Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1984

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statements 28 November 1984 3113

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1984

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

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— State Government Insurance Office (Queensland) for the year ended 30 June 1984 Transport Department for the year ended 30 June 1984 Metropolitan Transit Authority for the year ended 30 June 1984 Land Administration Commission including 20th report of the Rabbit Control Authority and 7th report on the operations under the Brisbane Forest Park Act 1977-1981 Council of the Griffith University for 1983 Caims Port Authority for the year ended 30 June 1984. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 City of Brisbane Town Planning Act 1964-1984 By-laws under the Railways Act 1914-1982 Statutes under the University of Queensland Act 1965-1983 Ordinances under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1984.

RAILWAY PROPOSAL Deviation and New Beenleigh Station Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) laid on the table working plans, sections and books of reference for the deviation of the railway and a new station at Beenleigh, together with the report of the Commissioner for Railways thereon. The commissioner's report was ordered to be printed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Federal Underwriting Scheme for Sugar Industry Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.4 a.m.), by leave: On my return from Melbourne on the evening of 22 November, I was absolutely flabbergasted and disgusted to leam that the meeting between Mr Hawke and the sugar-growers had been a futile and wasted effort. In the lead-up to the 5 March 1983 Federal election, all the Labor candidates promised an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry, which it did not get. What has been the result? There is no underwriting scheme as promised. I am told that Mr Hawke did his usual trick of buttering up the deputation. He proposed an intemational meeting on the sugar industry. One meeting recently finished in Geneva. The Government and growers were represented and, as we all know, it was very unsuccessful. The conference collapsed in June after more than a year of lead-up negotiations and long debate in Geneva.

64170—106 3114 28 November 1984 Ministerial Statements

Mr Hawke proposed a Federal/State summit to review the industry. What hypocrisy! In September, Messrs McVeigh and Braithwaite proposed a bilateral approach to save the industry, but Mr Hawke did not take up the proposal. On 8 November, I called for a State/Federal conference, but Mr Kerin promptly knocked that on the head a few days later, as was widely reported in the press. Mr Hawke retumed to Brisbane just over a week later and did a political somersault, which meant nothing. He talked about two sugar summits. His proposals are nothing but political tricks to dupe sugar-growers. If they are not tricks, Mr Hawke would have taken up the earlier calls for a summit. What the people want is money, not conferences. They need something for the living, not for the dead. In the mid-1960s, the theiL Federal Govemment provided about $23m in sugar aid. It has been traditionally a Ccynmonwealth responsibility because the Commonwealth receives the majority of taxes from the industry. Today, such assistance would be equivalent to about $80m, and I ask for such assistance to be made available to growers immediately. What disturbs me most of all is the way in which thousands of cane-growers and their families have been sold down the drain by industry representatives. After all that the State Govemment has provided—$31m to alleviate growers' problems compared with $ 15.5m from the Federal Govemment—a Queensland Minister was not allowed to join in the deputation to help support the growers' case. I am led to believe that some comment was made from industry leaders that they did not want to make the meeting political. What a sham! Everything is political. More than I 000 cane-growers travelled a long way to flex their political muscle at a time when it was most opportune, but their efforts were neutralised by the actions of other people. No wonder the comments from grassroots cane-growers after the meeting indicated that they had been sold out. They were given nothing. I wonder what they will get for the $100,000 pre-election campaign that they have undertaken. Cane-growers will not be taken for a political ride such as this, and I am sure that this will become evident on Saturday when they make their judgment on the Labor Party.

Rent Concessions for Pensioners Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (11.7 a.m.), by leave: Last night in this House, the honourable member for Archerfield (Mr Palaszczuk) made certain statements regarding the Housing Commission that require correction. The honourable member stated that the Housing Commission was a tax-gathering agent for the State Government and that recently announced rent rises for pensioners living in Housing Commission rental accommodation would exceed pension rises received by these pensioners. Far from being a tax-gathering agent, the Housing Commission has a policy on rental that not only provides subsidised rental to those in need but also ensures that most assistance, that is, the larger subsidy, goes to those most in need. For the benefit of the honourable member, I wiU repeat the facts that I publicised a week ago today through a media statement relating to the rise in pensioner rentals. In that release I stated that these rent rises, relating to age pensioners in Housing Commission premises, were moderate increases that would not eat up pension increases received since the last rent rise. Ministerial Statements 28 November 1984 3115 Rent reviews are carried out annually and, since the last review, pensioners living in these premises have received two pension increases—one in May and another in November. During that time, pensions for single age pensioners had risen by $6 a week. As a result of the latest review, rentals for single pensioners will be increased by $2 a week. Over the same period, pensions for pensioner couples have risen by $10.10 a week. The rent increase for pensioner couples will be $3 a week. As a result of the rent review for single age pensioners, rent will rise from $20 a week to $22 a week. Rent for pensioner couples will rise from the present level of $29 a week to $32 a week. The review takes into account two factors—operating cost increases and increases of income for these pensioners over the 12-month period. Let me make it clear to the honourable member that the rental accommodation that is provided is secure and comfortable accommodation and accommodation that is heavily subsidised. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (11.10 a.m.), by leave: It has come to my attention that last night, on a television current affairs program, a journalist claimed that the former police officer allegedly involved in a child pornography ring was ready to "drop names". I make it quite clear that I would welcome the former officer doing so. If he is in a position to drop the names of anyone involved in this revolting trade, he is the very person to whom I wish to talk to assist in clearing up this matter one way or another. If he is not wiUing to provide such names to the police investigators, which he should have done before leaving the force, and if he, as claimed, does have such names, I urge him to deliver them to me personally, or through his solicitor or by any other acceptable method, and they will be investigated fully. I repeat that I am not saying that the former officer is guilty, as alleged, or not guilty. I urge the House to accept that, according to the Commissioner of Police, not one shred of evidence exists that would support the laying of criminal charges against the former officer. Yesterday, despite his continuing allegations, the member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) admitted that he held no such evidence. I am asking the House to ensure that British justice is provided to the former officer—the same justice as would be demanded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton), the member for Salisbury or any other member on either side of the Chamber—that is, that a person is innocent until proven guilty by facts. If that very buttress of our judicial system is lost sight of and is allowed to be eroded away, bit by bit, through such unfounded hounding under the privilege of this House, we as politicians will be, and will deserve to be, condemned by the community, the very well-being of which we are elected to protect. I shall quote a press report of what the Prime Minister said during the great debate held on Monday of this week— "Mr Hawke became angry when the Sydney Moming Herald's Peter Bowers asked why he had been carrying $1000 in U.S. currency when he was robbed at the Boulevarde Hotel on Febmary 1, 1982. The Prime Minister said he had reported the matter fully to police, which he would not have done if he had anything to hide. 'I'm not going to be part, Peter, to an increasing tendency in this country,' he said. 'All that has to be done is you make an accusation against someone that they are engaged in something improper, and then you reverse the total tradition of this country that once the allegation is made you've got to prove yourself innocent. 3116 28 November 1984 Ministerial Statements

'Now that is not something that I'm going to be party to. 'It has started to permeate the way in which politics are conducted in this country and it is doing an enormous disservice to the fabric of justice and decency in this country.'" Local Authority Responsibility for Maintenance of Airports Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders—Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs) (11.13 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advise the House of a frightening plan by the Federal Government to force local authorities throughout Queensland, particularly in north Queensland, to take responsibility for the maintenance of all airports. The Federal Government is moving to extend the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan to airports that most certainly serve national functions—that is, local usage and defence— and that previously have been funded by the Federal Govemment. I refer particularly to the airfields in the northem centres of Coen, Cooktown, Lockhart River, Thursday (Hom) Island, Normanton and Mount Isa. I will not mention the airfields at Rockhampton, Longreach and Coolangatta, which, similarly, are included in the plan. For the Federal Govemment to claim that these airports have only a local function and that the relevant local authorities should therefore pay half of their maintenance and development costs is simply ludicrous. The defence value of all of those airports has been proved in World War II, the Korean war, actions in Malaysia, the Vietnam war and confrontations with Indonesia. Is it a local function to conduct coastal surveillance flightst o prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease or screw-worm? Obviously, it is not! Is the economic development of northern Australia a local authority responsibility? Again, the answer is, "No." Coastal surveillance to help prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease and screw-worm cannot be conducted during the wet season if those airports are allowed to fall into disrepair. The risk is very real. Indeed, the Western Australian Minister for Planning, Employment and Training, and Consumer Affairs recently admitted in north Queensland that several unauthorised landings had occurred on that State's coastline. That has been caused by the cut-back in surveillance by the Federal Govemment. Without regular coastal surveillance, such landings will undoubtedly assume alarming proportions on our coastlines. The cmx of the matter is that most local authorities simply cannot afford to pay half of the maintenance costs of airstrips and, consequently, the airfields are threatened with closure. I must add that about 7 000 employees at meatworks in northem and central Queensland are dependent entirely upon the export market. If foot-and-mouth disease were introduced into north Queensland, all of those meatworks would immediately close. Foot-and-mouth disease and screw-worm are prevalent in Indonesia, which is only 20 miles away from Australia. I state forcefully that if the local authorities do not agree with the Federal Govemment's proposal, which it refers to as an offer, they will receive the same treatment as shires in the mid-west of north Queensland were accorded when discussions took place with them. They were told that the Commonwealth would spend no money on their airfields and that when the strips deteriorated through lack of maintenance they would be closed. The only altemative was to agree to the fifty-fifty arrangement under the Aerodrome Local Operation Plan. Most of the airfields are in the Torres and Cook shires, which are operated by administrators because the shires cannot pay their own way. They are about to be saddled with this extra expense. But the repercussions of this plan do not end with the withdrawal of coastal surveillance. The Federal Government seems to have forgotten that the airfields at Lockhart River and Thursday Island have both played vital roles in the defence of the nation. And what about medical evacuations? The airports at Normanton, Cooktown, Coen, Lockhart River and Thursday Island service more than 12 000 people. During the wet Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3117

season, aerial evacuation is the only way in which the victims of serious illness or accident can be taken to hospital. Even helicopters are virtually useless in these areas because of the vast distances and unpredictable weather and, of course, the slow speed of helicopters. Development of the north will also grind to a halt following the implementation of this plan. Presently, two projects worth $80m adjacent to one of those airstrips depend entirely upon the continued existence of that airstrip. I remind honourable members of promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his north Queensland policy speech in Febmary last year, in which he said— "The contribution of north Queensland to Australia's wealth and stability has always been high, but it has rarely received a fair return for its contribution to the national wealth, and a proper recognition of its strategic position. A problem of the utmost importance is what is sometines referred to as the tyranny of distance. North Queensland is far from the major urban centres of population, and there is a tremendous importance in giving particular attention to communications, transport and roads." Mr Hawke is certainly paying particular attention to air transport—he is virtually removing it from the north! Maintenance alone on an average-sized sealed strip costs in the vicinity of $ 15,000 a year. It will be impossible for many of the smaller local authorities and, in particular, community councils to contribute 50 per cent towards that cost. In the 1982-83 financial year, a staggering 5 929 aircraft landed at tiny Hom Island alone. So there is no way that the Federal Government can realistically argue that this and the other airfields in the north serve only a local function. But, as its record already shows, the Federal Government has no regard at all for the people of north Queensland. To prove that, one has only to look at its impressive list of broken promises and the enormous assistance in words that it has given to the sugar industry. Finally, I wish to table a very important document. Yesterday, in "The North-West Star", it was stated by Mr Beazley that he had no knowledge of the matter and that there was absolutely no intention to move towards an ALOP arrangement for those airports. I understand that the Cairns media have reported a similar statement. The document that I table is a letter from the Acting Prime Minister of Australia to the Premier of Queensland. In the document the Acting Prime Minister specified aU of the airfields. That was very kind of him. When the matter reaches the press tomorrow, it will prove most embarrassing for Mr Beazley. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (11.19 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this Chamber I said— "I now table the transcript of an interview prepared by the Parliamentary Library." I would not want any interpretation that was unfair to the library staff to be put on that statement. What in fact was prepared for me was a cassette tape version of the interview that was tabled, from which the transcript was prepared by the parliamentary typing service. As there may be concern in some quarters about the matter, I set the record straight.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice were answered as follows— 3118 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

1. Fire at 273-275 Grey Street, South Brisbane Mr FOURAS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— With reference to the fire at 273-275 Grey Street, South Brisbane, on 3 November which led "The Courier-Mail" to publish an article headlined "Speedy Firemen Save Collins Place, $10,000 Arson Suspected on Expo Site"— (1) Did the senior fire brigade officer report to senior pohce at the scene of the fire that (a) the fire appeared to have been started in an almost inaccessible niche under the stairs, part of a little room housing the power board, (b) there appeared to have been an intention to give the misleading impression that the fire started from the power board and (c) in the view of senior fire brigade officers at the scene, this was a case of arson? (2) Did the senior fire brigade officer seek out the designated police officer at the scene, a constable from WooUoongabba, and ask him formally (a) what materials he wished to be retained and (b) what liaison with the police scientific squad would be required? (3) Did the police officer inform the fire brigade officer that he had "formed the view that the fire started from an electrical fault and, accordingly, there was to be no retention of materials, no scientific squad involvement and no investigation"? (4) Is it normal procedure for designated police at a scene of a fire to overmle the opinions of senior fire brigade officers with regard to the need to investigate for suspected arson? Answer— (1) (a) Yes. (1 (b) and (c) to 4) Police investigations are still being conducted into the circum­ stances of the fire. The release of any further information may prejudice any proposed action and the result of the investigations will ultimately be referred to the coroner, who will examine all aspects of the matter.

