, as he has often done in this Chamber, that all members of the police force are not perfect; likewise, their dogs at times leave a little to be desired. Let us look at the overall ambit of the legislation. It is important legislation and should not be treated lightly. It provides an opportunity for handlers to take dogs wherever handlers might go in the exercise of their poUce duties. Also, it provides certain protection for the Commissioner of Police and the handlers in the event of certain persons wishing to take legal action against the entry of animals. In this case, of course, the animal is given special dispensation to enter a place in the course of its duty. Further, and more importantly—and it is an area in which I beUeve the Government has acted wisely—^special dispensatiort will apply to handlers and their dogs in the case of locail govemment ordinances and regulations. That is a very sensible provision, and it will free handlers and their dogs to exercise their duties properly in the course of carrying out their duty in the force. Police dogs will be able to enter upon restaurants, beaches or supermarkets—areas from which hitherto local govemment ordinances and by-laws may have excluded them. Mr Eaton: Once that provision comes in they should let them go to the 'Gabba. I am sure that they would beat some of the dogs that we back out there. Mr HAMILL: That might well occur. By allowing dogs to enter supermarkets and other places, I would of course hope that, unlike the animal that I mentioned earlier in that epic search for the child, the dogs wUl observe the standard of hygiene and exercise the degree of professionalism that we expect from other members of the force. Other aspects of the Bill deal with the requirement that people should not get in the way of the. Dog Squad in its operations. They should not hinder or obstmct the Dog Squad. The Bill, like other legislation of this type, wiU provide certain penalties for those people who seek to obstruct the squad in the course of its activities. Also important in cortsiderirtg the enormous community investmertt irt the Dog Squad are provisiorts that represertt pertalties for those people wbo would klU, maim or wouud an animal in the course of its duty. The Police Dogs Bill provides that restitution be made to the Police Department for the inadvertent loss of its very valuable animals. Other provisions include procedural matters for people committing offences under the BUl and the penalties that apply to Police Dogs BiU 6 March 1984 1867 certain offences. They are not contentious provisions. The legislation is sensible and practical and overcomes existing anomalies which would otherwise hinder the Dog Squad in the rightful exercise of its operations. I said earUer that I regarded this Bill as equal rights legislation for dogs or dog liberation legislation. I thought it would be important to look at the terms and conditions of employment that police dogs enjoy, so I consulted with the Queensland Police Union to try to ascertain exactly what the status of the animals is in the police force. I had pleasure in conferring with a very senior and prominent member of the force who was able to teU me the condUions that apply to dogs. For the edification of honourable members, I present this information to the House. I was informed that police dogs do not have to pay a fee to be a member of the police union. It would probably be difficult for them to pay a fee because I understand that their rates of pay are not high. Nevertheless, they do not qualify for benefits such as sick leave, nor do they qualify under the poUce mortaUty fund. I understand that the executive of the union wUl consider appUcations from poUce dogs for legal advice and legal defence should the need arise as long as the application is signed by the animal with its paw print. In the case of the rank of senior sergeant or higher—and this is most unfair —a simple wetting of the paper wiU suffice. However, after long deliberation, it has been decided that the dogs will not benefit under the PoUce Superannuation Fund, so I imagine that they have little interest in the Bill that was passed a few weeks ago. Mr Underwood: What about workers' compensation?

Mr HAMILL: They miss out on workers' compensation as weU. They do not get superannuation because the fund could not withstand the extra financial burden. I understand that that was decided because there have been spme serious questions asked about the viabUity of the Police Superannuation Fund. The union has been successful in its campaign to exempt poUce dogs from sitting for quaUfying examinations for higher rank, so I suppose that promotion within the force follows a policy of seniority. Mr Casey: Are you saying that they are copping a dog's life? Mr HAMILL: I think that they are probably getting a fairly reasonable Ufe. There should be a flow-on from these provisions that are raising the. status of dogs within the force. Because of the improvements irt the status of poUce dogs, Opposition members would like the advantages Of unionism and other fringe benefits that accme for ordinary members of the force to be afforded to the four-footed m.embers. The Opposition has great pleasure in supporting the Bill,

Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (9,43 p,m,): I am pleased that the member for Ipswich supports the Bill, and it is pleasing that the Opposition can speak in supoort of sensible legislation and not knock it. This is not the first piece of sensible legislation that has been irttroduced and it wiU not be the last, but it is certairtly needed. It applies to police dogs and to police handlers and I do not know that that point was brought out. The BiU defines police dogs and police handlers. It covers their training, because both dogs and handlers must be quaUfied. The provisions of the Bill apply only when the dog and the handler are on duty and, in the case of the dog, they apply only when it is under control. Surely such protection is necessary and must be built into any BiU of this nature. Ordinances already exist in relation to dogs generally. They were touched on by the honourable member for Ipswich. Local ordinances bar dogs from places such as supermarkets and butcher shops and even prohibit dogs roaming free in parks. A police dog, however, must be permitted to go into a butcher shop or abattoir. He may be with his handler, he may be on a lead or he may be roaming free, depending on the need at the time. The handler is experienced and knowledgeable, and he alone has the authority to assess whether his dog should be on or off the lead, depending on the circumstances at the time. The Minister for Police, in briefing his committee on the Bill, quoted one instance of a breaking and entering in the lower level of a multilevel car-park. A police dog arrived in its vehicle, its handler took it out and let it go, and within a very short time it was back 1868 6 March 1984 PoMce Dogs Bill out from the lower level with two fellows marching very quietly ahead of k. The reduction in risk to that police officer was quite significant, and the whole matter was handled quickly and ably by the dog. Working dogs have been well known to Australians for many years. The dogs that are used by the air force are typical examples, but they are slightly different in that they are guard dogs that usually are turned loose in a hangar or a protected fenced-irt area artd allowed to roam free durmg darkuess. They attack ort sight. They can be controlled by handlers. Such dogs have often been seen at sportmg events at which they have given demonstrations of their prowess. Reference was made to the type of contairters that are used to transport dogs from place to place. I note with satisfaction that the contamers, or cages, that the Queensland Police Dog Squad uses are the best and most humane containers in Australia. They are spacious, air-conditioned and designed to ensure that the dogs arrive on the job fresh and ready for work—not in a cramped and wUted condUion as they do in other States because they are carried in small cages in poorly ventilated small vehicles. The work for the dogs extends from An Opposition Member: Woof, woof! Mr McPHIE: woof, woof, as mentioned by the honourable member opposite, and search work in supermarkets and butcher shops to searching for drugs and, m certain circum­ stances, bodies. The work done by police dogs is vital, so it is only natural that a Bill such as this should deal with penalties for deliberately obstructing eUher the dog or the handler in his work. The BiU goes to the extent of providing that anyone who does obstruct a dog or a handler is actually aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. Suitable penalties are provided in the BiU. COrtain provisions in the Animals Protection Act 1925-1981 wUl not apply to this BUl. That Act has a section 4 (3), which provides that where a dog mshes at a person on a road, that person may then and there kill that dog. The context in which that part of the Act does not apply is where a poUce dog does that and is not imder the control of his handler. If the dog is under the control of his handler and he has reason to be set on somebody who is walking on the road and the dog^ mshes under instructions from the handler, tbe dog is working completely within its rights, just as the police officer is acting within his rights if he is attacked and he has to draw a pistol to protect himself while he is on duty. The Act does not affect UabiUty under existing laws. I repeat that the dog must be under control at all times, and that the handler must work within his correct laws or mles at all times. DeaUng further with the penalty clause to which I have referred, I point out that provisions exist for people to be arrested for interference. Certain provisions require a persons name, address and other usual information to be supplied. That is completely in line with other Acts. In its provisions relating to the police dog and the police handler, the Act is no different from other similar Acts in relation to police officers on duty. Mr HamUl: It puts dogs on a par with the handlers.

Mr McPHIE: Yes. The honourable member has made a fair statement in this con­ text. Evidentiary provisions indicate that it may be necessary to prove in court that the dog in question is a police dog, duly trained, and that the poUce officer in charge of the dog is a duly qualified police dog-handler. Very little can be said about the Bill that has not been covered by the member for Ipswich and me. It is a sensible and necessary piece of legislation. If any surprise should be evinced at its introduction, it would be because it had not been done years ago. I compUment the Minister for bringing it forward so early in the term of office of the National Party Govemment. I support the Bill. PoUce Dogs BUl 6 March 1984 1869

Mr HENDERSON (Mt Gravatt) (9.53 p.m.): Till I heard the pampered political protege of Bill Hayden belittle the Queensland PoUce Force and police dogs, I really had no intention of speaking to this BiU. Now I cannot help but participate in the debate. The great spokesman for the working class who has never done a hard day's work in his life could not understand the problems of the police. Let us look at what would happen if a Labor Government was in office and it was introducing this Bill. In accordance with its usual practice of solving unemployment, the first thing it would do would be to set up a ministry of dogs. Might I be humble enough to suggest that U would be headed by a bUch, and the best choice would be Senator Susan Ryan. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. I regard the remarks made by the honourable member for Mt Gravatt as quite unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw his remarks con­ cerning Senator Susan Ryan. It is an unwarranted attack and one that should not be countenanced in this House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HENDERSON: The next thing it would do Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. I find the honourable member's use of the word "bitch" extremely offensive, extremely sexist and quite unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw on those grounds. Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member was referring to dogs? Mr HENDERSON: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very sensitive issue in some quarters and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr HENDERSON: I will withdraw that comment. Next, the Labor Party would impose a 1 per cent levy on the pretext that it would be used to look after the dogs, but the Labor Party would give it to all but the Queensland police dogs. The Labor Party would then set up its ten-thousandth inquiry into police dogs. No doubt it would have to investigate such mammoth questions as the suitability or otherwise of Pal dog food, whether or not police dogs are in fact dogs and so on. The honourable member for Pine Rivers said that police dogs would not be given a choice; that there would be compulsory unionism and that some dogs would even be trained not to work with others that were not members of a union. Of course, a vast bureaucracy would be needed to administer the dog department that the Labor Party would set up, about which it is perpetually barking. The whole matter deserves a little more seriousness than the member for Ipswich gave it. The fact of the matter is that poUce dogs perform a very important task in society. I can understand that, in view of the potential of police dogs to sniff out drugs and because of the Labor Party's policy for the decriminalisation of the use of marijuana, in some ways the Labor Party would be opposed to police dogs. In exactly the same vein, the dogs' abUity to sniff out corruption would not appeal to the Labor Party, because the dogs could be sent in great numbers to New South Wales to start sniffing around Mr Wran. I would be very interested to see what they found. The dogs are important in drug surveiUance, sniffing out explosives, finding lost people and bringing to bay people armed with dangerous weapons. For that reason I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. At least I have attempted to bring to the issue the degree of seriousness it deserves. To again comment on the speech of the member for Ipswich—if there was a BUl of Rights for dogs, I can assure him that the dogs would be infinitely more worthy than he is. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point or order. The remarks of the member for Mt Gravatt were quite unwarranted. I find them offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must admit that I did not find anything in the remarks of the honourable member for Mt Gravatt that could possibly be offensive to the member for Ipswich. Therefore, I will not ask for a withdrawal. 62183—66 1870 6 March 1984 Police Dogs Bill