2. Water Storage, Condamine/Balonne River Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— (1) What sites are under consideration by his department for further water storage on the Condamine-Balonne River? (2) With respect to the site at Barrackdale, what investigations have been carried out there to date? (3) Does his department have any firm assessments in regard to storage capacity and yield for this proposed site? Answer— (1) The Queensland Water Resources Commission has considered two dam sites on the lower Condamine/Balonne River to augment supplies to St George. The sites are at Yulabilla near Glenmorgan and near Barrackdale below Surat. The Barrackdale site is the better of the two and was selected for preliminary investigation. (2) Preliminary investigations completed to date include geological appraisal of the foundations (some drilling and testing), surveys of the site axis, and preliminary hydrol- ogical studies to determine the yield potential from the storage. Work is continuing on locating suitable constmction materials and on the engineering appraisal of the site. At the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, further investigations will be necessary to confirm design assumptions and the cost estimate. Subsequently, if it can be shown that a reasonable storage can be developed at reasonable cost levels, the overall economics of the project will need to be closely examined. (3) The preliminary studies of the Barrackdale site have indicated that storage capacities up to 600 000 ML could be developed. The yield of such a storage would be about 90 000 ML per annum. Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3119 3. Australian Labor Party Policy on Homosexuality, Deviant Life-styles and Prostitution Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs— (1) Is he aware of Australian Labor Party policy on homosexuality, deviant life­ styles and prostitution? (2) Does this policy put traditional family values under threat? Answer— (1 & 2) I thank the honourable member for his question regarding Australian Labor Party policy on homosexuality, deviant life-styles and prostitution and whether or not I think that the family life-style is under threat. As Minister responsible for Queensland's Year of the Family, I assure the honourable member that Labor's policies on these moral issues are completely foreign to the traditional values guarded with such conviction by this National Party Government. Too often these days the traditional family unit, on which the society is based, is under attack by undesirable influences supported by the so-called reformers in the Labor Party and their fellow-travellers of the Left. I will quote from the manifesto of Labor policy published before last year's State election, at which the National Party was swept into power. It is headed "Australian Labor Party—Principles of Action" Under the section headed "Bill of Rights" the policy reads— "A State Labor Government will encourage and co-operate with the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party to insert a Bill of Rights into the Australian Constitution, thereby enshrining citizens' individual rights and making them enforceable through the ordinary courts of Law." One of the provisions of that section reads— "(v) freedom of sexuality" Under another section headed "Other Specific Measures" the policy reads— "(vi) Give equal rights to homosexual couples in terms of State taxation probate benefits, ownership and transfer of property, pensions, superannuation and other fiscal benefits. (vii) Ensure that peoples' sexual rights are not denied in such places as con­ valescent homes, hospitals, prisons, etc. (viii) Immediately release from detention all held under anti-homosexual laws, and ensure that all fines be refunded to them and others previously prosecuted under such laws." The policy states that a State Labor Government will work towards inserting a Bill of Rights into the Australian Constitution, or, in the absence of a Labor Govemment in Canberra, act to have a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Queensland constitutional framework. According to this policy document, the Bill of Rights will guarantee freedom of sexuality. That suggests to me that homosexuality is considered a legitimate altemative to normal behaviour. Nothing could be further from the tmth. Whether one likes it or not, the current AIDS scare can be linked to the relaxed community attitudes to unnatural acts. This must change before more innocent lives are placed in danger. Male homosex­ uality and other unnatural sexual behaviour are illegal in Queensland and will remain so. The gay rights lobby has no influence whatever on this Government. Child molestation is on the increase throughout Australia, partly as a result of relaxed laws on moral issues. The Labor policy document makes other references to homosexual behaviour, saying it would ban discrimination against such people in employment, education, housing, public accommodation, public entertainment and other areas of public access. It also 3120 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice says that Labor would give equal rights to homosexual couples in terms of State taxation, probate benefits, ownership and transfer of property, pensions, superannuation and other fiscal benefits. What more evidence do we need to show that Labor condones such behaviour, and in doing so, does not give full support to traditional moral values and family life? That is the important point. Labor also has a sorry record on other moral issues. Consider prostitution, for example. The Labor States are going ahead with plans to legalise brothels. What sort of influence will that have on our young people? Through Labor's mishandling of the economy, thousands of young Australian men and women are unemployed and tum to dmgs in their despair. To support their habits, they turn to crime and prostitution. Instead of tuming a blind eye, the Federal Govemment needs to implement worthwhile schemes which/will keep all young Australians gainfully employed. This would go a long way to counteracting the undesirable influences so evident in our society today.

4. Protection of Small Business Mrs CHAPMAN asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs— (1) What protection is being given to people in small businesses in Queensland when New Zealand is offering services to Queensland of $4.60 for press-operators and $8.50 for tool-makers, which is less than the average wage payable to Queensland tradesmen? (2) Is he aware of any moves taken by the Federal Govemment accord to ensure protection for these Queensland businesses? Answer— (1) New Zealand wage levels are more than competitive with Australian wage levels following a long period of control in that country. However, the position could change in the future now that the Labor Party has been elected to office there. If the New Zealand unions have leamed from their Australian counterparts, they will lose no time in taking over the mnning of that Govemment and the screwing of employers to the absolute limit. Australian wage levels are a serious threat to Australian industry, particularly those industries which must compete in overseas markets. The metal industry is a classic example of unions milking the cow until almost everything has dried up. What has been the result? The unions have lost thousands of members in the metal trades industry. They have priced themselves out of business. They have not provided jobs for the future for our young people. That is the union mentality: get what we can now and blow the future. That is the way the unions think about our country. That is the way they act. They do not act in the best interests of Australia. Furthermore, they are supported by the Australian Labor Party. There are many examples of manufacturers sending their work out of Australia to other countries in the Pacific region. That practice provides jobs for workers in those countries but none for Australians. I say to the unions: What about Australian workers? Why do they not wake up and ensure that jobs are provided for our Australian workers? Until the unions in this country adopt a responsible attitude towards wages and other conditions of employment, small business will be at risk. (2) Unexpectedly, the accord does state that the ALP and the ACTU are committed to a diversified manufacturing sector (both regionally and industrially) as a means of achieving basic economic objectives. However, they do not listen to the views of the employers. They are all talk. When the employers put something forward, they do not listen to them. The Australian Labor Party is directed by the unions. There is no recognition of the enterprise and investment that will lead to the creation of employment. Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3121

Unless the unions wake up and Labor Governments begin working with business instead of being directed by the unions, the position will become worse. Thank God for Queensland! Today's "Telegraph" carries a report of a business firm transferring here from Victoria and creating 200 new jobs, because of cheaper workers' compensation and the better govemment that is provided by the National Party. It is about time that the Australian Labor Party woke up and realised what it is doing to this country.

5. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Mr D'ARCY asked the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs— With reference to allegations of the involvement of a police officer in a child pomography ring which has been continuing for at least two years— (1) Has the involvement of the police officer with wayward youth been the subject of reports or concem by officers of the Children's Services Department? (2) If so, what is the nature of those reports? (3) Has a copy of any of these reports been forwarded to the Police Minister or Police Commissioner and, if so, on what date? Answer— (1 to 3) I am advised that senior officers of the Department of Children's Services are not aware of any reports having been made to the department in respect of an allegation- of a child pomography ring involving a police officer.

6. Hours of Drivers of Long-distance Passenger Coaches Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Transport— (1) Are the drivers of long-distance passenger coaches restricted in respect of the number of hours that they may drive for a continuous period on Queensland roads? (2) If so, what action is being taken to ensure that drivers comply with these requirements? Answer— (1) Long-distance coach-drivers are required to comply with section 62 of the State Transport Act, which clearly sets out maximum driving hours. The Act stipulates that drivers cannot drive continuously for more than five and a half hours, at the end of which they must have a 30-minute break. Overall, they cannot drive for more than 11 hours in any 24-hour period. Regulation 98 under the Act also requires drivers to keep detailed log books of their hours spent driving and resting. Apart from this, the passenger service licences issued by the Commissioner for Transport contain conditions designed to further enhance public safety. These include approval for routes, frequency of services and timetabling between stops en route. (2) Officers of the Transport Department and police officers of the Commercial Vehicle Squad of the Highway Patrol regularly monitor long-distance bus-operators. Checks are carried out at rest points and bus terminals to ensure that log books are in order and that drivers have not been at the wheel for excessive hours. Queensland's safe record in this area no doubt reflects our vigilance in maintaning high safety standards.

7. Assets Test Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs— (1) Is he aware of the serious personal difficulty being faced by the aged in Australia as a result of the Federal Labor Govemment's assets test? 3122 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(2) What is being done to stop it? Answer— (1 & 2) Let me assure the House that the Queensland Govemment and the National Party throughout Australia are dedicated to cmshing this insidious attack on the elderly in our community. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr MUNTZ: Opposition members should sit down, relax and listen. They do not like my talking about this subject. Answer (continued)— The assets test is one of the "sleeper" issues in Saturday's Federal election and could well bring about the downfall of Bob Hawke and his socialist tax-collectors. If by some chance Labor is retumed on Saturday, the full effect of the assets test will not be known for some time. Already the distribution of the assets test forms has scared and bewildered age pensioners. The Federal Govemment has seriously miscal­ culated the problems associated with this policy. The form alone frightens elderly people. Indeed, most people would have difficulty completing the document without some form of professional help. It is the greatest invasion of personal privacy in Australia's history. Senator Grimes has shown total insensitivity towards pensioners by directing that information gained under the assets test be forwarded to the Taxation Department for examination. This suggests that all pensioners are dishonest. After working and paying taxes all their lives, pensioners may find they are ineligible for council rate concessions and cheaper telephone and car registration fees. As I represent a city-mral electorate, I know only too well how the assets test will hit country famihes, already suffering under Labor's anti-mral policies. Throughout Australia, 170 000 farming families will be victimised. Under the plan, the farmhouse and land around it are not subject to the assets test, but the productive land is. What use is a farm without its capacity to produce? Because of the gifting provisions, farmers on pensions or approaching pensionable age would not be able to hand down farms to their children, and their families. An army of 1 500 additional public servants has been recmited to police the assets test, and in the first year alone the tax-payer will have to shell out $5 5m for the exercise, almost twice the original Govemment estimate. Labor says that only the wealthy will miss out on the pension as a result of the assets test. That is completely untme. The great majority of Australians caught up in the assets test will be ordinary Australians whose only mistake was to work, save, plan ahead and hope to pass something on to their children. I deplore the whole concept of the assets test and I repeat that the Queensland Govemment and the National Party are determined to see it cmshed, when it is a feature of any socialist Labor Govemment—State or Federal.

8. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Mr DAVIS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Was Inspector Wightman, who is in charge of the new police internal affairs investigation into the alleged child pomography ring, called to the Police Complaints Tribunal during the week ended 23 November to outline complaints against the police officer allegedly involved in the matter? (2) As a result of that hearing, what advice or recommendation did the chairman of the tribunal give to the Police Commissioner? Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3123

(3) Did such advice include a recommendation that the officer be dismissed or let go from the police force? Answer— (1 to 3) Under the Police Complaints Tribunal Act 1982, hearings of the Police Complaints Tribunal are held in camera. No recommendations have been made by the tribunal about this matter, and the chairman did not and does not give advice to the Commissioner of Police.

9. Child Pornography Ring; Alleged Offences by Police Mr DAVIS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— With reference to the well organised and successful surveillance and investigative operations carried out by police in relation to the Dr Michaux and bikie bandit cases— Was this alleged child pomography ring, described by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as extensive, such a serious matter that a similar operation should have been mounted by the Police Department two years ago in relation to both the child pomography ring and the complaints of a police officer's involvement in it? Answer— The Govemment is aware of the problem and SCAN teams comprising medical practitioners, police and other departmental officers are set up to deal with child abuse and child neglect State-wide. Action has been taken to introduce more legislation to effectively deal with those who endeavour to cormpt children. In the interests of successful police operations, it is not policy to reveal information about surveillance activities.

10. Tea Industry Mr ROW asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) Is Queensland-grown tea presently blended with a considerable quantity of imported tea-leaf in order to overcome a lack of density problem existing in Queensland grown tea-plants? (2) What research is being carried out by the Department of Primary Industries to overcome the local tea density problem and so encourage the independence and expansion of the Queensland tea industry? Answer— (1 & 2) Teas manufactured in Queensland are being blended with high-density imported teas as Queensland-produced teas are of a lower density than required by the tea trade for packaging in standard packs. The problem is more acute during the wet season. Tea density does not affect quahty, and the quahty of north Queensland teas as determined by fermented leaf and liquor characteristics is of world standard. Tea density is determined mainly during manufacture in the withering and processing stages. Light withers tend to produce low density teas, but the density can be improved by hardening the wither. I inform honourable members opposite that that type of wither is different from that found on a horse. Three types of machine are used for processing withered leaf—rollers, rotavanes and CTC machines. Rollers generally produce standard-density teas, rotovanes generally produce low-density teas and CTC machines generally produce high-density teas. In the major tea producing countries, teas are usually processed in rollers, in CTC machines or in a combination of rollers and rotavanes, rollers and CTC machines or rotavanes and CTC machines. 3124 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

At present the factory producing teas in Queensland is equipped only with rotavanes for processing and one would expect the resultant teas to be of lower density. The proprietors of the tea factory have not yet decided to install either a tea-roller or a CTC machine. Hence, there is no opportunity to undertake any experimental work on tea manufacture. Such studies would also be conducted by the factory management, although departmental officers are available to provide advice when and where necessary. Tea production in north Queensland is expanding. Tea is now produced on the Atherton Tableland as well as at Innisfail. There are some 200 ha planted at Innisfail, 69 ha on the Atherton Tableland and 26 ha at Cape Tribulation. Of this area, 236 ha was producing tea at the end of June 1984, an increase of 96 ha in the area under production in the preceding 18 months. I thank the honourable member for asking such an intelligent question.

11. Railway Network Mr ROW asked the Minister for Transport— What action has been taken by the Govemment to upgrade Queensland's mainline rail network other than that from the ports to the central coal fields? Answer— The Rail Group, which is the advisory group with ATAC (Australian Transport Advisory Council), has adopted an Australian Main Line Rail Strategy comprising 22 440 km of railway line, 5 450 km of which is within Queensland. The Rail Group has identified a priority list of investment needed to upgrade the rail systems to modern standards. They include the provisions of bridges, new rolling- stock, new signals, and upgraded and realigning tracks. Queensland, to the extent of its resources, has continually invested in the program of railway upgrading to meet the mainline standard. At the last meeting of ATAC in Adelaide in June, I presented a major paper on railway infrastmcture funding Mr R. J. Gibbs: That would be the contribution of a genius. Mr LANE: As the honourable member intermpted me, I will have to repeat what I just said. Answer (continued)— At the last meeting of ATAC in Adelaide in June, I presented a major paper on railway infrastucture funding which recommended to the Commonwealth that specific purpose assistance arrangements for railways be reintroduced following the expiration of the 1979 National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act. Mainline railway infrastmcture needs a regular funding source for upgrading, and it is generally beyond the financial capacity of any one State to bring its section of the rail network completely up to the required standard. In that sense, the Commonwealth Government must become involved in providing the necessary financial resources. Mr Davis interjected. Mr LANE: Mr Speaker Mr Davis interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Davis interjected. Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3125

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Brisbane Central under Standing Order No. 123A. Answer (continued)— I must say that the Queensland proposal for the reintroduction of special financial assistance was well received and supported. It now remains for the Commonwealth to recognise that the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act worked well between 1979 and 1983, and also to acknowledge that to allow it to lapse would be to put at risk the further development of the mainline rail system throughout Australia.

12. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Ms WARNER asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Was a complaint received from a doctor and his wife from a Brisbane bayside suburb in respect of the involvement between the constable previously referred to in other questions and the doctor's son, after the mother found obscene photographs of the constable and the son? (2) If so, when was this complaint brought to the attention of police and to which police? Answer— (1 & 2) In view of my ministerial statement to the House yesterday, in which I said that I refused to be part of this kangaroo court type of justice that was smearing the overall good name of the police force, or of the character assassination of a former member of it, it is not proposed to supply this information. I do not propose to prejudice any investigation of this person. As the House already knows, police investigations are continuing and the Solicitor- General is evaluating evidence obtained in police investigations. Mr Davis interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Brisbane Central under Standing Order No. 123A for persistent interjections. Answer (continued)— I have previously requested concrete evidence about the matter. I assure the House that, if it is produced, the allegations will be investigated. The Children's Services Act on the matter of child abuse or neglect requires that information be not disclosed except for the purposes of carrying the Act into effect or providing it for a lawfully constituted court or tribunal.

13. Coal Shipment to Rotterdam Mr LICKISS asked the Premier and Treasurer— (1) Was the 175 000 tonne MV "Atara", the largest coal ship to load coal at Gladstone, refused tugs by the Seamen's Union on 21 November to berth in Gladstone? (2) Was the berthing of the ship delayed until 24 November? (3) Was the reason given that the ship was bound for Rotterdam and that there were mmours that the shipment of coal might be transhipped to England where industrial disputation in the coal industry persists? (4) As the demurrage on a ship of this size could range between $10,000 and $12,000 per day, will he use his good offices to persuade the union concemed that Australians are the net losers in these senseless escapades and that loyalty begins at home? 3126 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— (1 to 4) The MV "Atara" is the largest dead-weight vessel to call at Gladstone for coal. She was due to berth on arrival on the moming of Wednesday, 21 November, but proceeded to anchor because the Seamen's Union refused to supply tugs. The ship berthed at 2042 hours on Friday, 23 November, and sailed for Hay Point on Sunday the 24th, after loading 45 000 tonnes of coal. She proceeded to Hay Point to top up. I am unaware of the vessel's final destination,

14. Extractive Industry, Brisbane Mr LICKISS asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— (1) Is he aware of an apparent loophole in the city of Brisbane town plan which is allowing quarrying and extraction to take place without town-planning approval? (2) Is he aware that such quarrying and extraction is taking place without any environmental control or regulation? (3) Is he aware that large profits can be made from such enterprises without restoration of the land afterwards? (4) Is he aware of such instances of quarrying or extractive industry activities having occurred in Boscombe Road, Brookfield, Moggill Creek, Kenmore, and O'Briens Road, Moggill? (5) Will he have these projects inspected and all relevant information and under­ takings examined? (6) Will he ensure that the definition of "extractive industry" is rectified to prevent a continuation of the use of this loophole? Answer— (1) I am not aware of the apparent loophole to which the honourable member is referring. If he advises me of the details of the matters of concem to him, I shall undertake to have them examined. (2) No. (3) Yes. (4) I understand from recent press reports that some form of extractive industry activity is being carried out in Moggill Creek but I have no knowledge of the circumstances conceming its establishment and operation. As indicated previously, I shall take steps to obtain the information sought by the honourable member. (5 & 6) When further details are supplied by the honourable member, this matter will be considered.

15. School-crossing Supervisors Mr CAHILL asked the Minister for Transport— (1) How many schools throughout Queensland now have paid school-crossing supervisors? (2) How much are these supervisors paid and how many supervisors are currently employed at schools? Answer— (1) There are now over 200 schools in Queensland with paid school-crossing supervisors. They range from Mossman in the north, through every major regional coastal centre from Caims down to Coolangatta, and out west to areas such as Mount Isa, Charleville, CunnamuUa and St George. (2) The supervisors are paid approximately $6.34 per hour with some alterations made for regional allowances. On an average, school-crossing supervisors work two hours Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3127 per day, but the principal of the school has the discretion to allocate those times between the permanent and the relief supervisor. It may interest honourable members to know that the oldest supervisor is 74 years of age and the youngest is 16 years of age. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr LANE: If the honourable member does not want school-crossing supervisors in the electorate of Wolston, he may write to me to let me know, and I wiU ask whether the headmasters want them. I think that, if he does that, he wUl find himself in conflict with his local electorate in terms of the Govemment's policy. When the honourable member sits there sneering and laughing each day, he does not make much of a contribution to this Assembly. Mr R. J. Gibbs intierjected. Mr LANE: WeU, let us talk about something intelligent, rather than the honourable member's larrikin behaviour each day. If the honourable member wants to behave like a lout every day, the people will eventually find out about him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LANE: Very well, Mr Speaker. Mr Prest interjected. Mr LANE: Is it the position that the honourable member for Port Curtis does not like the school-crossing supervisors in Gladstone? Mr Prest: No. I don't like louts like you. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Curtis will withdraw that remark. Mr PREST: If I am not allowed to tell the tmth, I will have to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the remark. Mr PREST: I withdraw.

Answer (continued)— I inform honourable members that the oldest supervisor is 74 years of age and the youngest 16 years of age. However, on an average, 90 per cent of the supervisors are married women, usually with children at the school that they supervise. At present, there are over 600 paid supervisors throughout the State, and I am informed by the Road Safety Field Staff, who visit them regularly, that they enjoy the work immensely, I should mention that two of the main problems that face the loUipop men and women, as they are frequently referred to, during the course of their duties are motorists who start across the crossing before the children and supervisors have reached the footpath and parents who drop off and pick up their children in the "No standing" zones on either side of the school crossings. Both of these offences are breaches under the Traffic Act. When they do occur, the school-crossing supervisors take the car registration numbers, which, in tum, are reported to the police for action. The school-crossing supervisor scheme is extremely popular with parents and schoolchildren and has already proved its value to the community. Mr De Lacy: Is the Govemment scared to answer new questions? 3128 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Mr LANE: If the honourable member for Caims is not interested in school-crossing supervisors, he should let me know. He was one person who wanted me to put school- crossing supervisors in his city, and I did. I am sure that people in the community would like to know all about school-crossing supervisors. If that is the way that the honourable member wants to go on, in future I will ignore his mail. Would he prefer that? He should sit in his place and behave like a member of Parliament should. Mr Fouras interjected, Mr LANE: The school-crossing supervisor scheme is open to the honourable member's electorate as well. It is available even for fanatics like him. Answer (continued)— The scheme is open to all primary, pre-school and special schools provided they meet the criteria of having an established crossing (but not traffic-lights) outside or near the school and they have sufficient numbers of children and volume of traffic to justify it. All applications for school-crossing supervisors should be made by the parents and citizens association or friends association, or by the principal on their behalf, to the Transport Department.

16. Capital Gains Tax Mr BAILEY asked the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer— (1) Is he aware of reported comments by Senator David MacGibbon to the effect that the Liberal Party may have to allow a capital gains tax to proceed so that people will discover the consequence of voting Labor? (2) What is the National Party's attitude to this issue and is Senator MacGibbon out of step with a Federal Opposition pledge not to introduce a capital gains tax? Answer— (1 & 2) I understand that reported comments along the lines indicated were made recently in an ABC radio news broadcast. There is, of course, no way in politics today in which a person can campaign against a particular issue prior to an election and do a turnabout after it is all over. If the reported remarks by Senator MacGibbon were correct, that seems to be what he is suggesting. To allow a capital gains tax to proceed so that people will discover the consequence of voting Labor is a classic case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. The Federal Opposition, unlike the Hawke Govemment, has pledged not to introduce a capital gains tax, and I am confident that, after Saturday, the matter will be of no further immediate concem. However, I must reiterate that the stance taken by National Party senators in this regard is a sound one. The National Party has campaigned against a capital gains tax— as well as others in Labor's tax stable—and, if necessary, it will continue with that attitude in the Senate. It is called standing up for one's State and its people, and I urge Senator MacGibbon to do likewise.

17. Macadamia Nuts Mr BAILEY asked the Minister for Primary Industries— With reference to the inaccurately named macadamia nut, which is actually a native of Queensland, since it was exported to Hawaii where it was called macadamia when all Queenslanders knew it by its real name as the Queensland nut— With the success of kiwi fmit for New Zealanders and Queensland's success as a tourist destination, will it not be to Queensland's advantage for the Queensland nut. Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3129 which now has a massive market as the macadamia nut, to once again be called by its rightful name? Answer— Macadamia nut production is a rapidly growing Australian horticultural industry. It supplies the domestic market and has a developing export component. Further development of the industry will depend on expansion of that export market. The nut belongs to the genus Macadamia and, although it is known locally by a variety of common names, it is known as "macadamia" on the intemational market. The Chinese gooseberry was relatively unknown until it was developed and promoted by New Zealand as a new fmit with a new name. That is not the case with the macadamia nut, for which an international market already exists. The Australian industry is competing in this market. The name "macadamia" is well established internationally and any attempts to change it now would certainly react against the further export development of the industry.

18. Inala Shopping Centres Mr PALASZCZUK asked the Minister for Works and Housing— (1) Has the land lease of the shops in the Inala Civic Centre jumped from $500 per annum to $4,500 per annum, backdated to July 1983? (2) With the opening of the Inala Plaza shopping centre, and the projected increase in business, is this massive hike another example of the National Party back-door taxing policy? (3) How will this further tax burden assist the small-businessman in the Inala Civic Centre? (4) In view of the mn-down and shabby condition of the civic centre generally, especially the lighting, seats and garden, what benefits and amenities does the Govemment propose to provide for the traders and residents of Inala? Answer— (1) Amendments to the State Housing Act in 1979 provided for a system of reappraisement of rent for shopping leases that would progressively change from 3 per cent of the capital value fixed by the Land Court at 10-yearly intervals to valuations by that court at 5-yearly intervals, with interest fixeda t the long-term bond rate or equivalent. Lessees in the Inala Civic Centre were advised in 1979 of the changed legislation and that, when the current periojd of valuation expired, their lease rent would be determined under the new legislation. Of 20 leases at the Inala Civic Centre, two have been determined by the Land Court on the new basis. The Land Court determined the valuation for these in March 1983, the due date for reappraisal. In 1983 the Act was again amended in relation to shopping leases. The new legislation provided for rent to be paid at a percentage figure determined by the Govemor in Council based on the long-term bond rate or its equivalent. It also provided that the valuation applied would be the subsisting valuation determined by the Valuer-General for rating purposes. The change from using the Land Court valuation has allowed immediate assessment of rent payable on the lease expiry date. Use of the Valuer-General's subsisting valuation also reduces the rent that the lessee would have paid under the 1979 legislation. In the case quoted, the Land Court valuation rose from $18,560 in 1973 to $31,700 in 1983. The bond rate at the time of review was 14.5 per cent, and rent rose from $556 to $4,596. In 1988, the case wUl be reviewed using the subsisting valuation as the capital value. (2) Lessees were advised of the changes in 1979 and the effect on their leases and that, because of its progressive introduction, some did not face a rent adjustment for nine years. 3130 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(3) It is not a tax burden when rents are adjusted progressively over a nine-year period from unrealistic levels to realistic, commercial levels. (4) The commission has a large capital expenditure involved in the civic centre. It maintains the parking area, gardens and toilets, cleans common areas and resurfaces the parking area when necessary. With the more realistic rent stmcture, surpluses should be generated and they could be used to improve the area generally. R-eviously, costs were not recovered and improvements were not possible.

19. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Mr PALASZCZUK asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— With reference to allegations of a police constable being involved in offences against boys— (1) Was a complaint made to Clayfidd police by a woman that the police constable had sexually molested her IS-year-old son and did she offer to make available to police a photograph of the 15-year-old youth and the police officer in circumstances indicating the commission of an offence? (2) Was this matter investigated by Inspector Wilson of the Intemal Investigations Section some 12 months ago? (3) Did he report that there was insufficient evidence to charge the officer and claim in his report that the woman had destroyed the photograph? Answer— (1 to 3) I refer the honourable member to the answer to qi^stion No. 12. The same applies to question No. 20. Mr HAMILL: Mr Speaker, I had' not even asked question No. 20, and I find it most extraordinary that the Minister should try to escape answering the question by trying to defer the matter as he has done this moming. Mr SPEAKER: Order!

20. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Mr HAMILL asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— (1) Was the original complaint referred to by the member for Archerfield made by a woman from a southem State in relation to her 15-year-old son directed to the Clayfield Police Station? (2) Was the original file handed tq Inspector Wilson of the Intemal Investigations Section at his request? (3) Was the Clayfield Police Station copy of the file subsequently stolen from where it had been placed by Senior Sergeant Kenny of the Clayfield police and can it not now be located? (4) Has an investigation been carried out into this missing file and what was the result of that investigation? Answer— (1 to 4) I refer the honourable member to the answer to question No. 12.

21. Pharmaceutical Items, Pensioners and War Veterans Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Health- Is he aware that certain pharmaceutical items, which previously were made available to pensioners and war veterans free of charge, have now been removed from the list of free medicine under directions from the Federal Govemment? Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3131 Answer— I am advised that, as from 1 December 1984, there will be certain deletions from the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits. Changes have also been made in respect to the prescribing for veterans by medical practitioners. It appears that the Federal Govemment is now having a crack at the veterans. It is not happy with taking the money from the rest of the population of this country; it has now decided to single out veterans. Last week I received a telephone call from somebody at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital where a veteran had been refused elective surgery. The administration of the hospital had simply cancelled the operation without notifying the doctor. These changes will inevitably put further pressure on the Queensland hospitals system. I advise the honourable member that Queensland has its own Standard Dmg List and that the majority of items that have been deleted from the Commonwealth list are available to public patients in State public hospitals. The Commonwealth Government is very well aware of that and it appears to me that it is now making a determined attempt to downgrade the repatriation hospitals in this State and force veterans, who have done so much for this country, into the public hospital system.

22. Report on Extraction of Gravel from Mulgrave River Mr EATON asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— With reference to the environmental impact study conducted by Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd for the Water Resources Commission to assess the impact of further gravel extraction from the Mulgrave River— (1) Have the advisory bodies assessing this study made a report? (2) What are the recommendations contained in that report? (3) Will he give an assurance that these recommendations will be adhered to? Answer— (1 to 3) A draft environmental impact report on proposals for further gravel extractions from the Mulgrave River has been prepared for Readymix Farley (Qld) by its consultant, Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd. Representatives of the administering authorities—the Mulgrave Shire Council and the (Queensland Water Resources Com­ mission—have met to discuss the draft. Comments by advisory bodies on the draft were also considered at this meeting. Following this meeting, Readymix Farley was requested to include certain additional information in the final report. Pending the receipt of the final report and its consideration by the administering authorities, it is not possible to comment on the matters raised by the honourable member.

23. Land Subdivision near Gold Coast Mr MILLINER asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services— With reference to the statement in the House on 28 August by the honourable member for Southport when referring to a surveyor who was involved in land subdivision near the Gold Coast in which the honourable member for Southport claimed the plan, which showed the contours, as having a road going straight up a hill, and that the next moming the surveyor said to one of his mates, "Was I dmnk yesterday when I drew up that plan?"— (1) Is he aware of the name of the surveyor involved and, if so, what is his name and what firm is he employed by or a partner in? (2) Have any complaints about the subdivision referred to by the member for Southport been investigated by the Surveyors Board and, if so, what are the results of the investigation and, if not, what is the reason? 3132 28 November 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— (1 & 2) The honourable member refers to an allegation that a surveyor claimed that he was dmnk when he drew a plan of a road going straight up a hill, I have no information about this matter. The Surveyors Board has not received any complaints about a subdivision near the Gold Coast, nor has it initiated any inquiries. I do know, however, that surveyors can drink, and that they can also design roads which go up hills. Perhaps the honourable member is confused with the downhill road now being travelled by his Federal colleagues under the leadership of a Prime Minister who also once laid claim to a drinking problem.

24. Mount Samson Road Mr MILLINER asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— With reference to the constmction of the road between Closebum Hall and the Dayboro Road—Deviation Road commonly referred to as the Mt Samson Road— (1) How many property-owners were compensated for land resumed for the road? (2) How much land was resumed from each property-owner and how much com­ pensation was paid to each property-owner? (3) Why was it considered necessary to constmct the road on the route selected when the road could have continued in a straight line from the property of Mr B. Cochrane to the existing road? (4) Was this route investigated and costed and, if so, what is the cost difference between the two routes? Answer— (1 to 4) Time has been insufficient to fully research the information to answer the honourable member's question. I have, however, asked for the information to be obtained expeditiously, and when the information is available I will write to the honourable member.

25. Use of Weighbridges Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Transport— (1) Will he provide figures which indicate tonnages for the following commodities passing through the State's three weighbridges: (a) coal, (b) building materials, (c) foods, (d) quarry materials, (e) fuel and (f) grain? (2) How many vehicles passed through these weighbridges during 1983-84 and how does this figure compare with that during 1982-83? (3) What action is taken to ensure that heavy vehicles entering or leaving Brisbane via Ipswich Road, the Bmce Highway or the Pacific Highway, actually pass through these weighbridges? Answer— (1) In May this year, a new recording system was commenced at the weighbridges where data was collected manually and then processed by computer. This system now permits the collection of various statistics pertaining to vehicle and freight movements to and out of Brisbane. I provide the following figures, which represent average weekly tonnages of those commodities passing through the weighbridges— Coal 7 360 tonnes Building materials 34 460 tonnes Foods 40 920 tonnes Quarry materials 32 130 tonnes Fuel 21 630 tonnes Grain 26 150 tonnes Questions Upon Notice 28 November 1984 3133

(2) A total of 1 002 404 vehicles passed through the three public weighbridges surrounding Brisbane during the last financial year. This represented a decrease of 2.696 per cent compared with the 1982-83 financial year figure of 1 030 199. (3) Irregular patrols are made on aU roads that allow vehicles to avoid the weigh­ bridges. However, the effectiveness of these patrols is decreased through their presence being broadcast over the citizens band radio network. However, in broadcasting their presence, tmck-drivers unwittingly promote the squad's purpose. These officers are also assisted by weight of load inspectors of the Main Roads Department patrolling with portable scales in the vicinity of weighbridges.

26. Alleged Offences by Police Officer Mr GOSS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— With reference to allegations of a police constable being involved in offences against boys— Will he advise the House in general terms, and so as not to prejudice any investigation, conceming (a) the number of complaints, (b) the approximate date of such complaints, (c) the police station or squad to which the complaints were made and (d) complaints which have been investigated? Answer— I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 12.

27. Prime Minister's Statement on Equal Tax System Mr SIMPSON asked the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer— With reference to the television debate on 26 November in which the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable R. J. Hawke, claimed that he would bring in an equal tax system in Australia— (1) Does this mean that Mr Hawke favours a single rate of tax or is he being devious again and really means to tax productivity to a standstill, to introduce new wealth taxes and a capital gains tax and reintroduce the dreaded death and gift duties? (2) Does this mean that Mr Hawke's idea of equality means reducing all Australians to serfdom and, like the assets test inspectors, introduce pimping and spying on hard­ working Australians? Answer— (1 & 2) The Prime Minister's performance on the so-called "Great Debate" has only emphasised Mr Hawke's tendency to evade the tough questions when they threaten to damage his ego. That was very evident on Monday night. Mr Hawke has ducked for cover on the phone-tapping allegations involving "The National Times" editor, Mr Brian Toohey. Mr Hawke said that it was not extensive. He has also failed throughout the campaign to give Australians any clear indication of the path along which Labor sees taxation reform taking place. He has ducked that also. Consequently, there is no doubt that a vote for Labor on Saturday is a vote for capital gains tax, death and gift duties and a wealth tax. When Mr Hawke refers to an equal tax policy, it is Labor's way of saying that the achievers in society—those who have worked and saved hard to gain financial security for themselves and their families—will be taxed back to a common level. Make no mistake. Labor will tax productivity and individual initiative to a standstill if it gets the opportunity on 1 December. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. 3134 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Government's Legislative Record Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (12 noon): As this, the second session of the Forty-fourth Parliament, draws to a close for 1984, it is appropriate that I comment on the National Party State Govemment's performance during the session, which began on 21 August. It needs to be said that over the last three months we have witnessed the Govemment's worst performance of its period in office. That applies not just to the 13 months that the National Party has held Government, but also to the previous 26 years when it mled in some sort of marriage of convenience with the Liberal Party. Without doubt, the latest session of the Queensland Parliament has seen the most abysmal performance by the State Govemment. Its legislative record is woeful; its administrative record scandalous; and its management record lamentable. In general terms, the Government is guilty of gross dereliction of duty. This Government is in complete disarray. It is a Govemment lacking in purpose and direction, except for its own self-perpetuation. Unfortunately, it is the people of Queensland who are suffering the consequences of this State Government's incapacity to govem responsibly and competently. They are on the receiving end of the Government's seriously substandard performance record. I will detail instances of the Government's ineptitude, impropriety and maladministration. I begin with the Govemment's legislative record. Queenslanders witnessed the spectacle of a major industry group, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, denouncing the Govemment's superannuation legislation, known as the Superannuation Tmst Funds (Protection of Employee Entitlements) Bill, shoved through this House in late October. The legislation has attracted scathing criticism, being described by the life insurance industry as "unnecessary, potentially costly and administratively disastrous" The Life Insurance Federation says that it could affect the viability of the State's business sector and, consequently, adversely affect investment in Queensland. The federation says— "It is most unfortunate that the Govemment, which professes to champion the spirit of free enterprise, has sought to legislate in a very technical area of business without industry consultation." The Opposition restates its call on the Govemment to repeal what is a totally discredited piece of legislation. The draft FamUy and Community Development Bill has also drawn scathing criticism. No less a person than the Chief Justice, Sir Walter Campbell, backed by three Supreme Court judges, has ridiculed the planned legislation. Sir Walter observed that "it has many unsatisfactory features both general and in detail", and that it is "fraught with difficulties of philosophy, jurisdiction and procedure". Yet this draft BiU was the centre-piece of the Govemment's Year of the Family exercise, with not a day passing when the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs did not sing his and the Govemment's praises of the legislation as presented. That Bill has now been pulped, and the Year of the Family—at best, a propaganda exercise—has degenerated into a total farce. The Kangaroo Point Land Development Bill provides further evidence of this State Government's willingness to bludgeon people into submission with heavy-handed legislation. With that Bill it sought to legalise a land grab, with ordinary land-holders the victims of its callous action. It was an abuse of legislative power, unprecedented in a parliamentary democracy. One of the land-holders, a refugee from Poland who fled that country to escape the Nazis, said that it was unbelieveable that he was confronted in a so-called free enterprise Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3135 society with a jackboots mentality of the kind that he thought would exist only under a totalitarian regime. The necessity to amend the secondary mortgage market legislation iUustrates the Government's complete incompetence in promoting Brisbane as a competitive financial centre. Instead of fecilitating the operation and development of a secondary mortgage market in Queensland, that botched effort by the Govemment has effectively hindered its establishment. The Opposition predicted when that legislation was rammed through Parliament not so long ago that many amendments would be necessary because inadequate consideration had been given to it. That prediction of ours came tme only last week. I understand that today honourable members are to debate a host of amendments to ensure that the secondary mortgage market legislation is properly in place. The Govemment's mishandling of that venture is in stark contrast to the grandiose claims of the Premier and Treasurer about the impact of the legislation when he introduced it. As with the failed attempt to abolish stamp duty on stock exchange transactions—and all honoiu-able members will recaU that—the Govemment has shown itself to be totally incapable of properly promoting Queensland as a financial centre. The latest abortive attempt in relation to the secondary mortgage market, along with the Government's naive actions on foreign banks, confirms the view held by many people, including the business sector of our State, that this is a hill-billy, stumbling Govemment, which is falling into one hole after another. The Premier has shown himself to be an absolute faUure as the State's Treasurer. He should hand over the job to someone who is capable of doing it—or, at least, a person on the other side who is more capable than he himself The on again, off again saga of legislative proposals to control the bread industry, extending back over the last six years, is yet another example of the GovenMncnf s appalling legislative record. As reported at the week-end, draft legislation for the bread industry is becoming the staple diet of State Govemment shredders. The Townsville casino Bill is a further instance of this Govemment's inability to handle important legislation with efficiency and expertise. Many other pieces of legislation from this session alone highlight the misguided priorities of the National Party State Govemment. I instance— The Electricity Act Amendment Bill—introduced by a Minister who is fond of stmctural changes but who refuses to act to relieve the cmshing burden of electricity prices on household consumers (particularly families, pensioners and low-income groups) and the crippling costs of electricity on small business; and The Sugar Acquisition Act Amendment BiU—introduced by a State Govemment which refuses to accept its responsibilities to Queensland's sugar industry. Mr Menzel: Asked for by the sugar industry. Mr WARBURTON: I was waiting for the member for Mulgrave (Mr Menzel) to intermpt on this matter. He supported the Opposition's submissions. The Govemment chose to blame anyone and everyone but itself for failing to make a greater effort, firstly, to ease the load of its charges on cane-growers and, secondly, to make additional financial assistance available. The other pieces of legislation I refer to are— The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Act Amendment BiU—aimed at further strengthening the corporation, when what is far more urgently required is a complete overhaul of its promotional policies and activities; and The Consumer Affairs Act Amendment Bill—still sitting on the Business Paper as the Govemment continues to procrastinate on strengthening Queensland's con­ sumer protection laws, described by the Australian Federation of Consumer Organ­ isations as the worst in Australia. 3136 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest I tum now to aspects of the Govemment's administrative record, which I can oiUy describe as scandalous. It has allowed a child pomography ring in Brisbane to flourish, and has also failed to act on information it received two years ago about the involvement of a police officer. Now that the matter has been flushed out by the Opposition into the public domain, the Govemment seeks to cover up the reasons behind its inaction. We saw evidence of that this morning. Nothing less than an independent judicial inquiry will satisfy the Opposition and the Queensland public. I assure members on the Govemment side that the public and the Opposition have followed the events related to the matter with extreme interest and very justified concem. This moming, the Minister for Police (Mr Glasson) in one breath condemned the Opposition for pursuing the matter and, in the next, disclosed that the police officer delivered boys to the house of a known homosexual in a police vehicle. Incredible! Comments made by the Minister today in relation to onus of proof are accepted by the Opposition. However, I repeat that my questioning of the Minister has consistently related to the Minister's own startUng revelations about matters affecting that very serious issue. Other issues of great concem to the Queensland public are that— A Cabinet Minister, Mr Goleby, has refused to answer charges that he was instmmental in removing a detective from a land fraud investigation involving land at Bargara being developed by one of his associates, Mr Francis Patrick Luton. The Premier and Treasurer has similarly faUed to explain how and why approval has been granted for a $4.5m weir on the Mackenzie River near property owned by his son, John Bjelke-Petersen. The Premier has failed to justify such blatant favouritism. The Govemment completely bungled its handling of inquiries into the Fine Cotton horse-switch affair. Time expired.