Mr HAMILL: Mr Speaker, I understand that, under Standmg Orders, if I ask for a withdrawal of an offensive statement, I am entitled to have it withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Mt Gravatt to withdraw the statement. Mr HENDERSON: In deference to the boy, yes. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. I ask for an unqualified withdrawal of the comments. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to that. Mr hENDERSON: I make an unqualified withdrawal, Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (9.59 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The member for Ipswicb, who was deputising for the member for Salisbury, commenced very responsibly in the respects that he paid to the dogs and their handlers, who work as one unit. Tbe whole purpose of the BUl is to legaUse something that is accepted throughout the nation. This is the first such legislation to be introduced in the Commonwealth. One would have to be disappointed at the latter part of the contribution of the member for Ipswich. In fact, one could have been excused for thinking that he was doing a screen test for a clown or something of the sort. His remarks were not those that could be expected from somebody who was deputising for the Opposition spokesman. This is quite a serious debate. It is a debate in which the honourable member had the opportunity, which he took in the early part of his speech, to compliment a unit which works for the protection of Ufe and property in this State. I, as the Minister representing the poUce force, from the commissioner down, pay tribute to this relatively new adjunct to the police force. It is in its infancy, but it will in time prove to be one of the most effective deterrents to dmg offenders and the terrorist element, which is ever increasing in our society. The Dog Squad wiU work towards the apprehension of criminals at aU levels. It is an up and coming part of the force. As a former Royal Australian Air Force officer, the member for Toowoomba North has obviously had some experience with and watched the operation of the dogs that protect the property of the RAAF. It was a pleasure to hear his sincere comments. I pay tribute to tbe bonourable member's contributions to my parliamentary committee. The member for Mt Gravatt said that he had not intended speaking, but he was obviously disappointed at some of the utterances of the member for Ipswich. I repeat that the Bill legaUses the operations of the Dog Squad, which has so far been without the protectiort Of the law. It will allow the dogs to enter preinises where food is handled. Its provisions will protect the dog and his handler working as a unit to protect life and property in this State. I thank all members for their contributions. Motion (Mr Glasson) agreed to.

Committee Mr Randell (Mirani) in the chair; Hon. W. H. Glasson (Gregory—^Minister for Lands, Forestry and pplice) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3—Interpretation— Mr HAMILL (10 p.m.): The wording of the clause is interesting. I would have thought that in a Bill such as this the Minister might have been able to present a Uttle more explanatory material in relation to the definitions. One part of the clause states— " 'police dog' means a dog certified at the material time by the Commissioner as being a police dog for the purposes of this Act;" The definitiort of police dog handler is couched in similar terms. It seems to me that this clause is an example of tautology and one which could well be regarded as needing a little more amplUication. In terms of the whole Bill, these clauses are importartt. It is a very importartt Bill, as Opposition members have already stated, and one which we are pleased to support. One would have thought that some of the comments coming from the Government benches Police Dogs Bin 6 March 1984 1871

were a little gratuitous. Judging by the comments that have been made one could come to the conclusion that little sense of humour exists on the Government benches when it comes to matters that are dear to the hearts of Govemment members. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr HAMILL: Oppositiort members are accustomed to inane comments from Government back-benchers. The honourable member is continuing to bark about this BiU. This week- he has already come off second best in the press as a result of certain remarks that he presented in other debates. I should have thought that the Minister would amplify on the interpretations in clause 3 so as to give a real understartding of what he means by the two terms. In so doing, he could have dressed up the Bill a little more. That may have denied us the opportunity to exercise a little levity this evening. As the clause stands, it is virtually an example of tautology. If the BiU had been better drafted, it niay have been a better BUl. Mr UNDERWOOD: I must refer to the comments made by certain Government mem­ bers. I have not met or heard such a group of humourless, lemon-mouthed, mouldy old wowsers. In saying that, I think of some of the comments by the honourable member for Mt Gravatt that were taken up by the Minister. Their comments were very hypocritical. When the honourable member for Ipswich was making his contribution I saw smiles of enjoyment on the faces of Government members, but suddenly those members tumed into mouldy, old, lemon-mouthed wowsers. The member for Mt Gravatt would not even know the definition of "mirth" If a smile were to cross his face, it would crack. I refer Govern­ ment members to the humorous debates in the Federal Parliament. Two great exponents of that type of debate were Messrs Killen and Daly. We are dealing with a police matter. Because the member for Ipswich saw fit to introduce some humanity into police matters which usually produce strident criticism and arouse strong emotions, and to create enjoyment for members at this time of night, some comments were made by the mealy-moutbed Sir Echos on the Government side. The member for Fassifern, the man who came here as Cassius Clay and was to change the world, made some comments to the member for Ipswich. However, the honourable member for Fassifern is only Cassius Clay's shadow, or Sir Echo, because since his maiden speech he has done absolutely nothing to justify his election to Parliament. For goodness' sake, let us have a little common sense, humanity and humour in this ParUament, because we need it. Mr McPHIE: I am absolutely lost to understand why either of the Opppsition members should hold up this debate on clause 3. Neither pf them spoke to clause 3 in any significant way. Indeed, the honourable member for Ipswich West did not comment on the clause at aU. No reason was given for delaying the debate. Qause 3, the interpretation clause, defines exactly what a police dog is, states exactly what a police dog handler is and qualifies the description as necessary so that there may be no confusion. Surely the Minister should not have to amplify the meaning of "police dog" by describing U as an Alsatian, a spotted dog or a small Australian terrier that could be used in confined spaces. A police dog can be any type of dog that is trained. Ms Warner: It can be a dingo. Mr McPHIE: Yes, it can. If dingoes are trained they are quite acceptable. Mr Henderson: What about the ALP dogs? Mr McPHIE: I do not know about the ALP dogsi They may not be trained so well. The Act should not have to define a "police dog handler" on the basis of whether the handler is a male or female dog handler. It can be eUher one as long as the person is qualified. Clause 3 of the Bill is quite in order. Opposition members have given no reason why the debate should have been held up. I suggest that we should proceed to the later clauses. Mr GLASSON: The interpretation clause is specific, and I intend to make no further comment. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. 1872 6 March 1984 Police Dogs Bill

Clauses 4 to 9, as read, agreed to. Qause 10—^Power to require name, address etc.—

Mr GLASSON (10.10 p.m.): Following representations from and consultations with members of the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society Incor­ porated, it is considered that some charges should be made to clause 10. Therefore, I move the following amendment— "At page 3, line 43, omit the expression—

and substitute the words— 'and believes on reasonable grounds that such information will assist in the conduct of the investigations; or'." Amendment (Mr Glasson) agreed to. Mr GLASSON: I move the following further amendment— "At page 4, omit all words comprising lines 1 and 2." Amendment agreed to.

Mr GLASSON: I move the following further amendment— "At page 4, line 3, omit the expression— '(d)' and substitute the expression— '(c)'." Amendment agreed to, Mr GLASSON: Finally it was considered that there was some disparity in the penalties for failing to supply the name and address. The period of imprisonment is to be reduced from six months to two months, I therefore move the following further amendment— "At page 4, line 12, omit the expression— '6' and substitute the expression— •2'." Amendment (Mr Glasson) agreed to.

Mr GLASSON: I move the following further amendment— "At page 4, Une 18, omit the expression— *6' and substitute the expression— '2'." Amendment agreed to. Mr DAVIS: In his preliminary remarks, the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police stated that after discussiort with the Queensland Law Society and other bodies an amendment was formulated to this clause. This is probably the fourth Bill that the Minister has intro­ duced that has had amendments made to it after discussions wUh the law society and other bodies. Would it not be a better idea to have the law society study a BiU after it is drafted so that these problems may not occur? It is not doing the Minister's image much good to have so many amendments made to a Bill after it has been introduced.

Mr GLASSON: I inform the honourable member for Brisbane Central that I intend to reintroduce three consolidated Bills tonight. The Police Dogs Bill is a smaU Bill that my officers did not think would need to be amended. However, when the Government accepted amendments to the other three Bills, the Bills were redrafted in a consolidated form. Qause 10, as amended, agreed tp. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Second-hand Dealers and Collectors BiU 6 March 1984 1873

Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Glasson, by leave, read a third time.