Federal Member for Leichhardt; Telephone-tapping. Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (12.10 p.m.): I commence my speech with a quotation— "We are outside the law, and we will continue to be so. This is how laws are changed. This is industrial muscle, and this is how laws are changed." The person who said those words was none other than Mr Bryant Bums, an Australian Labor Party Senate candidate. Reference is made to the jackboot conduct in different Parliaments, and the Australian Labor Party has endorsed such a man to become a politician after 1 December. I doubt that that will occur. Ms Warner: He is a nice human being. Mr MENZEL: Perhaps he belongs to the honourable member's faction. Ms Warner: He is a good, old-fashioned family man. Mr MENZEL: That may be fair enough, but I think that the majority of Queens­ landers would not necessarily agree. Mr Bums is obviously from the far left-wing faction of the Australian Labor Party. The remarks that I refer to were made when he addressed striking employees of the North Queensland Engineers & Agents Pty Ltd. Mr Bums has obviously been brought to north Queensland by other trade union heavies in an attempt to prevent the dispute from being resolved. In fact, many employees of NQEA want to go back to work. I have been reliably informed that members of the Electrical Trades Union met separately yesterday and voted overwhelmingly to return to work because they felt that they had been intimidated for long enough. Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3137

One would think that a person who is a candidate for election to a political office would possess some sort of credibility and would not encourage, entice or incite people to break the law. It is an absolute disgrace, and I call upon members of the Labor Party and the secretary of the Queensland branch, Mr Peter Beattie, to sack Mr Burns as a Senate candidate. The Labor Party ought to disown Bryant Bums, and I hope that all Opposition members join with me in disowning him. He is a disgrace and a liability to members of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Booth: They should be getting to their feet to support you. Mr MENZEL: Yes. One would think that members of the Opposition would be rising to their feet to support me. I would have thought that some members on the Opposition side would have a reasonable amount Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a point of order to challenge what the honourable member for Mulgrave has said. I ask the honourable member whether he would dissociate himself from criminals such as Brych, Oskar and Horvath. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is no point of order in the context in which it is raised. A point of order must be founded upon a personal reflection cast upon an honourable member, and no personal reflection has been cast upon the honourable member for Ipswich West. Mr MENZEL: During the NQEA strike, the Federal member for Leichhardt (Mr John Gayler) has attended at least one union meeting and associated himself with union heavies. He has been challenged by the honourable member for Barron River, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni), to offer support for the people who wish to return to work and to support employees who are being intimidated, bashed up or threatened with bashings; in some cases, wives and children have been threatened. It is a militant element within the union that has issued these threats. It is a disgrace that another Labor politician—I doubt whether, after Saturday, Mr Burns will hold a poUtical office—is supporting the union heavies in the intimidation of employees. One of the friends of the Federal member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) was Mr John Meade formerly the manager of the Trade Union Building Society in Caims. As I stated in this House yesterday, that building society became insolvent and Mr Meade was forced to obtain employment. I understand that he is presently unemployed because NQEA sacked him. He was not worth two bob. Mr De LACY: I rise to a point of order. I take objection to the statement that Mr John Meade was responsible for the insolvency of the Trade Union Building Society. The honourable member for Mulgrave was responsible for the Babinda mill going broke, and I think that that is more important. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is made out unless a personal reflection is involved. I remind all honourable members that I wiU not accept a point of order based on a cross-argument in the Chamber. Mr MENZEL: I have a further point of order. The member for Caims said that I sent the Babinda mill broke. I ask that that be withdrawn; it is offensive and untme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a personal reflection in that context, and I ask that the honourable member for Cairns withdraw the statement. Mr De LACY: In view of the fact that the tmth hurts, I withdraw that. Mr MENZEL: Again referring to the member for Leichhardt Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. When a member is asked to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not the member entitled to an unqualified withdrawal? 3138 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I accepted the withdrawal of the member for Caims. I did not hear any other comment. Mr MENZEL: Opposition members are only trying to stop me from speaking. I will not worry about it. Mr PREST: I rise to a point of order. Could I remind the member that he made this speech last night? It is recorded in "Hansard". Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I remind all honourable members that I will not tolerate any more frivolous points order. If any are taken, I will deal with the member concemed under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr MENZEL: I have here the Queensland-North edition of the "White Mercantile Gazette" of 4 June 1983, which I wish to table. It names J. &, M. L. Gayler Pty Ltd of 55 Abbott Street, Caims. It refers to John and Mary Lucy Gayler as owing $3,480 to Robert Atkinson Investments Pty Ltd. I wish to table that document because it shows the type of representation given to the people of Leichhardt. I wish also to quote Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member wishes to table a document, he should do so. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Mr MENZEL: The "Sunday Sun" of 15 July 1984 stated— "Federal member for Leichhardt John Gayler, has identified himself as the political bigwig nicknamed Crime. Gayler, so dubbed after failing to pay on a losing bet with a political scribe, assures us the cheque is in the mail." The member for Leichhardt seems to have a habit of not paying his bills. If a person cannot keep his own house in order, how can he assist to mn the country? The business of govemment is the biggest business in Australia. If the honourable member cannot mn his own affairs, how can he mn Australia? I turn now to telephone-tapping in Australia. During the television debate last Monday night, the Prime Minister was challenged to confirm or deny that he had authorised telephone-tapping by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He refused to do so. Reference is made to jackboot Govemment, and that is an example of it. Nobody knows which telephones are or are not being tapped in Australia. It is a sad situation Mr FOURAS: I rise to a point of order. The member is misrepresenting the Labor Party view. No Attorney-General has disclosed telephone taps. Senator Durack did not disclose them before, and they are being disclosed now. The honourable member is misrepresenting Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not consider that there has been any personal reflection. I do not accept the point of order. Mr MENZEL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seem to be provoking quite a lot of thought on the part of Opposition members. To return to the subject of telephone-tapping—there is no doubt in my mind that telephones throughout Australia are being tapped in an attempt to blackmail people. There is no doubt at all that "The National Times" believes that the Federal Govemment was trying to obtain information illegally, or at least to obtain information by devious means, to assist in a prosecution. Labor Party members are the first to talk about civil liberties and civil rights; but when it comes to everybody else's civil rights, they do not believe that they exist. Mr Casey interjected. Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3139 Mr MENZEL: No doubt the honourable member for Mackay will have a lot to say about the sugar industry. Last week Bob Hawke tried to con the sugar industry. I do not think he succeeded. I saw on Channel 7 that the farmers said that they were dissatisfied. National Party Election Tactics Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (12.20 p.m.): I deliberately accuse the National Party in Queensland of going out of its way, during the election campaign, to incite racial intolerance and violence in Queensland, because it has been indulging in a cmel, clumsy and heartless attack on every ethnic person resident in Queensland. I publicly wam those people, in their own interests, not to even consider voting for either the National Party or the Liberal Party in Queensland next Saturday I am speaking to the people who have come here from overseas, the people who have made a major contribution to Queensland by way of their culture, ethnic foods and speciality restaurants, and a contribution to big and small business. Many of the people in the electorate of the member for Mulgrave are of Italian origin. They have made a major contribution to Queensland, but they are the victims of the heartless, callous attack by the National Party. Mr MENZEL: I rise to a point of order. I take that as a personal reflection. My wife is of Italian descent. I object to being accused of victimising her. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I really cannot see that there has been any direct personal reflection on the honourable member. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am pleased that the honourable member has demonstrated his concern. I am sure that, if his good lady is here—as she usually is—and if she hears me today, she will vote Labor next week-end. Last week-end, 250 000 copies of a document that I have here were circulated in Queensland in throw-away daily newspapers in provincial cities. A conservative estimate of the cost of distributing the pamphlet is $ 1,000 for each of the seven distribution points. I am not quite sure of the cost of printing the pamphlet, but the distribution cost amounted to almost $8,000. When the cost of printing is taken into account, the total cost is between $15,000 and $20,000. This shockingly racist document is an attack on a fine Australian and Queenslander, my friend and colleague, the federal member for Oxley and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bill Hayden). It is authorised by a Dr J. C. A. Dique, whose address is 18 Crowther Street, Windsor. Being somewhat of an amateur sleuth, I telephoned Dr Dique's residence recently to make some inquiries. I had no sooner spoken to Dr Dique than he indulged in shocking racist comments and a shocking attack on people who come from Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and on people of Arab extraction, on Turks, on others from South America and on Asians. He described them to me personally over the telephone as being people who were unsuitable for this country. He went on to describe them as "all odd- bods" It is interesting to note that Dr Dique speaks with a heavy foreign accent. After further inquiries, I found that this man, who authorised the pamphlet, was bom in Burma and spent most if his life in India, until he migrated to Australia 15 years ago. So much for his consistency! When I asked Dr Dique the approximate cost of the pamphlet, he would not name any figure. I then said to him, "I take it that a personal donation would be quite welcome to offset the expenditure incurred in the printing of the document." He said, "Yes, it would be. You can send a cheque to me at this address." In saying that, he committed a crime, because I will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Dr Dique did not pay for the document. I point out to any person who is considering sending him a donation that he is taking money under false pretences, because he did not pay for the pamphlet. 3140 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest

I tum now to the interesting part. When one starts to do some research, one finds that members of the National Party, such as the honourable member for Pine Rivers, are behind this shocking pamphlet. This pamphlet was paid for by none other than a company calling itself Sunland Petroleum Corporation NL whose office can be found on the I Ith floor of MLC Court in Adelaide Street, Brisbane. The directors of the company are Kenneth John Skirka, Leonard Doggett, Roger Alan North, Richard Dumbrell and, lo and behold, Charies William Siller! Good old Billy Siller is oil the National Party State management committee and is a personal friend and business partner of the Premier. A couple of months ago they deliberately put the company Oilmin NL to the wall and scooped up millions of dollars to split between them. The National Party is up to its neck in the shocking racist campaign that is being waged in this State at the monent. It is using the company Sunland Petroleum Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. I find it offensive, as I am sure all members on this side of the House do, that the honourable member associates the National Party with that document. I ask that that imputation be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wolston referred to the Premier and Treasurer as having been involved in the manipulation of a company, and I consider that that could be regarded as casting aspersions on a member of this Chamber. I suggest that the honourable member withdraw that remark. Mr R. J. GIBBS: If the Premier was offended by that comment, I would be prepared to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am offended by the remark. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw it. Having established the link between the National Party and this filthy document, I must point out that, last week-end, throughout the length and breadth of the State, another scurrilous document called "Wake Up!" was distributed. That paper was put into letter-boxes by people who were employed and paid by the National Party to distribute a National Party how-to-vote card. Because the National Party did not want to be associated with the paper, the distributors were instmcted to drop the how-to-vote cards first and walk round the block before dropping the newspaper into letter-boxes. In that way the National Party hoped that it would not be associated with the paper. The main supporter of this paper "Wake Up!" is Mr Charles Porter, that bastion of conservatism who used to be the member for Toowong in this Chamber. The national director of this scurrilous newspaper and the main State contact in Jackie Butler, who is a member of the National Party. This is the sort of thing that Opposition members have come to expect from the National Party. The paper contains a lot of drivel. For example, it refers to the steady expansion of communism. So that the taste buds of all honourable members are really titilliated, I will read this tasty little morsel from the newspaper. It is headed "101 Uses for a Dead (Or Alive) Baby" and reads as follows— "Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still-living babies into meat grinders and homogenizing them, according to the prestigious 'New England Joumal of Medicine' 'Newsday' reported that an Ohio medical research company tested the brains and hearts of 100 foetuses as part of a $300,000 pesticide contract." Mr AHERN: I rise to a further point of order. For the purposes of the record, I state that there is no association between the National Party and the publication from which the honourable member is reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to accept the statement made by the Minister. Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3141 Mr R. J. GIBBS: The article goes on further to say that— "Human embryos and other organs have been encased in plastic and sold as paper weights." This is an even tastier comment— "Even the baby's placenta is sold for 50 cents to dmg companies—ever hear of Placenta Plus shampoo?" The publication also contains an article on that good old plea: Don't scrap the saying of prayers in Parliament. It is a filthy, scurrilous, dirty, rotten publication. I say quite unequivocally: What is wrong with the people on the Govemment side of the House? Are they so sick and demented that the only way that they can approach an election is with this sort of publication? Mrs CHAPMAN: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Pine Rivers to state her point of order. Mrs CHAPMAN: I find the comments of the honourable member for Wolston very offensive. I ask that the document be tabled. Opposition Members interjected. Mrs CHAPMAN: I am not going to Mr Prest interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Port Curtis under Standing Order No. 123A. I cannot hear what the honourable member for Pine Rivers is saying. Mrs CHAPMAN: I find the speech of the member for Wolston very offensive. I ask that the document be tabled because, as a woman, I refuse to sit in this Assembly and be forced to listen to something so sick from the likes of him. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the member for Wolston table the document? Mr R. J. Gibbs: You are sick! Mrs Chapman: You are sick! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Wolston. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Australian Standard of Living Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.30 p.m.): Over recent months, several well- informed economic commentators have said that, despite the facade of an economic recovery in real terms, when compared with other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Australia's standard of living is slipping alarmingly. For years, well-informed people have been making comments such as, "Australia is living beyond its means. The unions will break this country. We hve in a fool's paradise." For years, it seemed that, although these statements were being made, the predictions would never come tme. Perhaps they have been coming tme all the time, but the change has been so slow and imperceptible that the day-to-day decisions and judgments of life have not indicated the overall downhill trend. It is only when a wider, long-term reconciliation is made that the predictions are found to be correct. That Australia's 3142 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest trading successes have waned drastically cannot be denied. Australia is simply unable to compete on the intemational market. That begs the question: Why? I contend that some of the answers are, first, a highly regulated labour market that is so strongly co­ ordinated under the Australian Council of Trade Unions that that body tends to be a de facto Govemment. What is worse is that the leaders of that de facto power base are taking decisions that relate to the short-term monetary retums to its members and completely disregarding matters of more importance, such as the abihty of the nation to compete on world markets and the need for industry to make a profit if it is to survive. Capital creates employment. Capitalists cannot create employment if they cannot make a profit. Another factor that has led to the nation's malaise is the system of industrial conciliation and arbitration. The decisions and awards emanating from that system have been most influenced by introverted visions related to social justice and the need to retain industrial peace. The system has not given enough consideration to the overall and long-term performance of the nation as a member of the intemational market-place. The result is that Australia is bound by awards that provide an inefficient distribution of labour. Many of the nation's workers are bound into protected industries, which drain the national wealth rather than add to it. A couple of examples are the employees in the steel and car industries. If a person finds that someone else performs better than he does, it is usual for him to analyse the performance of his competitor to identify the factors involved. I suggest that Australia examine the use of labour and the industrial relations in some of the successful countries in the world to see where the performance of this country could be improved. In Japan and South Korea, many wages are organised so that up to 50 per cent of a person's salary depends upon profitabUity. The workers performing best produce the best profits for the industry and, consequently, they receive higher wages in the form of bonuses. By comparison, it can be claimed in Australia that wages are paid week in week out without regard to performance. This can continue ad nauseum until the boss goes broke and the workers are retrenched. Australia is bound into a system that prevents it from being realistic. However, in Japan the nexus between performance and salary brings about an efficient distribution of the labour force within the whole nation. The industries that are most profitable pay the highest wages and attract people from less profitable industries. Expressed in another way, the sector of the economy that produces the most wealth for the country makes most use of the available labour and, by a natural process of supply and demand, reverses the inefficient use of labour. Conversely, inefficient industries are stripped of ineffective labour. It goes without saying that that would overcome the need to provide protection to workers in uncompetitive industries, a curse that Australia endures because it lacks flexibility in the distribution of the work-force and because of the nature of industrial awards. In the United States of America considerable use is made of bonuses as part of the individual's salary. This is especially so at the executive level of industry. Another strategy in wage fixation in the United States of America is the practice of giving employees equity in the industry. By making stocks and shares in the company part of an employee's wages, the Americans create a work-force that has a vested interest in the company's performance. The result is more efficient labour and better industrial relations. The Americans also make extensive use of contract agreements for wage fixation and tenure of employment. These contracts usually mn for a term of three years, and they are enforceable in the courts. Peter Samuel, an Australian joumalist who writes regularly from the USA for "The BuUetin" and other Australian publications, stated— "In nearly five years now living in the U.S., I haven't once been seriously inconvenienced by a strike and I'd guess that's a pretty typical American experience." Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3143