SECOND-HAND DEALERS AND COLLECTORS BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I move— "That the Order of the Day be discharged." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I move— "That the Bill be withdrawn." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce): I move— "That the original Order for the introduction of the Bill be now read." Motion agreed to, and the Qerk read the original Order. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I seek leave to bring in another Bill founded on that Order. (Leave granted.) First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (10.21 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Just prior to the rising of the House for the recess last Christmas, I introduced a Bill to repeal the Second-hand Wares Act of 1921. Subsequent to this, approaches were made to me by the Queensland Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society to reconsider certain aspects of the proposed legislation. Resulting from meetings between the Police Department, the Queensland Bar Association, the Queenslartd Law Society and myself, it was decided to make certain amendments to the Bill before it proceeded. Because of the number of amendments proposed, it was decided to have them incorporated into the Bill by the Parliamentary Counsel and to then reintroduce the Bill into the House. One of the more important areas of these amendments is that Cabinet has approved that matters relating to appeals against the revocation of licences or the refusal to issue licences will be determined by a magistrate instead of by me. This will be dealt with further during my speech. As well, resulting from approaches by second-hand dealers, it is intended that persons who sell second-hand goods at trash and treasure markets or flea markets will be required to hold second-hand dealers licences. These persons are those who make a practice or business of seUing at such places at the week-ends. Some of these trash and treasure market sellers make a practice of collecting or buying second-hand goods from garage sales and then reselling them through these trash and treasure or flea market places. Persons who sell on a once-only situation will not be required to hold a licence. Persons who manufacture the goods they sell—for example, those who make pottery—^will not require a licence, as their goods will not come within the category of second-hand goods. In re-presentirtg this Bill, I draw attentipn to the fact that it is 63 years since the present Second-hand Wares Act of 1921 was enacted. Consequently, some of its provisiorts are no longer suitable for this day and age. The issue of licences requires streamlining to speed their issue. Certain classes of second-hand goods available today, such as television sets and video recorders, were not available when the present Act was first enacted. Because of matters of this nature, it was considered necessary to review and modernise the legislatiort. 1874 6 March 1984 Secpnd-hand EJealers and Collectors BiU

As part of the modernisation, U is intended that the original licence wUl be issued from a central licence-issuing area and renewals carried out by local officers in charge of pplice. By having a central licence-issuing area, it should be much easier to check the credentials of each applicant. Clause 1 indicates the name of the Act. An amendment was made here changing the year from 1983 to 1984. Clause 2 provides for the date pf commencement, and clauses 3 and 4 are machinery clauses. Clause 5 is a transUional clause providing that licenses issued under the present Act will continue under the new Act until they reach the expiry date shOwn on the licence in question. Clause 6 is an interpretation clause explaining the meaning given to a number of words that appear frequently throughout the Bill. By virtue of clause 7, the Bill will not apply to the collecting, buying or selling of second-hand goods on behalf of charities registered under the Collections Act 1966. r ,, Clause 8 and clause 9 make provision for the ; appointment of an authorised officer. That person will have responsibility for the issiie of original licences. Where a local officer in charge of police does not for some reason renew a licence, the authorised officer will make a decision on the matter. ; - Qause 10 restricts the persons to whom a licence will be issued. A Ucence wiU not be issued to a person under 18 years of age or to a person suffering from mental infirmity. A collector's licence will not be issued in the name of a body corporate, to the holder of a dealer's licence under this Act or to the holder of a pawn-broker's licence under the Pawnbrokers Act. The year, 1983, has been changed to 1984. Also, subclause (4) of the original Bill has been deleted. Subclause (4) indicated that more than one licence would not be issued in respect of any premises. It was found that in some cases two pyersons, not connected in any way with each other, could be conducting second-hand shops under the one roof. •:-•,• Clauses 11, 12 and 13 deal with the procedure to be followed.for the af^Ucation for and issue of licences. Briefly, the applicant makes an application to the local officer in charge of police, who makes certain inquiries and then forwards the application and his r^ort to the authorised officer, who will either approve or refuse the application. The authorised officer will issue the initial licence or, if he refuses to issue a Ucence, he wiU advise the applicant in writing. Licences when issued wUl be issued in the name of tbe person concerned and will specify therein the premises or locations where the person is to con­ duct his business. Qause 14 aUows licensees to make application for renewal of their Ucences up to 60 days before expiry date. Clause 15 provides that a licence, unless sooner surrendered or revoked, will remain in force for a period of 12 months from date of issue. Clause 16 provides that, where the issue of a Ucence is refused, a notice of refusal is to be given to the applicant. The applicant will have the right to pursue the matter further by way of appeal. The matter of appeals will be dealt with later during my speech. Qause 17 provides that a licence, will not be transferable. Clause 18, which allows endorsements to be made on licences, intends that such endorsements will be made only by the authorised officer or, where prescribed, the officer in charge. Clauses 19 and 20 relate to the loss, theft or destmction of Ucences. Where a licensee finds that his licence has been lost, stolen or destroyed, he is to advise the nearest officer in charge of police of the fact and to make application for the issue of a replacement licence, which will be issued as provided under clause 20. Clause 21 gives the authorised officer the authority to revoke a Ucence issued under this Act. A person whose licence has been revoked will have a right of appeal. Clause 22 provides that, where a licensee is convicted of dealing in goods fraudulently or otherwise obtained by him, his licence is to be revoked for a period of five years. For a breach of this Act, on conviction, his licence is to be endorsed with the conviction^ but Second-hand Dealers and Collectors BUl 6 March 1984 1875

it can be removed after five years. Qause 22 is amended to include reference to clause 65 (3). Qause 65 (3) refers to the UabiUty of employers for offences by their employees. That clause has been modified. Under clause 23, where a licence is to be surrendered, a notice of surrender is to be served on the Ucensee showing the time, date, place and to whom the licence is to be surrendered. Qause 24 places a requirement on a licensee to notify any change of address he may have from time to time. Clause 25 provides that a collector may carry on his business of collecting throughout the State or in a restricted area. Qause 26 provides that a dealer's Ucence shall be endorsed with the premises or locations where he is authorised to carry on his business. An example would be that a dealer may have his licence endorsed for business premises at Stanley Street, Brisbane, with a further endorsement of a location at Mt Gravatt where a trash and treasure market is operating on Sundays. Where a licence is issued under clause 27 to a body corporate as a dealer, the name of a natural person must be endorsed as a representative of the body corporate. Qause 27 was also amended, where appUcable, by the insertion of the words "or location" after the word "premises". The use of the word "premises" in the Act indicates a proper building and the use of the words "or location" indicates places or locations where trash and treasure markets are held. Qause 28 makes it an offence for a person to act as a coUector unless he first obtains a licence. Qause 29 places a requirement on a coUector to carry his licertce with him whUst he is acting as a coUector. The hours of business of a collector wiU be controlled by the Factories and Shops Act 1960 artd the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act as indicated in clause 30. Also, a collector will be further restricted to operating between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. A number of complaints have been received about the behaviour, not necessarily of collectors, but of persons knocking on people's doors late at night trying to sell goods. Clause 31 requires the licensed collector to display the words "licensed collector" on any vehicle he uses in his business. Clause 32 provides for the issue of coUectors' badges and for the surrender of these badges when the collector is no longer Ucensed. Clause 33 requires that he wear his badge whUst acting as a collector. Qause 34 requires a collector to maintairt a register of transactions showing details of his collections and disposals. Collectors should be required to keep records because of the^ possibiUty of stolen goods coming into their possession, whether innocerttly or otherwise. That second-hand shops can be clearing-houses for stolen goods is shown in an American instance in which police set up a second-hand dealer's business and recovered $4m worth of stolen goods and closed off 10 000 cases of theft. Closer to home, "The National Times" of 24 February contairted an article that claimed that, of the $125m worth of goods stolen from AustraUan homes this year, barely 5 per cent will be recovered. The rest wiU be resold. Some, for example, wiU appear in second-hand shops, some new materials wiU appear in some electrical stores while small amounts wiU be sold in hotels. Under Clause 35, it will be an offence for a collector to coUect goods from a person under 17 years of age. A defence provision is provided for the offender to show that he reasonably believed the child was over 17 years of age. Qause 36 makes it an offence for a collector to enter or remain on premises without the permission of the owner. Under Clause 37 a collector may, within 24 hours of collecting goods, be required by the person from whom he purchased goods to produce his licence to that person. Clause 38 requires a coUector to keep any goods collected by hUn in the same state in which he collected them for a period of seven days from the date of collection. This requiremertt wiU not apply if he seUs them within seven days to a licensed dealw. 1876 6 March 1984 Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Bill

Clause 39 requires a licensed collector to dispose of goods he coUects to a licensed dealer only. Clause 40 requires that aU persons who conduct the business of dealirtg in second-hand goods shaU first obtain a licence. The requirements of clause 40 apply both to second-baud dealers who have permanent premises and to those who sell at trash and treasure markets and the like. Qause 41 provides that a dealer shaU, at the premises or location where he carries on business, be clearly identified with his name and with the fact that he is a licensed dealer. The requirement includes persons operating at trash and treasure markets or the like. Clause 41 was amended to include reference to locations. Under Clause 42, a dealer's Ucence will specify thereon the premises or location at which he is to carry on his business. Clause 42 was also amended to include reference to locations. The hours of business, as dealt with in clause 43, will also be controlled by the Factories and Shops Act and the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under Clause 44, a dealer wUl be required, as at present, to keep a register of trans­ actions showing therein the name of the person from whom he received goods, a description of the goods and to whom they are sold. The keeping of such a register wiU assist police who check a dealer's premises when looking for stolen goods. This clause now refers to locations also. Clause 45 restricts the age of employees to 17 years or above. Because of the nature of the business and the possibility of stolen goods, it is considered that a child should not be employed in a shop to purchase or receive second-hand goods of any description. Clause 46 prevents a dealer or coUector from accepting second-hand goods from a person under the age of 17 years. This is an area that has been causing concem for some time. Children have been committing house-breaking offences and in some instances selling the goods to a dealer. There was a requirement in the origirtal Bill that a dealer keep goods acquired by him in the same condition as he received them for a period of seven days before he could sell them. That was to allow police time for checking whether they were stolen goods. In this consolidated Bill, that requirement has been deleted altogether. Dealers will, however, be expected to pay strict attention to the keeping of proper records of transactions. Failure to do so will render them liable to punishment. Clause 47 will require that a dealer advise poUce if any second-hand goods that answer the description of stolen goods are offered tP him. Clause 48 gives a dealer authority to require the supply Of the name and address of a person who offers second-hand goods to him. A person who fails to supply the information wUl commit an offence against the Act. The dealer will have authority under the Act to detain any goods offered to him that he suspects are stolen, and also the person involved, delivering the goods and person, where involved, to a police officer to be dealt with according to law. In this matter of detaining the goods and person the original 1921 Act prpvided power for a second-hand dealer or his employees to arrest certain persons. In the Bill introduced by me before Christmas and again in this Bill, this power of arrest for dealers and their employees has been deleted. Under the Act, dealers may detain the goods or person and hand tbem over to the police. It must be clearly noted that the words "may detain" are discretionary and not mandatory. Once again media reports concerning the Bill introduced before Christmas contained very inaccurate versions of the alleged contents of the Bill in this area. In fact one newspaper indicated that this Bill had already been passed. Clause 49 creates a general offence situation where any person who contravenes any provision of the Act will be liable for a penalty rangmg from $400 or three months' imprisonment to $800 or 6 months' imprisonment for a first offence, unless the particular offence has a specific penalty provided. Qause 50 creates various offences involving licences. Among them are obtaining licences by fraud or misrepresentation, lending a licence, possession of a cancelled licence or making unauthorised endorsements. Clause 51 creates the offence of making false entries in registers of transactions. Second-hand Dealers and Collectors BiU 6 March 1984 1877

Under Clause 52 only a dealer (or in the case of bottles, the owner) will be allowed to acquire goods from a Ucensed collector. Qause 53 makes it an offence fpr a collector to use irtsultirtg language or behave in an insulting manner while he is conducting his business as a collector. Clause 54 is self-explanatory and makes it an offence for any person to attempt to contravene any provision of the Act, Clause 55 gives police officers the authority to require the name and address of persons under certain circumstances. If a person fails to give his name artd address the poUce officer is required to first caution him and, if he still faUs to give his name and address, may arrest him. This clause was the subject of suggestions made by the Bar Association, and these suggestions were incorporated. The amendment cleariy indicates that police wUl need to have reasonable grounds for believing that the name and address of the person will assist in their investigations. Clause 56 gives police authority to demaud the production for inspection of any licence issued under the Act, Clause 57 gives authority to police to enter a dealer's premises and inspect the registers of transactiorts and the goods Usted in such registers. This is an important phase of police work as.it assists in the recovery of stolen goods. The contents of clause 57 were the subject of discussions between members of my Bills commUtee and officers of the Police Department, The clause now requires that the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds tbat an offence is being committed, etc., before he demands entry, A new subclause (4) is added to clause 58. It requires the dealer to produce his register of transactions for inspection by a police officer when required. Clause 58 also now contains reference to "locations", for tbe reasons previously mentioned. Clause 58 provides for the issue of search warrants to police enabling them to search for second-hand goods suspected of being stolen and which may be found on the premises or in the possession of dealers. Clause 59 gives police authority to seize goods they find in the possession of dealers and which they suspect are stolen. Under Clause 60, police will have authority to take fingerprints of offenders convicted under the Act. Where a person is found not guilty or is not proceeded against, any fingerprints, etc., taken will be destroyed at his request, Arisirtg from discussions between representatives of the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Police Department and myself, changes were made to these provisions. Where a court, at its discretion, orders a person convicted by it of an offence under the Act into the custody of a police officer for the purpose of taking fingerprints, photographs, etc., those particulars must be taken within one hour. This aspect of the fingerprinting provision was the subject of much comment by the media and within the House by members of the Opposition when the Pawnbrokers Bill was being debated. It must be clearly understood that a person who is ordered by the court, at its discretion, into the custody of a police officer for the purposes of obtaining fingerprint partic­ ulars is a person who has been convicted. This aspect has been misconstrued and twisted, whether by ignorance or otherwise, to the extent tbat it appears that police wiU detain and fingerprint innocent persons under the Act. The provisipn does not provide that force can be used to take voice-prints or handwriting samples. The Pawnbrokers Bill was also amended in this area during debate. The Hawkers Bill has also been altered. Clause 61, a machinery section, authorises police to appear in the Magistrates Court and prosecute offences under tbis Act. Clause 62, also a machinery section, indicates the method by which proceedings wiU be conducted under the Act. Clause 63, once again a machinery section, directs that all fees and penalties recovered will be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. 1878 6 March 1984 Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Bill

Qause 64 provides that, where offences are committed by bodies corporate, the members of the governing body will be liable for the offence. Arising from discussions between representatives of the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Police Departmertt and myself, changes were made to the original clause 64 (3).'Clause 64 (3) provided that an employer was to be Uable for the actions of his employees. After discussion this subclause was deleted and the following subclause inserted^ "(3) Where a person commits an offence against this Act an agent or employee of a licensee, and is convicted of the offertce, then the fact of that conviction shall be endorsed on the licence of the principal or employer, as the case may be." Whilst removinig this employer liability, the amertded clause wUl still indicate that an employee must exercise some control over his staff, otherwise, when he comes to renew his licence and it shows endorsements for breaches of the Act by his employees, such endorsements could be a consideration as to whether or not his licence is renewed. Qause 65 sets out the procedure to be followed when serving notices or other documents under the Act. They must be served either personally or by registered mail. Qause 66 deals with the matter of appeals where a person is aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer not to issue or renew a licence, the revocation of a licence or the imposition of any condition. Under the original Bill, appeals were to be heard and determined by myself. Since the introduction of that Bill and resulting from discussions between members of the Queensland Bar Association, the Police Department and myself, two submissions were made to Cabinet seeking a variation in the procedure for the hearing of appeals under this Bill. Cabinet saw fit to approve that appeals under this Bill, the Hawkers BUl, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act would be heard and determined by a Magistrates COurt instead of by me. The necessary amendments for these four Bills or Acts have been included in legislation now coming before this House. It should be noted that where a dealer's licence is revoked he will be allowed to continue trading until his appeal is determined. Also he will be able to ascertain the reason for the revocation, etc., of his licence. Clause 67 is a UabiUty protection clause giving protection to the Crown, Minister, members of the PoUce Force and the authorised officers for things done by them in good faith for the administratiort of the Act. Clause 68 deems that if second-hand goods are found in a house, premises or location occupied by the dealer, they are in the possession of the dealer. The same applies if, without having sold them, he removes them to some other place. Qause 69 is an evidentiary provision clause designed to assist during court proceedings. Under this clause, it shall not be necessary to prove the appointmertt of an authorised officer— a member of the police force, for example—or of the Minister or commissioner. Signatures of the commissioner. Minister, authorised officer or members of the police force shall be taken to be the signature it purports to be unless the contrary is proved. Certificates may be used in court proceedings to establish that there was or was not a Ucence in force at a particular time. Qause 70 is a machinery section common to all Acts providing that section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Acts 1954 shall apply with regard to Orders in Council making regulations for the purposes of this Act. Clause 71 gives the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations, prescribe the keeping of registers and other books under this Act and any other regulation considered necessary for the effective carrying out of the various provisions of the Act. As indicated earlier by me, the various submissions of the representatives of the Queens­ land Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society and the Police Departmertt at meetings have been taken into consideration and> where suUable, have been incorporated into this new BUl. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Davis, adjourned. Hawkers BiU 6 March 1984 1879

HAWKERS BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and PoUce): I move— "That the Order of the Day be discharged." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I move— "That the Bill be withdrawn." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I move— "That the original Order for the introduction of the BUl be now read." ,; Motion agreed to, and the Clerk read the original Order. Hon, W, H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I seek leave to bring in another Bill founded on that Order. (Leave granted.) First Reading BUl presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (10.49 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Just prior to the House rising for the recess last Christmas, I introduced a Bill to repeal the Hawkers and Pedlars Act of 1849. Subsequent to that, approaches were made to me ,by the Queensland Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society to reconsider certain aspects of the proposed legislation. Resulting from meetings between the Police Department, the Queensland Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society and myself, it was decided to make certain amendments to the Bill before it proceeded. The proposed amendments were the same as those inserted into the Pawnbrokers Bill as passed by this Parliament on Tuesday, 7 February 1984. Because of the number of amendments proposed, it was decided to have them incorporated into ihe Bill by the ParUamentary Counsel and to then reintroduce the Bill into the House. In presenting this Bill, I draw attentiort to the fact that the legislation being repealed was introduced by New South Wales about 135 years ago. Originally introduced in 1849, it was adopted by Queenslartd when Queenslartd became a separate colony in 1859. Apart from a few minor amendments over the years, it has seen little change and, consequently, it has become very outdated. In fact, there was, until repealed in 1973, a requirement from the Hawkers Acts Amendment Act of 1905 for applications to be referred to the Home Secretary by the court, together with its own report. Because of such procedures, the issue of licences became slow and cumbersome. The Bill now being presented seeks to modernise such matters by way of repeal of the outdated Act and its replacement with the Hawkers Act 1984. One of the principal areas to be considered in this new legislation is the streamlining of the issue of licences to applicants. For the purposes of this BiU and simUar legislation, it is proposed to form a central Ucence-issuirtg area. AU appUcations for the initial licence, whether it be a hawkers licence, collectors licence, second-hand dealers Ucence or pawn-brokers licence, will be directed to this central point where the application can be more speedily processed. Naturally some licensees wiU not be able to hold a licence under more than one Act at the same time, although in other cases they will be able to hold more than one licence. For example, a person who holds a pawn-brokers licence and seeks a second-hand dealers licence should not have to be checked in detaU a second time. Because his previous history will already be on file for the issue of the pawn-brokers licence, basically there should be a rteed only for completion of the second application form. I turn now to explain the provisions of this new Bill. Clauses 1 to 5 are machinery clauses providing for the name of the Bill, when it is to start, what Acts wUl be repealed 1880 6 March 1984 Hawkers Bill