I am sure that Mr Samuel made that comment because he finds this to be most unusual after living most of his life in Australia where the "them/us" syndrome sets the people in Australia's industries at one another's throats. It must also be pointed out that, in the USA, the labour force is more wiUing to make concessions in salaries. The average American would rather take a cut in wages in the short term than lose his job altogether. The result of this flexibility in wage fixation has been a recovery in the USA national economy, a rapid generation of new jobs and a radical decline in the inflation rate. The arbitration and conciliation system operating in the USA is also worthy of consideration. First of all, the Govemment is not involved. There are only two parties— employers and employees. When new contracts are being negotiated or when a dispute arises over a wage contract, independent arbitrators are appointed. Both parties in the dispute (employers and employees) agree to the appointment of an arbitrator, who is usually a private solicitor or someone skilled in legal matters and having expertise in industrial relations. It is a characteristic of USA industrial relations that both parties have a long history of accepting the arbitrator's decision. The same could not be said for decisions handed down by industrial courts in Australia. Indeed, Professor Porter of Monash University has this to say about Australia's industrial record— "In Australia, the Conciliation and Arbitration system issues awards that are unenforceable upon the unions but awards which are enforceable upon the employers." The professor has suggested that Australia needs a combination of regulation in awards and an imaginative use of employment contracts with appropriate incentives included in those contracts. It is not difficult to see that Professor Porter is of the opinion that the USA and Japanese systems have advantages that Australia should adopt. I feel sure that honourable members would concede that Australia must steer a new course. Individuals must look beyond selfish short-term personal gain to their long-term future. A co-operative effort with other Australians is required. Unions must realise that their present intransigence and inflexibility are detrimental to Australia's long-term future. Employers must be willing to offer incentives and share the profits of this nation willingly. The nation must adopt a new system of industrial arbitration. It is interesting to note, however, that many of these ideas are already part and parcel of policies already existing in Australia. To this point, honourable members opposite have listened courteously to my address because I have spoken in an apolitical way. I now ask honourable members to give the same consideration to the industrial relations policy of the National Farmers Federation and the National Party. I ask them to keep an open mind. Both those bodies adhere to the abolition of centralised wage fixation. This maxi-approach is totally unable to provide the flexibilityneede d to cater for the microcomplexities of a myriad of industrial awards. A centralised wage-fixation system is unable to cope with the economic fluctuations of individual industries. For example, a 5 per cent national flow-on can have a catastrophic effect upon the viability of an industry already depressed, whereas another industry can well afford to carry such a wage increase. A 5 per cent national flow-on can mean the loss of jobs for people working in a depressed industry. A centralised wage-fixation system lacks the flexibility for industries to share profits with their workers in times of prosperity or the flexibility for workers to make wage concessions in an industry that is suffering an economic downturn. The whole attitude of union awards in Australia could be said to protect those in the work-force who do as little as possible at the expense of those who perform well. 3144 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest By comparison, wage systems in the USA, Japan and South Korea ensure that the best workers receive the best wages. Australia cannot afford to follow a system that does not offer personal incentive. Finally, I wam again that, unless this nation's employers and employees put aside the attitudes that pervade the nation at present, Australia wiU become the poor cousin in the Pacific. De Facto Relationships Mr CASEY (Mackay) (12.40 p.m.): I draw to the attention of honourable members the hypocritical attitude of the National Party in relation to moral issues. During this election campaign, the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, other Ministers, the Premier and National Party candidates throughout the length and breadth of the country have been carrying on as if every moral issue in the community commenced on 5 March 1983 when the Hawke Labor Govemment was elected to office. Firstly, I will speak about a matter that the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs went on and on about this moming, that is, de facto relationships. Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I live normal married lives and we are happy. However, many people in the community do not want to marry. The existence of de facto relationships or cohabitation in the community has to be recognised, De facto relationships were first recognised in Australia by law in 1908 when the first pension scheme was introduced in Australia, Since 1908 the Department of Social Security and its forbears, in their function of paying pensions from taxation moneys collected by the Commonwealth, have recognised that cohabitation does occur, and pensions have been paid on that basis. That legislation was introduced as a result of a royal commission held in 1904, which took evidence in every State of Australia, including Queensland. I will speak specifically about the Queensland position. The portfolio of Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs has the responsibility for the Department of Welfare Services and the Department of Children's Services. It is responsible for maintenance orders and various other matters in this State. That department recognises de facto relationships and it recognises the children of de facto relationships. Yet this moming, the Minister was critical of people who want to take a careful and compassionate look at this problem. The Department of Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs also has the responsibility for the custody of children. Again, every day that department is associated with families who are involved in de facto relationships, and it recognises those relationships. I tum now to inheritance. I will quote from the Succession Act, which states that a dependent includes— "(d) a person who— (i) has lived in a connubial relationship with that deceased person for a continuous period of five years at least terminating on the death of that deceased person;" That legislation was enacted in 1981 by this Govemment, which, today, is criticising de facto relationships. I am not encouraging de facto relationships—far from it. However, I stress that this State Govemment, with its holier-than-thou attitude, is the most hypocritical Govemment that Queensland has ever had. I tum to the State Service Superannuation Act. That legislation was enacted in 1972 under the premiership of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. That Act recognises as a widow— "(b) a woman who was not legally married to the deceased person at the date of his death but who, for a continuous period of 3 years at the least immediately preceding that date terminated by the death—" Matters of PubUc Interest 28 November 1984 3145 lived or cohabitated with the person concemed in a connubial relationship. That legislation was introduced by Ministers who are today on the Govemment side of the House. Yet this moming the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs criticised such relationships. Mr MENZEL: I rise to a point of order. By interjection, the member for Ipswich West said that I was grinning after that statement about de facto relationships. I take offence at that remark, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I do not think that there is any personal reflection. Mr CASEY: Nobody even heard the interjection or was concemed about it, except the member for Mulgrave. This State has laws that clearly set out the rights of de facto wives or de facto husbands to enter into lawful contracts and to obtain credit authorisation and clearly require them to pay State taxes. In August this year, the Cabinet now sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber— it has not changed since then—approved bereavement leave for public servants living in de facto relationships. That is written into the Pubhc Service Regulations and appears at page 2015 of the Queensland Govemment Gazette of 4 August. So, three months ago, the Govemment's action was the exact opposite of that referred to this moming by the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs. What about workers' compensation? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs adopts a lily-white attitude, perhaps reflecting the colour of his hair; but, at the same time, his department, under provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, clearly recognises de facto relationships and the offspring of de facto relationships when payments are calculated for workers' compensation. How hypocritical can the Govemment be! How hypocritical can National Party candidates throughout the length and breadth of Queensland be in trying to fire up a moral debate—this moral issue that they are talking about—when all they are really showing is their lack of compassion, lack of care and lack of feeling for people in the community! They are attempting to secure votes by false pretences. What is happening in the Queensland Housing Commission? I would like the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) to ascertain how many families in de facto relationships are living in Housing Commission houses. What does he think of the statement this moming by the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs? What does any member of the Parliament think when he knows that there are such people in his own electorate? Members cannot mn away from the position. They have to face it. People are involved, and the Labor Party is concemed about people. Legal aid is paid for, in part, by the State on exactly the same basis to people living in de facto relationships. They are entitled to it as persons in the community, and they receive it. When unemployment and sickness benefits were introduced into Australia in 1949, I think it was—certainly it was in the late 1940s—de facto relationships and the children of those relationships were recognised as warranting similar support from the tax-payers. It was accepted that they should not be sent to the wall because of circumstances that, in many instances, were not of their own making. The National Party is a hypocritical party; there is no question about that. In another comment from a Cabinet Minister this moming—it may also have come from the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs—homosexual relationships were referred to. In 1973, the pariiamentary leader of the National Party of Australia (Ian Sinclair) strongly supported a former Liberal Prime Minister (John Gorton) in moving in the House of Representatives to decriminalise homosexuality amongst consenting

64170—107 3146 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest adiUts. Ian Sinclair voted in favour of that; yet today he is out in the community saying that homosexuahty is terrible and that the Labor Party is to blame.

Mr Menzel: At least it's not our policy, as it's your policy. Mr CASEY: Listen to the honourable member for Mulgrave! If I want to illustrate hypocrisy, I need only refer to his comments in the House last week when he tried to beat up a story— he must have dragged it out of the atmosphere—about a $100m sugar- mill in Bangladesh. I know all about that. Members of the Sugar Research Institute in my electorate have been over there helping starving people who, daily, are being picked up in the streets by those such as the great Mother Teresa and provided with a better diet. What hypocrisy is shown by the member for Mulgrave! During the Premier's term of office, abortion clinics have been established, contrary to this State's laws, but he does nothing about them. Sex shops have been set up, contrary to the State's laws, but he does nothing about them. Escort agencies and massage parlours have mushroomed throughout the State, but what have he and his Govemment done about them? Absolutely nothing! What has been done about the pomographic literature that has flooded into the State and is so freely available? Absolutely nothing! Yet the honourable gentleman has the hypocrisy to criticise the Opposition, The National Party should first put its own house in order. Time expired.

Government Assistance to Sugar Industry Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (12,50 p,m.): I refer to the plight of the sugar industry. The honourable member for Mackay has just delivered a tirade, and I often wonder whether he is sincere. I believe that his speeches are made for political purposes. No- one takes any notice of him, and I am pleased to note that. I remind the House that last week the "cane train" arrived in Brisbane from north Queensland.

Mr Davis: They were after the headlines.

Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Brisbane Central is interjecting, as he usually does. He makes his usual smart remarks, and I will deal with him before very long. I am sure he will remember what I have to say to him today. The cane-growers arrived in Brisbane with their families. Opposition members have said that many of the cane-growers' wives came to Brisbane for a three-day visit to do some shopping.

Mr Menzel: That is a disgrace.

Mr RANDELL: It is a disgrace, and the Opposition's remarks are on record. Many of the people on the train undertook a 4 000 km round trip from north Queensland, and many were unable to afford to leave their homes, farms and families. Great discomfort was endured. They arrived without having had much sleep and they had had little to eat during the joumey. That great distance was travelled so that they could put a case to the Prime Minister for the sugar industry. I met many of the people who undertook the journey. Many of the 400 people who made the trip from Mackay came from the small vUlage of Carmila. All of the people on that train came because they were concemed about the plight of the industry and the effect upon their families. They had received no help from Opposition members. Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3147

Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Mirani is deliberately endeavouring to mislead the House. He used the words Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Unless a personal reflection has been cast Mr CASEY: Yes, there is a personal reference. He used the words that no-one on this side of the House had showed any care for the people who were on the train or were interested in their plight. All honourable members would know that I met the train. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not take the remarks of the honourable member for Mirani as constituting a personal reflection, and I will not accept the point of order. Mr Casey: It is a personal reflection Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Mackay under Standing Order No. 123A for arguing with the Chair. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point or order. In his statements the honourable member for Mirani cast a personal reflection on action taken by me last week. I met the train, as a number of other members of the Labor Party did. I participated in the rally and I met many other honourable members at it. I ask the honourable member for Mirani to withdraw those words which personally reflect upon me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I accept the point of order taken by the honourable member for Mackay only to the extent that I will request the honourable member for Mirani to accept the explanation that has been given. Mr RANDELL: In the interests of proceeding with the debate, I accept the explanation. It often happens that the tmth is hurtful Mr Prest interjected. Mr RANDELL: I will address some comments to the honourable member for Port Curtis at a later stage. The people who had travelled to Brisbane on the train were desperate and were fmstrated by the attitude of the Federal Govemment towards the sugar industry. Help and hope had been refused by the Federal Govemment to thousands of cane-farmers and their families—business people and their families—all along the Queensland coast at places such as Mackay and Caims. Yet members of the Opposition are now attempting to prevent me from speaking. People involved in the sugar industry have been fmstrated by the broken pre­ election promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Not only have the Prime Minister and the Minister refused to give assistance, they also have an obvious desire—which has not been hindered by members of the Opposition—to grind the sugar industry out of existence. The honourable members for Mackay and Bundaberg have offered no help; they have merely mouthed platitudes that have been written for them by a publicity machine. There is no doubt that the "cane train" was a great publicity exercise. It drew the attention of southem people to the desperate plight of the sugar industry and the people who are involved in it. I do not think that many people in this part of Queensland have grasped the magnitude of the sugar industry's plight. Despite the widely publicised discussion and meeting that took place between the cane-growers and the Prime Minister, the cane-growers were provided with nothing except empty words that were intended to satisfy cane-growers and workers until the forthcoming Federal election takes place. 3148 28 November 1984 Matters of Public Interest

I draw the attention of honourable members to newspaper reports that state "Hawke promises"—and they are great promises! That was all that was given at the last election— promises. No substantive assistance has been given. In 1983, another caption stated that Labor would give sympathetic consideration to the plight of the sugar industry. Mr Casey interjected. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Mackay should shut up for a while. He has had an opportunity to speak, so he should remain quiet for a change. He will have to answer to the people of Mackay. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) even had the hide and audacity Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will refrain from shouting in the Chamber. Mr Turner: Mr Randell, are you aware of a statement made by Mr Bowen that was circulated by the Primary Industries newsletter of 22 June 1983 in which he said it was about time Mr RANDELL: Yes, I quoted that. He even had the hide and audacity to call on the Queensland Govemment to co-operate in the calling of a summit. He conveniently forgot to say that the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries had asked for a summit three weeks earlier. It was refused out of hand. I have a press release from the Minister for Primary Industries which stated— " ' The State Govemment is ready to sit down and talk at a moment's notice— but we want performance, not promises,' he said." Mr Davis interjected. Mr RANDELL: I will give you "sick" in a minute. It is about time that you acted responsibly in this House. If Mr Deputy Speaker had heard what you said just then, he would send you out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr RANDELL: The statement continued— "He called on Mr Hawke to make a firm, irreversible pledge of positive action before next Saturday's election. He recalled that prior to the March 1983 election, the Labor party had promised an underwriting scheme and 'priority' assistance for the industry." What did the industry get? Nothing! And that is the man in charge of this country! He is the most insincere and shallow Prime Minister that this country has ever had the misfortune to have. He is the man who, when he was president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, made the promise that he would bring Australia to its knees. He is now starting on its very base with his attack on the great mral sector which underpins the prosperity of this nation. The nation's economy has been boosted by its mral industries. The Federal Govemment even seems to be claiming credit for breaking the drought. The Prime Minister has a great reputation for shedding tears; it is a pity that he did not shed a tear for the farmers and workers all along the coast of Queensland. Some people have worked for a lifetime to build up a business in the expectation that they would be able to pass it on to their children. That sort of hard work is accepted as normal under this Govemment's free enterprise system. Mr Prest interjected. Matters of Public Interest 28 November 1984 3149

Mr RANDELL: The member for Port Curtis would not understand that, because he has never worked in his life. The sugar industry has put a great deal into the economy of this nation and paid millions upon millions of dollars in tax. It is now entitled to receive some assistance in retum. The Federal Govemment has put almost $100m into the steel industry in the golden triangle in the south. The Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology would be able to tell the House how much the Federal Govemment has injected into the motor vehicle industry, but it will not give one cent to the people in the sugar industry. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr RANDELL: I hear that the member for Caims has retumed to the Chamber. It is a pity that he does not learn a little about the sugar industry, such as the $400m that it has rebated to the Australian consumer over the past eight years. That represents the difference between the world market price and the price at which sugar is sold on the domestic market. It seems to me, from what the former under secretary of the Federal Treasury said, that the ALP has plans drawn up and ready to implement in the form of wealth taxes, capital gains taxes and death duties. If Hawke does not get the mral community one way, he will get it in another. He has abolished the bicentennial water program and tax indexation and has increased fuel prices. He is ready to bring the mral community to its knees. It is a pity that Mr Hawke had not left his sheltered life and spent some time working on a sugar farm, as I and other members including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have done, or in a sugar-mill as the workers are now doing and experiencing the sweat and tears. I have called repeatedly in this House for the Federal Govemment to implement its promised underwriting scheme for the industry and make available long-term low- interest loans to help keep the industry going. I call on Opposition members to help the industry. It is a national problem that could be solved by a national Govemment with the guts to face up to its responsibilities. If Mr Hawke does not keep his promises, he will be branded by me, by the mral community, by the sugar industry and by Govemment members as a hypocrite, a liar and a confidence trickster.

Mr Davis interjected. Mr RANDELL: What about the honourable member? My growers came down to Brisbane to meet him, and he did not even have the guts to walk outside this building and talk to them. He criticised them Mr Davis interjected. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member did. I asked him to meet them, and he refused to do so. That is typical of members opposite. The member for Caims is another hypocrite Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. I resent the statement of the member for Mirani that I did not have the guts Mr RANDELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take a point of order. Can I take a point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the debate on matters of public interest has now expired. 3150 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS: PASSING OF CERTAIN BILLS Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House), by leave, without notice: I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the foUowing Bills entitled, 'Director of Prosecutions Bill', 'Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill', 'Health Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)', 'Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)', 'Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill', and the 'Wheat Marketing BiU', from being passed through their remaining stages before the conclusion of this week's sitting." Motion agreed to.

MR SPEAKER'S RULING Motion of Dissent Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (2.16 p.m.): I move— "That the mling by Mr Speaker made on Thursday, 22 November 1984, whereby the honourable member for Cook, Mr Scott, was ordered to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A, be dissented from." The issue at stake today is the right of an honourable member to take a point of order. This fundamental right was denied to the member for Cook (Mr Bob Scott) last Thursday. The Speaker ordered the member for Cook to withdraw from this Chamber under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A. The Speaker's comments were— "I earlier wamed the member for Cook under standing Order No. 123A. He will now leave the House;" and— "Order! In accordance with standing Order No. 123A, the member for Cook wUl leave the House." I submit, and the Opposition submits, that the Speaker erred seriously in expelling Mr Scott from this Chamber. I think that it is useful to consider the wording of Standing Order No. 123A which is headed, "Power to Order Withdrawal of Disorderly Member." Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 123A states— "The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after waming such Member, order any member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition supports totally the right of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to enforce Standing Order No. 123A. That commitment is without qualification, but the point at issue in this matter is something completely different. It is the right of a member to take a point of order. That right must be protected. It must not be allowed to be eroded in any way. There can be no doubt that members have this right. It is set down in Standing Order No. 115, which states— "A member may rise to speak to Order. " It is further reinforced in Standing Order No. 116, which states— "Upon a question of order being raised, the Member called to Order shall resume his seat; and after the question of order has been stated to Mr Speaker by the Member rising to the Question of Order, Mr Speaker shall give his opinion thereon; but may first invite the opinion of the House." Mr Speaker's Ruling 28 November 1984 3151

This right of members is also set down in "Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice" under the heading: "Right of members to direct the attention of the Chair to supposed breaches of order" It states— " It is the right of any Member who thinks that such a breach has been committed to rise in his place, intermpting any Member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter, provided that he does so the moment the alleged breach of order occurs. A member speaking to order must simply direct attention to the point complained of, and submit it to the decision of the Speaker. If the Speaker is of the opinion that the words or conduct complained of are disorderly, he will call upon the member to conform to the mles of the House." Quite plainly, a member has the right to take a point of order. The Speaker, by his action in this Parliament last Thursday, denied the member for Cook the opportunity to exercise his right to take a point of order. My decision last Thursday to give notice of a motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's mling was not taken lightly. Because of the fundamental importance of the right of a member to take a point of order, that step was necessary. It is worth noting that, last Thursday, I extended to Mr Speaker the opportunity to reconsider his decision. I do not suggest that he was under any obligation, having been given that opportunity, to change his mling. I merely state that I afforded him the opportunity to review the situation at the time. My comments were— "Mr Speaker, I ask you seriously to reconsider your position. The member for Cook (Bob Scott, MLA) was seriously endeavouring to put a point of order to you and you have sent him out under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir, I put it to you that that is unreasonable, that it is unfair, and that you should reconsider your position." I repeat that Mr Speaker's decision to order the honourable member for Cook from this Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A was unreasonable and unfair. There can be no mistaking that the honourable member for Cook, immediately prior to his being ordered to withdraw from this House, was attempting to take a point of order. Mr Speaker refused to allow the honourable member for Cook to exercise this basic right. Leading up to his expulsion, the comments of the member of Cook were— "I rise to a point of order. I ask, Mr Speaker, for your mling on the use of words. The Minister is accusing us of—" After an interjection from the Minister for Health (Mr Austin), the honourable member for Cook continued to state his point of order, as follows— "The Minister is accusing members of the Opposition of supporting homosexuality. I used the word 'heterosexual'. I doubt that members on the other side know the meaning of very many words. Is that an improper—" It was then that Mr Speaker called "Order!", and the honourable member for Cook asked— "May I make my point of order?" Mr Speaker then mled— "Order! There is no point of order on that particular subject." At that point, the honourable member for Cook uttered the words, "Mr Speaker" The honourable member for Cook was pursuing his right under Standing Orders to invite Mr Speaker's attention to a point of order. But, at that point, Mr Speaker ordered the honourable member for Cook to leave the Chamber. 3152 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