by it artd, in clause 5, providing for the continuation pf licences already in force urtder the Acts being repealed until they expire by time. Where applicable, the year 1983 has been changed to 1984 in this new BiU. Clause 6 is an interpretation clause giving meaning to words that will appear frequently in parts of the Bill. One which should be noted in particular is that "goods" does not include newspapers, books, periodicals, pamphlets, fish, fruit, water, fuel, milk, vegetables or victuals or agricultural produce. Under clause 7, the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to the sale or offering of goods on behalf of a charity registered under the Collections Act 1966 or to the actual maker of the goods, his servants or employees. This last mentioned would relate to the travelling salesman who calls on various business houses. Clause 8 makes provision for the appointment of an authorised officer who will be responsible for the initial issue of licences under this BiU. Clause 9 relates to the issue of licences and provides also for renewals to, be carried out by the local officer in charge of police where the licensee resides. Clause 10 places a limitation on the issue of licences to certain persons. A Ucence shall not be issued to a person under 18 years of age, or to a person who is suffering from any mental infirmity, or to a person who is considered unfit to hold a licence. For example, a person who may be considered unfit to hold a licence could be one who has been convicted of dealing in or receiving stolen goods, or of stealing, or armed robbery. It is not possible to precisely define who may be unfit to hold a licence, and the authorised officer will have to consider each application on its merits. If a person is not satisfied with the decision of the authorised officer, he has the right to appeal against the decision. The appeal provisions will be referred to later in my speech. In recent times, many complaints have been received concerning the activities pf certain individuals who have used children as young as 10 and 12 years of age to hawk items door to door and led people to believe that portion of the proceeds were going to charity. It is intended that this Bill will curtail the activities of such persons. But, by the same token, it will not prevent the newspaper boy who sells newspapers after school from continuing to do so. Clause 11 sets out the manner in which an application for a licence will be made. In this case the application is first made to the officer in charge of poUce where the appUcant is residing, together with a certificate from the local authority to the effect that such authority has no objection to the applicant hawking in its area. Complaints have been received from local authorities concerning the activities of hawkers in their areas. Under clause 12, the poUce officer makes any inquiries that may be considered necessary and, on completion of inquiries, forwards his report to the authorised officer who, by virtue of the provisions of clause 13, either approves and issues the initial licence oi- refuses same. In the original draft of clause 12, concern was expressed that the use of fingerprints, photographs, etc., obtained in connection with an application for a licence should be restricted to police forces of this State, the other Australian States and the Commonwealth. During the debate on the Pawnbrokers Bill such an amendment was made to the relevant clause and a similar amendment has therefore been made to this BiU. Clause 14 makes provision for the renewal of licences by the authorised officer or by the officer in charge of poUce where the applicant resides. If the officer in charge does not renew the Ucence for some reason, he is required to forward the matter to the authorised officer for a decision. If renewal of the licence is refused, there is right of appeal against the authorised officer's decision. Once again, with renewal, a requirement will be a certificate from the local authority to the effect that it has no objection to the issue of a licence. Qause 15 provides that licences issued under this Bill shall be in force for a period of 12 months unless sooner surrendered or cancelled. Clause 16 indicates that, when the authorised officer refuses to issue or renew a licence, he must notify the applicant in writing by way of a notice of refusal. Qause 17 provides that licences wiU rtot be transferable under this Bill. Hawkers BiU 6 March 1984 1881

Qause 18 provides that only the authorised officer or an officer in charge of police will be authorised to make endorsements on licences. Any other person who makes an endorsement will commit an offence. Clause 19 requires a licensee to notify in writing his change of address and to produce his Ucence for the change of address to be endorsed. Qause 20 places a requirement on a Ucensee to report the loss, theft or destruction of any Ucence issued to him. Under clause 21 a replacement Ucence may be issued in lieu of one which has been lost, stolen or destroyed. Such a licence will continue in force for the unexpired portion of the Ucence it replaces. Clause 22 gives authority to the authorised person to revoke Ucences issued under the BUl. Under clause 23, where a licensee is convicted of any offence involving the dealing in or sellmg of goods dishonestly obtained by him, any licence issued to him under this BUI will become null and void. He will not be able to obtain a further licence for a period of five years. Where he is convicted of an offence under this Bill, such conviction shall be endorsed on his licence but such endorsement may be removed after a period of five years. Qause 24 provides that where a licence is to be surrendered a notice must be served on the Ucensee showing therein the time, date and i)erson to whom it is to be surrendered. Clause 25 deals with the matter of appeals where a person is aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer not to issue or renew a licence, by the revocation of a licence or the imposition of any conditiort. Urtder the original Bill before the House, appeals were to have been heard and determined by me. Since the introduction of that BUl, aud resulting from discussions between the Queensland Bar Association, the Police Department and me, two submissions were made to Cabinet seeking a variation in the procedure for the hearing of appeals under this Bill. Cabinet saw fit to approve that appeals under this Bill, the Pawnbrokers Act, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors BiU would be heard and determined by a Magistrates Court instead of by me. The necessary amendments for these Bills or Acts have been included in legislation now coming before this House. It should be noted that where a dealer's licence is revoked the dealer will be allowed to continue trading until his appeal is determined. Also, he will be able to ascertain the reason for the revocation of his licence. Clause 26 provides that a person shall not conduct the business of hawker unless he holds a licence. Clause 27 requires a licensed hawker to carry the licence issued to him at all times whilst he is conducting his business. Under clause 28, the hours of business for a hawker will be restricted to other than 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Complaints have been received, particularly from country areas such as Chinchilla, of persons knocking on people's doors up to 10 p.m. at night trying to sell goods. A hawker also has to comply with the requirements of the Factories and Shops Act where same applies to hours for hawking. Clause 29 requires a hawker to display his name and the fact that he is a licensed hawker on any vehicle he is using for the purpose of conducting his business. Under clause 30, a hawker having entered on premises will be required to leave same if requested to do so by the owner or occupier. Qause 31 creates an offence on the part of a hawker if during the course of carrying on his business he behaves in an insulting manner or uses insulting or offensive language. Clause 32 is a general offence provision providing the penalty to be imposed for breaches of this Bill unless a specific penalty is provided in the particular section. The general penalty shall be, for a first offence, a penalty not exceedmg $400 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a penalty not exceeding $8000 or imprisonment for six months is provided. Clause 33 creates various offences relating to the possession of licences. A person commits an offence where he obtains or attempts to obtain a Ucence by any misrepresentation. 1882 6 March 1984 Hawkers BiU

lends his licence, permits any other person to use his licence, has in possession without reasonable excuse a license not issued to him or makes endorsements on licences issued to him. In these last-mentioned matters any such licence becomes null and void.: Clause 34 makes it an offence for an unlicensed person to hawk goods in a vehicle which bears on it the words "Ucensed hawker" or similar words. Under clause 35, any person who attempts to commit any of the offences outlined in this Bill commits an offence and will be liable to a penalty. Clause 36 gives authority to police officers who find persons committing offences against this BUl to demand the name and address of the person concerrted. If the persort fails or refuses to supply his name and address, the police officer will be required to caution the offender first and, if he still fails to supply his namCj he may arrest such person. With regard to various aspects of the name and address provision, suggestions made by the Queensland Bar Association have been incorporated. The Bill clearly indicates that police will need to have reasonable grounds for believirtg the name and address of a person is needed under clause 36 (1) (b) where the officer is making investigations under the Bill. Clause 37 gives authority to demand production of licences issued under the Bill. It will also be an offence to fail to produce a licence. Clause 38 gives a police officer authority to seize articles he finds in the possession of a hawker where such police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the articles have been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained. For that purpose he may also search a vehicle in possession of a hawker or the hawker himself. Clause 39 gives pplice power of arrest in a very restricted area under this Bill. Other than name and address, the only power of arrest where proceedings by way of summons would not be effective will be under clause 26, unlicensed hawkers, clause 33, fraud and unlawful possession of licences, and clause 34, use of vehicle by unlicensed hawker. Qause 40 provides for the taking of fingerprints of offenders under this Act. Where a person is found not guilty or is not proceeded against the fingerprints are to be destroyed at his request. Arising from discussions between representatives of the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society, the Pplice Department and me, changes were made to these provisions. When a court, at its discretion, orders a person convicted of an offence under the Act into the custody of a police officer for the purpose of taking fingerprints, photographs, etc., those particulars must be taken within one hour. This aspect of the fingerprints provision was the subject of much comment both by the media and within the House by members of the Opposition when the Pawnbrokers Bill was being debated. It must be clearly understood that a person who is ordered by the court, at its discretion, into the custody of a police officer for the purposes of obtaining fingerprint particulars is a person who has been convicted. This aspect has been misconstmed and twisted whether by ignorance or otherwise to the extent that, under the Act it appears police are going to detain and fingerprint innocent persons. The provision does not provide that force can be used to take voice-prints or handwriting samples. The Pawnbrokers Bill was also amended in this area during debate. The Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Bill has also been altered. Clause 4l, a machinery clause, authorises police to appear as prosecutors in court proceedings for offences under this Act. Qause 42 indicates the method by which offences will be prosecuted under this Act. Under the provisions of Clause 43, fees and penalties recovered or receive^ will be paid into the ConsoUdated Revenue Fund. i.. Clause 44, a machinery provision, directs what method is to be followed for the service of orders and notices. Clause 45 is a liability protection clause giving protection to the Crown, the Minister, authorised officers and members of the police force for anything done by them in good faith for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act. Qause 46 makes provision for certain evidentiary matters under the Act. In pro­ ceedings it shall not be necessary to prove the appointment of the Minister, authorised Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1883 officer, commissioner, a member of the police force or their signatures. Documents certi­ fying there was or was not a licence in force under the Act at a particular time will be evidence of such facts unless the contrary is proved. Proof of exemption from the provisions of the Act will rest on any person who claims such exemption. Clause .47 provides authority for the Govemor in Council to make regulations as necessary for the administration of the Act. Schedules A and B indicate which Acts are to be repealed or terminated by this Act. As indicated earUer by me, the various submissions at meetings of the representatives of the Bar Association of Queensland, the Queensland Law Society and the Police Depart­ ment have been taken into consideration and, where suitable, have been incorporated into this new BiU. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Fouras, adjoumed.

FIREARMS AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police). I move— "That the Order of the Day be discharged." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I move— "That the BiU be withdrawn." Motion agreed to. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—-Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police): I seek leave to bring in another BUl founded on that Order. (Leave granted.) First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (11.10 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." On 2 February 1984 I introduced into this House a Bill to amend the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1979 in certain particulars. As a result of discussions since held betweert members of the Bar Association of Queensland, the Queensland Law Society, the Police Department and me, certain amendments were proposed. It was decided to incorporate these into the Bill and thert reirttroduce the BUl in a consolidated form. One of the main amendments which is of interest is the determination of appeals. This will be dealt with later in my speech. Since the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act came into operation on 1 May 1980 it has been found that the Act requires amendment in certain particulars. The majority of the amertdments proposed in this Bill are of a technical nature. The Act is to be called the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Act 1984. Clause 2 of the BUl amends section 6 (Applicatiort of Act) of the prirtcipal Act and refers to a new clause 67A, which is to be inserted. Clause 67A will be mentioned later, but it deals with unauthorised possession of handcuffs and similar restraints. Section 6, which exempts various persons from the provisions of the Act, is to be amended in paragraph (a) by irtserting tbe words "or handcuffs or other similar restraints of a type approved for use by members of the police force or any other law enforcement agency or security service in Queensland" immediately after the words "body vest". The purpose of paragraph (a) is to exempt from the provisions of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons 1884 6 March 1984 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment BUl

Act persons such as police officers or prison officers in relation to the possession, by them during the course of their duty of certain articles. Ilandcuffs or similar restraints are articles which come within this category. Qause 3 of this Bill amends section 7 of the principal Act. Section 7, subsection (1), provision (h) of the definition "dangerous article" is to be amended by omitting the word "main" and substituting the words "content or portion of the". As it stands at present the content of a Molotov cocktail has to consist of mainly an inflammable substance. Irt actual practice such a device may consist of one-quarter petrol and three-quarters shrapnel. The second part of the amendments to be made to section 7 of the principal Act deals with "power heads", these being devices used by underwater spear fishermen. The device is usually powered by either a shotgun cartridge or more likely a .303 calibre cartridge. There is no doubt that the device is a firearm within the meaning of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. Furthermore, it is also a concealable firearm. Most are designed to be used together with and as part of a spear gun outfit. However, the head can also be carried and used separately, the length of such a device being approximately 10 inches. Complaints have been received about possession of power heads in circumstartces other than for their intended use. It is impossible to say how many of these devices would be in circulation in Queertsland. However, the number would no doubt be yqry high. At present there is the choice of either licensing power heads or exempting them according to the provisions of the Act. NeUher licensing nor exemption is faVoured, owirtg to the administrative costs and difficulty of policing, and the popularity of the device with spear fishermen. Instead it is intended to amend the definition of "firearm" in section 7 by excluding the device "except when used as a weapon". This is achieved by the addition of the words "a power head or similar device designed or intended for use in, through or under water". The final part of the definition of "firearm" would then read— "But does not include— (e) a long bow (f) a crossbow (g) a spear gun; or (h) an explosive-powered tool as defined in the Construction Safety Act 1971-1975; (i) a power head or similar device designed or intended for use in, through or under water, when not used as a weapon." Clause 4 amends section 22, This section requires the insertion of the word "destroyed" after the word "lost" to make the clause consistent with the intention indicated by the head notes to the section "Reporting loss, destruction or theft of licence etc," Clause 5 is a technical amendment to section 26 of the principal Act, In subsection 2, the word "of" is to be omitted where it reads "Act of law" in the last line, and the word "or" to be irtserted, so that it reads "Act or law" Clause 6 is also a technical amendment correcting in section 27 of the principal Act an error that was made when the subparagraphs were originaUy numbered. It will be seen that there are two subparagraphs numbered (3), These are to be renumbered correctly. Clause 7 amends section 33 of the principal Act and is amended by removing a restriction that exists therein. At the present time, the holder of a provisional pistol club shooter's licence is restricted to shooting on the range of the club Pf which he is a member It was not intended to restrict him to the one range, and this amendment seeks to allow him to shoot on the range of other clubs. Clause 8 is a technical amendment to section 37 of the principal Act in that the inverted commas appearing immediately before the figures 37 are to be deleted. Clause 9, which amends section 39 of the principal Act, is also of a technical nature, inserting the word "licensed" before the word "dealer" where it appears in subsections (2) and (3). This wiU make these subsections consistent with subsection (1) and will indicate clearly that the section is relating to licensed dealers. Clause 10 seeks to amend section 42 of the principal Act, Section 42 of the principal Act does not provide for the securUy of all classes of firearms. It is to be amended for this purpose. Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 6 March 1984 1885

Clause 11 amends section 50 of the principal Act, The present section 50 is designed to allow members or employees of financial organisations to practice shooting on the ranges of pistol clubs. The use of the ranges is with the approval of the pistol club concerned. This amendment extends section 50 to allow any other licensee to also practise shooting on the ranges. This will also be by arrangement with the pistol clubs. Such an amendment wUl allow licence-holders to learn to shoot safely, something that they cannot presently do legaUy. Qause 12 amends section 55 of the principal Act. The present section does not contain provision to withdraw any approval given to conduct shooting galleries, The Act is to be amended in this regard to allow for revocation of any approval issued. Qause 13 amends section 56 by making it clear that ammunition used in shooting gaUeries wUl be restricted to no larger, or more powerful^ than .22 calibre short rifle rimfire ammunUion. Clause 14 seeks to amend a discrepancy in section 60 (Effect on prohibition order). The amendment to this clause corrects a discrepancy that presently exists. The words "dangerous article" are to be inserted into section 60(1) (a) (ii) immediately after the word "ammunUion" to make the subclause consistent with subclause 60 (1) (b) which already contains the words "dangerous article". A person who is a prohibited person under this Act is not allowed to have iany firearm, conversion unit, ammunition or dangerous article in his possession. Qause 15 is a technical amendment to section 65—serious offences—of the principal Act. It was always intended that all offences mentioned in section 65 were to be classified as serious offences. A slight doubt has risen as to whether or not the sections specified in section 65(1) (a), namely, sections 60(1) (a) (ii), 60 (1) (b), 61(2) and 61(3) are clearly defined as serious offences. To eliminate any doubt, the present subparagraph (a) is to be deleted and its provision included in subparagraph (h) of section 65 (1). No further sections are included. Qause 16 of this Bill wiU insert a new section into the principal Act, namely, section 67A—^Handcuffs, etc., prohibited. This new subsection was mentipned earlier in connection with an amendment to section 6 of the principal Act. It has been found that in recent times members of the criminal element have resorted to the use of handcuffs in the commission of offences. At the present time, there is no legislation that prevents the sale or possession of handcuffs in this State. They have been found for sale in disposal stores and the like. It is considered that the possession of handcuffs or similiar restraints should be restricted to members of law enforcement agencies in this State. The inclusion of the new section, section 67A, wiU make it an offence for any unauthorised person to have in his possession handcuffs or thumbcuffs unless he has a reasonable excuse for such possession. Clause 17 of this Bill makes a technical amendment to section 72 of the principal Act. The words "of the" appear twice at the end of and beginning of the first and second lines to subsection (2) of section 72. They are to be omitted where they first appear. Clause 18 amends section 74 of the principal Act. Section 74 creates the offence of using a firearm whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug. The charge refers to the offender as being under the influence of "liquor or a drug", and it has been suggested that such a charge could be bad for duplicity. This amendment will overcome any such possible difficulty by simply stating that such a charge wiU not be bad for dupUcity. It is the same as provided for the same reason in section 16 (8),of the Traffic Act. Clause 19 seeks to amend section 75 of the principal Act. The words "or contains live ammunition" are to be deleted where they appear in section 73 (b) (i). Not all ammunition used in the weapons referred to, namely, "firearm, cross-bow, spear-gun", is live ammunUion in the sense of live bullets. For example, a spear gun or crossbow does not always fire live bullets, yet the projectiles they do fire are ammunition in the sense of the word. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "ammunition" by extension as including offensive missiles generally. Clause 20 will correct a discrepancy. In Section 8l^RepUca firearms in public place— the words "machine gun or sub-machine gun" are to be deleted. These are already covered in the definitiort of "dangerous articles", possession of dangerous articles being prohibited under section 68 of the Act. The word "concealable" is also deleted. 1886 6 March 1984 Pawnbrokers Act Amendment BiU

Clause 21 is a technical amendment to section 85 of the principal Act and seeks to tidy up the wording of the section as originally drafted. In its present form there is unnecessary repetition in the use of the words "name and address or name or address". The Parliamentary Counsel has sought to tidy up this section by removal of the unnecesi sary words. Clause 22 amends section 101 of the principal Act. In subsection (2), the figure "101" is to be omitted and the figure "102" inserted. This is to correct a drafting error that occurred when the Act was originally before Parliament. In subsection (3), the words "silCrtcer, cross-bow, spear gun" are to be inserted. These items are subject to forfeiture when a person is convicted of an offence inv(^ving same unless the court that convicts the offender orders otherwise. Subsection (3) already provides for the forfeiture of firearms, conversion units, ammunition or dangerous articles. Clause 23 amends section 103 of the present Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1979. Section 103 provides that a person who is aggrieved by any decision of the authorised officer may presently appeal to the Minister. Resulting from discussions held between members of the Queensland Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society, the PoUce Department and myself, a submission was made to Cabinet on 20 February 1984 seeking approval to have the appeals heard and determined by a Magistrates Court in lieu of hearing by me. Cabinet gave such approval, and a siutable amendmertt, by way of clause 23, has been made m this Bill. Clause 24 amends section 105(2) of the principal Act. Section 105(2) states that a copy of a certificate provided by a scientific officer, setting out the results of any tests by him on a firearm, may be givert to an offender at the same time as a summons is served on him. However, as some offenders are arrested, it is considered necessary to make a technical amendment to section 105(2) to allow a copy of the scientific officer's certificate to be given to the offender whether or not he is arrested or summonsed. The notice must be served at least three clear days before the date of hearing. Clause 25 is a technical amendment to section 107. In the original draft, two words appear out of order. These appear as "the of" and should be "of the" As can be seen, most of these amendments are of a technical nature, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Campbell, adjourned.

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 Readmg Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lartds, Forestry artd PoUce) (11.27 p.m.): I move— "That the BiU be rtow read a second time." On 7 Febmary 1984, the House passed legislation to repeal the Pawnbrokers Act of 1849 and to replace that Act with legislation entitled the Pawnbrokers Act 1984. That Act contains provision whereby a person who is aggrieved by the refusal of an authorised officer to issue or renew a licence, by the revocation of a licence, or by the imposition of conditions, could appeal against such decision to the Minister. Since the passing of the Pawnbrokers Act 1984, and as a result of discussions between members of the Queensland Bar Association, the Queenslartd Law Society, the PoUce Departmertt artd myself, a submission was made to Cabinet seeking to return the hearing of appeals under tbis Act, the Hawkers Bill, Second-hand Dealers and Collectors BiU artd the Firearms artd Offensive Weapons Act to the Magistrates Courts. Adjournment 6 March 1984 1887

On 20 February 1984, Cabinet approved that appeals under these Acts should now be heard and determined by a Magistrates Court- instead of being determined by me. This Bill, consisting of four sections, amends the original Pawnbrokers Act artd returns the hearing of appeals to Magistrates Courts. WUh regard to the clauses of the BiU, clause 1 is the title and clause 2 deals wUh appeal requirements. The present section 61 is repealed and replaced by the amended appeal provisions. Clauses 3 and 4 amend sections 62 and 64 of the original Act by deleting reference to "any delegate of the Minister" The words "any delegate of the Minister" in sections 62 and 64 referred to the original appeal provisiorts^ I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Campbell, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Health Services in Western Queensland Mr PRICE (Mt Isa) (11.30 p.m.): A need exists for mobile rural community health services in mid and western Queensland. Bush nurses, with the backing of small community committees, are struggling to fulfil their vital role of community nursing. There are six bush nursing centres in Queensland. The north west has two, located at McKinlay and Dajarra. At a Regional Information and Resources Group (RINARG) meeting in July 1982, the Minister for Northern Development (Mr Katter) gave a report on the lack of services in mid-western towns. He mentioned the need for home nurses, or community nurses, and he suggested that in small towns nursing staff could play a community role instead of being confined to the hospital. That is a very good idea. Yet, in the Minister's electorate there seems to be a gap in the delivery of bealth services in the area between Hughenden and Charters Towers. At a RINARG health seminar in Julia. Creek in October 1982, complaints were made about the Flying Surgeon Service in the area north of Hughenden, More recently, in questionnaire responses to the Union of Western Women, the same area has come to the fore again. Seventy children attend school in Pentland, but no emergency treatment is available in case of accidents. The Cape River meatworks is nearby, but it is not known what private arrangements the works makes for its employees. As well, there is no chemist shop between Qoncurry and Hughenden. The sparsely populated Diamantina shire misses out completelyi What is markedly obvious throughout the mid-west and north west is that a number of aged people are opting to stay in their own homes either in towns or on their properties. Those people need home visits. In many areas, women do not have ready access to family planning advice or nutritional education for their families. Other services that could be provided are emergency treatment, preventive treatment, referral to other agencies, education facilities in pubUc health, domicUiary nursing—to which reference was made earlier today—and supervision of home-maker services for the aged and the disabled. At present, in trying to alleviate the situation, the Union of Western Women is endeavouring to enlighten women in need in those areas on the health services that are avaUable, That association has published an irtformation booklet, which was coUated after a recent survey. The association needs finance and is seekmg State Government help. To retum to the nurses—in Mt Isa, the one nurse in the community health office is not able to play the widest possible role. She just cannot cope wUh every aspect of community medicine irt the area. The absertce of mobile commurtity health nurses is an indictment of this Government's State heaUh services. Obviously the needs of the majority of its western electorates are not driven home to it, or alterrtatively it finds itself incapable of attending to the require­ ments of its own people. Both FUnders and Mt Isa lack this basic mobility, and the Federal seat of Kennedy is a disgrace. 1888 6 March 1984 Adjournment

The neglect of community services in the north west is highlighted by the fact that the position of psychologist at the Mt Isa community health office has remained unfilled since 1979. All aspects of health have to be covered. Health is not only the absence of sickness; as well it involves the processes of social, psychological and physical well-being. Despite western ministerial National Party and Federal parliamentary representation, the Queensland Government and the member for Kennedy are having great difficulty in coming to terms with the concept and putting it into practice. Aborigines have a health service that goes out to the people. There is no reason why all communities could not have such a service. I suggest that the Government take a look at the sorry state of community health services in the mid-west and in the west. (Time expired.)

Mr Justice Murphy; Allegations of Cormption in Government and Judiciary Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (11.35 p.m.): Tonight I raise an issue that relates to the most serious matters that could arise in a democracy and is the worst form of disease which can affect a democracy—corruption in Government and the judiciary. Over recent months we have witnessed some of the most bizarre and proven allegations in New South Wales and further revelations resulting in the current front-page publicity round Australia relating to a former senior law officer of this nation who is now a High Court judge. Australia is facing a national crisis in public confidence in both law enforcement and justice. Until Mr Justice Murphy was publicly named in the Queensland Parliament today as the judge on the New South Wales police tapes, the entire judiciary in this country was suspect. We now witness the appalling spectacle of a justice of the higbest court in the land remaining in office and sitting on the bench while facing allegations of the utmost gravity. Let us not forget that the former magistrate in New South Wales, Mr Farquhar, is facing a trial for corruption and abuse of office. The allegations against Mr Justice Murphy are far more serious. Australia's newspapers have been skirting round the main issues. They accuse Mr Justice Murphy of being part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I believe, as the police and many other people believe, that there is a prima facie case that Lionel Murphy improperly and with criminal intent returned passports to Ramon Sala and Roger Watson, both major criminals. Each day many people face courts on evidence far less weighty than the allegations against Mr Justice Murphy. The Attorney-General (Senator Evans) says that the attempt to investigate this matter is a squalid little affair. I «ay that Senator Evans gives every indication that he is blatantly prepared to become part of a conspiracy, more grave and sinister but no less criminal, to deceive and mislead the people of Australia, to protect those suspected of crime, because he is attempting to cover it up. The proper role of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is to protect the people —to fearlessly root out the corrupt without fear, favour or affection. We cannot see him doing this. He is placing his own narrow self-interest in survival before the well-being of the people of Australia. Inevitably, the ramifications of this Australiart scandal will destroy the very foundations of common decency and respect for democratic govemment. Compared with what we have in Australia today, Watergate was chicken-feed. Preliminary police investigations link the name of a justice of the High Court with dmg- traffickers and murderers and ultimately and almost unbelievably with some people connected with the Mackay murder and the Mr Asia drug-trafficking ring. I realise that these allegations are grave, but a stand must be taken to ensure that these charges are properly investigated by a bipartisan royal commission whereby each major political party is free to nominate a person to form a national crimes commission. We in Parliament must take a stand on behalf of those police who have placed the interests of the community before self-interest—those police who have had the courage themselves to take a stand. We have seen the spectacle of one Andrew Menzies, acting as Senator Evans's agent, attacking those Federal police who have had the courage to place on file their disdain for the criminal conduct of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. We know nothing of the suitability of this man Menzies. Who is he, and why has he concealed the truth? Why has Senator Evans used a retired public servant in this grossly improper fashion? Adjournment 6 March 1984 1889

Honest police are fed up with witnessing royal commission after royal commission reporting most alarming findings while cormpt persons sabotage effective implementation of their reports. We must never overlook the demoralising effect that this has on the vast majority of honest police and judges. It is in these circumstances that others give up and are tempted into cormption, and the tentacles of organised crime spread more widely. These tentacles have spread to the Federal Parliament. The people voted for Prime Minister Hawke, and obviously he enjoys a wide community popularity. The Prime Minister has yet to make a public stand on this issue, although what he has said has indicated that he would be reluctant to lend his supi)ort to a dispassionate public inquiry into the alleged insidious activities of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. If the Prime Minister does not dissociate himself from the activities of Senator Evans and Mr Justice Murphy he, too, will stand accused of betraying the people of this nation. As I said earlier, the issues are grave. I do not intend to stand by and witness good and honourable public servants and police being slaughtered on the altar of political expediency. To protect the people named on the New South Wales police tapes and those protecting them would be nothing less than a national tragedy. The members of the Queensland Parliament must be prepared to take the initiative if the Federal Parliament fails in its duty. The people of Queensland are affected by criminal conduct as much as anyone else, particularly when it involves the highest court in the land. The Queensland Parliament must be prepared to estabUsh its own inquiries into the allegatiorts artd, if rtecessary, summon the corrupt before the bar of this House. The allegations are of sufficient seriousness to justify tbe extreme step of one State Parliament inquiring into the conduct of the Parliaments of New South Wales and of the Commonwealth. This step is constitutiortally valid in circumstances in which it appears that the processes of government have broken down in other parts of this nation. The New South Wales police tapes and the allegations against a judge who determines constitutional and other cases involving the people of Queensland are sufficiently serious to justify his immediate suspension pending the most exhaustive and independent investigation that this country has ever witnessed. Fire Services Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (11.40 p.m.): I draw to the attention of the House the concern that must be felt for the future of the State's fire services. Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper are making statements for which the Minister should be responsible. Over the past week I have been contacted by various people from many sections of the State's fire services who have expressed their concern. Since I spoke with a representative from the insurance groups last Thursday, I am more convinced that the $50,000 donation made this year by Comalco Ltd to the State Govemment Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit would never have been made if that company had been told of the true facts by the Minister (Mr Tenni), his adviser (Mr Paltridge) and the adviser to the adviser (Mr Ripper), The Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit is just rtot what some people and, in particular, COmalco have been led to believe, I am certain that Comalco would not have donated to the fund had it known about the intention of the unit. The only reason for setting up the unit was to pay the wages of Mr W. H. Ripper and to provide a motor vehicle for his private use. Mr Ripper has to endeavour to prop up the imposter (Mr Paltridge), who is the adviser to the Minister. Mr Ripper and Mr Paltridge want to cut costs in the provision of fire services. In doing so they seek to lower the standard of service and safety. The Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit is not carrying out research into fire preverttion or protection, as neither of the men whom I have just mentioned has the qualifications to do so. They are endeavouring to reduce the fire-fighting manpower of the State and to take control of the fire brigade boards. Also, Mr Paltridge wants more power artd more say in the State's fire services. He has endeavoured to do that by the creation of the posUion of a full-time chairman of the State Fire Services CouncU, a position that he may be able to recommend be given to him, in an attempt to gain for himself some respect and credibility within the service. However, firstly he has to get rid of Mr King, who is at present the part-time chairman. 1890 6 March 1984 Adjournment

Mr Paltridge is concerned that full-time firemen at fire stations are paid at night, when they may sleep if no work has to be done. Mr Paltridge wants to replace the firemen on night shift with volunteers or auxiliary men who would live at fire stations. If an alarm is raised, they could caU the professional firemen on to duty. The volunteers would take the fire unUs to the outbreak and awaU the arrival of the firemen to fight the fire. My information confirms a press statement of 28 Febmary, which reads— "Fire brigade boards in Queensland will not be allowed to increase their pro­ fessional staff unless they can prove the new position is not able to be fiUed by a volunteer. The Administrative Services Minister, Mr Tenni, has outlmed this in a letter to the 80 country fire brigade boards. Department officers said the move was part of a strategy to contain the cost of providing a fire service, which was $57 milUon last year, Mr Tcrtrti's letter said: 'Any future requests by a board, for increase of its full- time manpower establishment wiU not be cortsidered unless the board can demonstrate that every effort has been made to implement the principles out-lined in this letter.'" What do Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper wish to achieve? Their aim is to obtain power for themselves within the service to continue to receive the lurks and perks that they have provided for themselves through this so-called Fire Prevention and Protection Researcb UnU, with the associated fund that they have set up. Answers given in the Parliament today by the Minister (Mr Tenni) clearly show that the fund is paying for the wages and the cost Of a motor vehicle for an adviser to the adviser to the Minister. That shows what little capability and krtowledge all three have of the workings of the State's fire services and the Minister's portfolio. Statements made have created ill feeling within the service. Mr Paltridge would be Well advised to reply to a letter sent to him by the chairman of the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board in relation to statements about the capabUities of firemen from the Gladstone Fire Brigade and the Boyne Island Fire Brigade, where men have 20 or 30 years' service. The Minister proved today that he knew nothing about the capabilities of the firemen, because he did not know that the fireman in charge of the Boyne Island brigade, whom he recommended as having all the skiUs necessary to protect a $650m plant, was a third-class fireman with 14 months' service before he resigned from the Gladstone Fire Brigade. (Time expired.)

Marshall Road-South East Freeway Intersection Mr HENDERSON (Mt Gravatt) (11.45 p.m.): Tonight I want to speak about Mr W. J. KerswiU of 148 MarshaU Road, Holland Park, who has a unique problem. He lives on the south-east corner of the junction of MarshaU Road and Cannes Street, HoUand Park West. If one were proceeding west along Marshall Road, on one's right would be the outbound off-ramp from the South East Freeway (Marshall Road then contirtues under the freeway), and on one's left would be Cannes Street. Over the past 18 months Mr KerswiU has had three fences and his car, which was standing m his front yard, demolished by vehicles. In addition, a vehicle has mn under his house. I have in my possession a series of 13 letters dealing wUh this problem. In Order they" are— Date From 22 April 1982 .. .. Main Roads Department 28 AprU 1982 .. „ Former member for Mt Gravatt (Mr Scassola) 1 October 1982 ... Main Roads Department 4 October 1982 ... Mr Scassola 7 December 1982 ^ Mr Scassola 28 January 1983 .. Main Roads Department 8 February 1983 .. Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police 5 AprU 1983 .. ... Mr Scassola 17 May 1983 .. « Main Roads Department 23 May 1983 .. «. Mr Scassola 25 August 1983 .. Main Roads Department 30 August 1983 .. Mr Scassola All of those letters dealt with the problem that exists at that intersection. Adjournment 6 March 1984 1891

More importantly, children cross Marshall Road at that intersection and then travel along a very narrow footpath. Basically, vehicles exit from the off-ramp from the freeway to a set of traffic lights at MarshaU Road which controls vehicles travelUng east along Marshall Road under the South East Freeway. There are always motorists who are prepared to run the orange light. A motorist heading south who exits from the freeway on to MarshaU Road has great difficulty—and I readily concede this point—seeing traffic approaching from the right. The reason is simply that at that point the South East Freeway passes over Marshall Road and the supporting structure of the freeway Umits visibility to the right. However, on very many occasions vehicles travelUng east along MarshaU Road and passing through the orauge Ught collide with traffic coming off the freeway. Those vehicles then proceed in a south-easterly direction across the intersection and into Mr KerswUl's front yard. I repeat that he has lost three fences, has had his own motor vehicle demoUshed and has had a motor vehicle end up underneath his house. I might add that I feel extreme sympathy for this gentleman. Recently while proceeding home from this Parliament I had exactly the experience to which I have just been referring, except that I did not demolish his fence. Instead, I ended up on his front footpath. It is a blind intersection. It worries me. Traffic engineers and other experts in the field have looked at the problem. I have discussed it with the engineers and I must admit that I do not see any ready solution. I am simply raising the matter in the hope that, in the future planning of freeways and roads passing under freeways, engineers from the Main Roads Department do not allow a similar situation to develop. If they do, then they will not have learnt a lesson from this gentleman's sad experiences. I thank the House.

Valuation of Land, Thuringowa Shire Mr McELLIGOTT (Townsville) (11.50 p.m.): Considerable debate is taking place in the electorate of Townsville relative to a two-tiered rural rating system adopted by the Thuringowa Shire CouncU. The council has been criticised for the way in which it has allocated individual rate-payers to the respective tiers and for its failure to publicise and explain properly the basis of the system. I do not want to discuss that tonight, because the policies of the Thuringowa Shire Council are very much a local issue. I do want to speak about what I believe to be the basic cause of the shire's difficulties, which has State-wide implications. In my opinion, it is the incorrect interpretation of the unimproved value of land for rating purpose. The Valuation of Land Act defines "Unimproved value" as— ". . the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms. " I am sure that honourable members are aware of the broad base of the definition. It does not relate in any way to the current use of the land. That has caused the difficulty in the shire. The shire covers a very large area, with pockets of development scattered throughout. Some sections of the shire have been taken over and subdivided for rural residential land. The blocks are attracting very high prices and are boosting valuations. That is where, in my opinion, the Valuer-General is incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the term, because properties adjacent to areas that have been subdivided are being valued on a subdivisional basis although irt all cases to which I am referring the owners have had grazing cattle on the properties for marty generations artd the current owners will continue to do so. Because of the increased valuations, a uniform rating across the shire would have meant substantial increases in rates. I understand that the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing quite correctly insisted that the shire introduce a rural rate to try to help the people concerned. Because of the need to apply the rate across the entire shire, that meant a substantial reduction in rate income to the council. It therefore introduced the two-tiered system. 1892 6 March 1984 Adjournment

The point to which I keep returning concems the misuse of the term "unimproved value". In another case that went before the Land Court, the member of the Land Court, in making his determination, said^— "I find that the land should be valued as for its highest and best use, and the evidence convirtces me that this use is for future residential subdivisiort as pro­ posed by the Valuer-General." That is contrary to the wishes of the people who presently own the land and who have historic use of it. To give honourable members an idea of the size of the problem, I point out/that in one instance a grazier with 4 500 hectares had his valuation increased from $40,980 to $152,000. It seems to me that a couple of solutions could be found to the problem. The first involves looking at the Valuation of Land Act and the definition of "unimproved value" with the idea of taking more account of the present use of the land and, therefore, taking into account a person's ability to pay the appropriate level of rating. I appreciate that that cannot always be done in assessing rates. In amending the definition, some account could be taken of it. This problem has developed fairly recently and in times when more varied development has occurred and development of individual properties has not necessarily taken place on a uniform basis. The other possible solution is to amend the Local Government Act to provide for the advertising of appUcations for subdivision. If an application to subdivide was publicised in the same way as applications to rCzone, nearby land-owners could object on the basis that the subdivision would have an adverse effect on their rating. It would have other advantages as well, in that it would give local residents an opportunity to object on the grounds of drainage and other problems. Because of their local knowledge, in many instances they are aware of problems that could occur with subdivision. Consideration should be given to the matters I have raised, because a very real problem has arisen in the Thuringowa Shire Council area. Some isolated examples could be cited in the Townsville City Council area proper, where similar problems have arisen. I am sure that the problem bas State-wide implications.

Plant Variety Rights Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.55 p.m.): Last week I mentioned the disadvantages that one section of the community suffers in producing the items that we require. I referred, in particular, to disadvantages that the people engaged in primary production suffer over the holiday period and during the wet season. Over the last four or five years, horticulture industries have been endeavouring to have plant variety rights introduced into Australia. Australian producers are suffering to a far greater extent than are producers in other countries. The whole question of plant variety rights has been under a cloud. Local seed-producers are encouraged to produce new varieties for use in the local area under local conditions. At present, Australia is doing very little to produce new plant varieties. It is relying to a large extent on existing varieties and on selecting strains from those varieties. However, that is not overcoming the major problem of disease control and producing a better quality crop. Australia is missing out on producing better quality crops and cannot continue to do so. As I pointed out, very little is being done in Australia to produce new plant varieties, mainly because an economic return is not available. The acquisition of plant variety rights and the sale of those rights should provide the necessary incentive to individuals, groups or companies to do the work that is required to produce new varieties. At present, we hope that we can grow some varieties under contract, and that is happening to a very limited extent. The improvement in the crop and in the quality of the crop is quite marked. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has consistently favoured the overall objectives of plant variety rights. It has offered constructive suggestions that have always been well received, I am rtot beirtg political when I say that the hold-up has Papers 6 & 7 March 1984 1893 occurred in the Federal sphere, I suppose thai Federal Governments have been under strong pressure from lobbyists, who hold the mistaken view that new varieties would require the increased use of insecticides or fungicides to control disease. That is not What has happened. :4 The varieties of plants are determined by the producers themselves. They are not stupid. They will buy only the varieties that wiU meet their requirements. Mr Simpson: And are profitable to them. Mr STEPHAN: Yes. We do not drive the same car that we drove 15 or 20 years ago. It is the same with crops. We keep up with the trends. Without plant variety rights in Australia, patented varieties from overseas will not be generally available to our growers. As I said, new varieties are avaUable only to a very limited extent and are grown under contract. In some cases individuals or groups of growers may be able to negotiate directly with overseas patent-holders to make certain varieties available to them. However, it is expected that such arrangements would be limited, as patent-holders would not be able to exercise patent rights on their varieties once they were established in Australia. Any person who did breed a variety of saleable quality would be in the same situation; he would not want to give it away for peanuts to anybody who came and asked for it. It is very important that the legislation be proceeded with. (Time expired.) Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjourned at 12 midnight.