It is clear that the honourable member for Cook was not afforded the opportunity to explain the point of order that he obviously intended to make. This right is set out clearly in Standing Orders Nos. 115 and 116. Mr Speaker's mling was undoubtedly premature. He made that mhng without hearing the point of order that the member for Cook intended to take. Mr Speaker sent the honourable member from this Chamber for saying the words, "Mr Speaker" They are the words that Mr Scott uttered at that time. It cannot be said that, in exercising his right to get the attention of Mr Speaker in that way, the honourable member for Cook infringed Standing Orders. That is the point in question today. Mr Speaker's primary error was to mle that there was no point of order without attempting to establish the point of order being taken. On numerous occasions in this House, Mr Speaker has intermpted members taking a point of order to declare-fc^ "The honourable member will state his point of order." Last Thursday, he did not give the honourable member for Cook such an opportunity. If Mr Speaker was in any doubt as to the nature of the point of order about to be taken by the honourable member for Cook, or if he felt that the member was unduly prefacing his intended point of order with comment, he could have intermpted the member to mle that he state immediately his point of order. Mr Speaker failed to give the honourable member for Cook that opportunity. Mr Speaker then compounded the error of his premature mling that there was no point of order, without first hearing what the point of order was to be, by ordering the honourable member for Cook from the Chamber as he attempted to take a subsequent point of order. This motion of dissent does not deal directly with Mr Speaker's exchange last Thursday with the member for Cook that preceded his ordering the member to withdraw from the Chamber. That exchange dealt with an interjection from the honourable member for Cook, which Mr Speaker ordered him to withdraw and for which he wamed the honourable member under Standing Order No. 123A after Mr Scott protested against that mling. Of course, it must be acknowledged that this exchange between Mr Speaker and the member for Cook set the stage for what immediately followed. The member for Cook, on his own admission, had used the words "robustly heterosexual", as I understand it, in reference to the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health did not seek to have the comments withdrawn. He found nothing objectionable or offensive about them. But Mr Speaker's comments were— "If I hear any more of that nonsense from the member for Cook, I will wam him under Standing Order No. 123A." It was immediately after this that the member for Cook rose on a point of order seeking Mr Speaker's mling on the use of words. It was then that Mr Speaker made the two erroneous decisions that I have outlined. I call on all members of this House to consider very carefully the point at issue— the right of a member to take and state a point of order. I ask aU members to support this motion of dissent. If the reaction of members opposite is that they are being asked to vote against one of their colleagues, I think that I have hit one of the major problems of the role of Mr Speaker in this House. Mr Warner is first and foremost the Speaker of this Parliament; secondly, he is the member for Toowoomba South; and thirdly, he is a member of the National Party. If the instinctive reaction of honourable members opposite is to regard Mr Speaker as first and foremost a party colleague, their perceptions are completely Mr Speaker's Ruling 28 November 1984 3153 astray. The Speaker must be considered to be above party politics in the discharge of his role as Speaker. Time expired. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (2.27 p.m.): I second the motion. One does not have to look back beyond this week's parliamentary proceedings to see why some people are concemed for democracy in this State. As usual, the more elderly, senior members of the Government left the distinct impression that parliamentary proceedings are just something that have to be tolerated. While the House is treated with contempt and disdain, the public and observers cannot be blamed if they have a low regard for its operations. Let me preface my comments by referring to the consideration and restraint that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) urged upon Mr Speaker last Thursday when he was kicking out the member for Cook. The Leader of the Opposition again exercised that restraint today. Because it gets straight to the nitty-gritty of the matter I will quote what the Leader of the Opposition said last Thursday— "Mr Speaker, I ask you seriously to reconsider your position. The member for Cook (Bob Scott, M.L.A.) was seriously endeavouring to put a point of order to you and you have sent him out under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir, I put it to you that that is unreasonable, that it is unfair, and that you should reconsider your position." I wish to read from "An Encyclopaedia of Parliament" as follows— "Any Member of Parliament can and should bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order or a transgression of any written or unwritten law of the House which the Chair has not perceived, and he may also ask for the guidance and assistance of the Chair regarding any obscurities in procedure. A member is entitled, in such cases only, to intermpt a debate by rising and saying, 'On a point of order, Mr. Speaker', and then to lay the point in question concisely before him, although there is often some doubt among members as to what exactly constitutes a point of order, and the reply is quite frequently, 'That is not a point of order.'" It is all very well to say that we members take points of order that are not always valid. However, our job is to raise a point of order with Mr Speaker, who then has to mle on U. The quotation continues— "As Speaker Morrison said in the House of Commons on 26 March 1952, when members raise points of order the Speaker or Chairman have no idea what they are going to say until they deliver themselves." That is the very point. Mr Speaker had no idea what the member for Cook would say until he was given the opportunity to state his point of order. He was not given that opportunity. He was quite unfairly and unjustly thrown out of the House. The Opposition offered the olive branch. The Leader of the Opposition asked Mr Speaker to reconsider. That request was rejected outright. The only option available to the Opposition was to move a motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's mhng. I must state that the Speaker is not his own man. It is not tme to say that, in this Parliament, Mr Speaker is independent. He knows that, if he wants to keep his job, he has to be obedient and carry out the directions of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The Premier is renowned for his threats and intimidation of people who do not toe the line. I refer to the "Hansard" that records what happened when the member for Ipswich West was thrown out of the House. It reads as follows— "Mr UNDERWOOD: I accept the Minister's challenge and I move— 'That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as to allow the Minister to table the Bill here and now.' 3154 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Govemment Members: Out, out! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Ipswich West under Standing Order No. 123A. That is his final waming. Mr Underwood: I have moved a motion. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Out!" What happened? He went out straight away! "Hansard" continues— "Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have wamed the honourable member under Standing Order No. 123A. The member for Ipswich West will leave the Chamber." The Premier has a history of using the Speakers in this Parliament to enforce his will. Every member should be treated equally. No matter whether members are Ministers, Govemment back-benchers or Opposition members—no matter whether it is the Premier himself who is involved—all members should be treated equally by the Chair. That is the way in which the parliamentary system works. That is the Westminster system, which Govemment members always keep tmmpeting about on the stump. The Premier is renowned for his threats to and intimidation of people who do not toe his line. This covert pressure that is applied to Mr Speaker by the National Party is affecting his judgment and destroyinjg any inkling of impartiality in this place. It is tme that, whereas National Party Ministers have tended to profess great faith in Westminster principles and pageantry, their commitment to the practice of parliamentary democracy has often been doubtful. Now, let us get to the nitty-gritty of the matter. A senior Opposition shadow Minister is given his marching orders for simply uttering the words, "May I make my point of order?" This muzzling of free speech by this oppressive Govemment has reached the dizzy heights of a totalitarian regime. The restoration of impartiality and integrity into the operation of this Parliament can occur only when we have a Speaker who is independent and impartial. On Thursday, it was painfully obvious that either Mr Speaker did not hear the comments of Bob Scott prior to his saying, "May I make my point of order?", or Mr Speaker does not know the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual, or both. This Parliament in session produces vigorous exchanges between the Govemment and the Opposition, and that is the way it should be. A Speaker who cannot handle these exchanges with authority and skill must resort to sledge-hammer tactics, in this instance, by kicking out good ALP members. In "Hansard", Mr Speaker is recorded as saying— "I will be as hard as I can on members on that side of the House He said that when he was asking the honourable member for Ipswich West to leave the Chamber. He made it very clear. I ask the Minister, when he makes his speech, to give Opposition members a Ust of the occasions on which a Govemment member was asked to leave the Chamber. The Minister cannot tell me that Government members do not interject. He cannot teU me that they never raise matters at question-time or take points of order. He cannot tell me that Govemment members are never put in a position in which they should be handled in the same way as Opposition members. The plain fact of the matter is that Mr Speaker does as he is told. Whenever a National Party meeting takes place on a Wednesday moming, for the next day or so Opposition members receive rougher treatment from Mr Speaker. Because Ministers are not receiving the mn of the Parliament or it is not operating in the way in which they want it to operate, Mr Speaker is told to pull up his socks. The Opposition believes that there should be equality in the Parliament; that the Opposition is entitled to treatment equal to that given to the Government. Mr Speaker's Ruhng 28 November 1984 3155

The Opposition agrees with maintaining the dignity of the Parliament and showing respect for the office of Speaker. However, honourable members cannot respect the office of Mr Speaker if he is not impartial in his mlings and fair in the way in which he operates in this Chamber. It is paramount that Mr Speaker should become impartial and stand up to the Ministers, saying that he will conduct proceedings according to the book or according to Hoyle. That dignity will never be achieved by actions such as those associated with the eviction of the member for Cook or those that were taken with respect to the honourable member for Ipswich West. It is extraordinary that, in this case, Mr Speaker has dismally faUed to protect the impartiality of the Speaker's role. This situation involving the honourable member for Cook is a case of Rafferty's mles at its worst. Ultimately, the way the public perceives Parliament depends on the role of the Speaker. He is a gracious, dignified and well- spoken man. Honourable members like him. They would have to like him; he is a decent bloke. However, Mr Speaker does not apply the skilled use of the Standing Orders that is necessary. The Clerk and his assistants cannot help him if he does not ask himself, "What is a fair go?" Most honourable members do not care what he does, as long as he gives them a fair go. The Opposition does not believe that it receives a fair go and argues continually that it does not receive a fair go in this place from Mr Speaker. That is an argument that has been advanced before, and it must be advanced again. Mr Speaker is not firm or explicit in his mlings. From time to time, the mlings change. If a Govemment member asks, "Mr Speaker, what words should I withdraw?", Mr Speaker says to the Opposition member, "to which words do you object?" However, when the Opposition rises and asks, "Mr Speaker, what words do I have to withdraw?", Mr Speaker says, "You know. Withdraw them." Is that a fair go? Is that the way it should be? Is that impartiality at its best? Is that the role of Mr Speaker, acting in the manner that is laid down in "Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice" and laid down by the traditions that Govemment members are always talking about? At least as important is Mr Speaker's ability to interpret with impartiality the mles of the House and to give all honourable members a fair go. If the system is to cam respect, that is what counts. Mr Speaker is not a servant of the National Party Govemment; he should be a servant of the Parliament. I do not believe that he acts in that way. Mr Speaker is the judge, not the prosecutor. It is his job to maintain the dignity of Parliament, not to further the aims of the most Mr McPHIE: I rise to a point of order. The debate concems a motion of dissent from the Speaker's mling regarding the exclusion from the House of the member for Cook, yet members opposite are making an outright attack on the Speaker in general terms. The motion of dissent should be debated and nothing else. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I cannot see any point of order. Mr BURNS: Unfortunately, the member for Toowoomba North does not know the mles, either. He is liable to be made the next Speaker, because the Government usually chooses for that position a member who does not know the mles. Mr McPHIE: I rise to a point of order. The member for Lytton alleges that I do not know the mles. He does not know whether I know the mles or not. He has not conducted any test to find out. The member for Lytton is making a scurrilous attack on my ability and my knowledge, and I ask that his comments be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is offended by the words. Mr Burns: He didn't say that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba North indicated to me that the member for Lytton had implied that the member for Toowoomba North does not know the mles. That is what the member for Toowoomba North wants withdrawn. 3156 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Mr BURNS: I withdraw my comments in accordance with the requirements of the House. A public opinion poll conducted five years ago disclosed that Queensland politicians had the lowest record for honesty and ethical standards of all politicians in Australia. I add that at that time that was so of Government politicians. A Speaker determined to enforce the mles relating to the powers, dignities, liberties and privileges of parliamentarians, regardless of political persuasion, could do much to lift the Parliament and the stocks of its politicians in this State. The Parliament is going downhill because of poor regard for the Speaker and the way in which he conducts proceedings in the Chamber. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (2.37 p.m.): In opposing the motion of dissent, I say at the outset that this debate, being held on the second-last day of the session, would have to be the time- waster of the year. It is unbelievable that today the matter being debated is whether the member for Cook should or should not have been dealt with under Standing Order No. 123A. If he had the choice, I do not believe that the honourable member for Cook would want this debate to take place today. He is not a man of tender sensibilities. I suggest that it has happened to him before and that he would expect it to happen to him again. During the years that I have been a member of Parliament the member for Cook has had a record of disorderly conduct. So today, at this busy stage in the session, honourable members have to focus their attention on the issue of whether the Speaker was right or wrong. The Leader of the Opposition, who opened this debate, selectively quoted from "Hansard" the events at that time, and, as the principal Govemment speaker, I must put the record straight. The Leader of the Opposition sought to imply that this debate is all about whether a private member of Parliament has a right to raise a point of order in this House. A member certainly does have that right, and nobody is preventing him from exercising that right. However, a reading of "Hansard" will prove that there is much more to the story than that. I quote from "Hansard"— "Mr Scott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook will withdraw that remark immediately. Mr Scott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cook under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr SCOTT: The words I used were 'robustly heterosexual'. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook knows very well what he said. Mr Scott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Cook does not withdraw the remark that he made, I wiU warn him under Standing Order No. 123A.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If I personally hear something said in the House with which I do not agree, I will call the member concemed to order. That is exactly what I did to the member for Cook. I will not repeat what the member for Cook said. However, I will not stand for it any longer. If I hear any more of that nonsense from the member for Cook, I will wam him under Standing Order No. 123A." The "Hansard" record continues, inter alia— "Mr SPEAKER: I earlier warned the member for Cook under Standing Order No. 123A. He will now leave the House. Mr Speaker's Ruhng 28 November 1984 3157

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with Standing Order No. 123 A, the member for Cook will leave the House.

Whereupon the honourable member for Cook withdrew from the Chamber." Mr Vaughan: You skipped a bit. Mr AHERN: Yes. I said "inter aha" Mr Vaughan: Very conveniently, you skipped a bit. Mr AHERN: I am allowed only 10 minutes in the debate. What I want to prove to honourable members and to point out to readers of "Hansard" is the general attitude by the member for Cook towards the authority of Mr Speaker. It was certainly not restricted, nicely and completely, to his being prevented from raising a point of order. To ascertain whether or not Mr Speaker acted properly, members must, for the purposes of the record, refer to the provisions of Standing Order No. 119, which is in these terms— "Offensive Words against Member 119. A Member shall not use unbecoming or offensive words in reference to another Member of the House." Standing Order No. 120 reads— "A Member shall not digress from the subject-matter under discussion, or comment upon expressions used by another Member in a previous debate of the same Session; and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections, shall be deemed highly disorderly." Standing Order No. 123A reads— "The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after waming such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." The matters at issue in this debate are simply these: Was the honourable member for Cook properly ordered to withdraw from the Chamber under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A? Indeed, was he, in the opinion of Mr Speaker, grossly disorderly? A reading of "Hansard", which is confirmed by the knowledge of honourable members who were in the Chamber at the time, shows that he was one of many on the other side of the House who on that occasion were certainly grossly disorderly. Was he properly wamed, as required under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A? "Han­ sard" shows that, y£S, he certainly was. Was he making personal reflections? Indeed, the answer to that question is, "Yes, of course." Was he using unbecoming or offensive words? The fine point that appears to be raised today is whether or not he was using offensive words, so we must refer to the general authority of Mr Speaker. From a general reading. Standing Rules and Orders and "Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice" on almost every page reveal the authority of Mr Speaker very clearly as a general power. It is necessary for the authority of the Chair in this place and in all other Parliaments— indeed, in any general meeting—that there be general regard for the Chair. A Parliament will not work without respect for the general authority of Mr Speaker. It is absolutely necessary that we as members of Parliament generally recognise that. No Parliament can work without general regard for the authority of Mr Speaker. In the event of a general debate occurring in which there is general disorderly conduct—and there was during question-time on that day—Mr Speaker's authority must 3158 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruhng prevail. He properly exercised his authority under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A, after consideration of the other Standing Orders of the Parliament, and his will did prevaU. His will must be endorsed. Indeed, disregarding the authority of the Chair is a most serious issue, which should be dealt with under the provisions of Standing Order No. 124. An honourable member may be subjected to a period of suspension from the Pariiament for a period of up to two weeks. It is a serious issue, which may be addressed under another Standing Order of the Pariiament. Very cleariy, Mr Speaker's mling must be upheld. This is an unnecessary debate. Certainly, it is a time-wasting debate. When the generality of the debate at the time in "Hansard" is considered, it is revealed as a classic case of the Opposition's giving but not being able to take. It is as simple as that. Daily for the last 12 months, members of the Opposition have made personal accusations against citizens of the State and Ministers of the Govemment and have been paying very little regard to the serious issue of why we are here. Ministers who attend at the House and have very serious duties are not being asked questions on factual matters at all, and they are subjected day after day to attacks of a personal nature. That is a simple fact. There is no doubt at all that scant regard is had for the rights of citizens. It used to be a daily cry in this House that the civil liberties of the citizens of Queensland were injuriously affected by the actions of this Govemment but, today, such accusations could be levelled on a daily basis at the ranks of the Opposition. What happened on this occasion was that the Minister for Health (Mr Austin) was giving the Opposition some of its own back. As a member of Parliament, that is something that the Minister is entitled to do. He was reading to members of the Opposition something of which they should be proud—the policies of their own party— and he related that policy as it very definitely does relate to the AIDS controversy. Honourable members became disorderly over the issue, as well they might, because the issue is a very sensitive one. However, Government members had no hesitation in pointing out that relationship, and that evoked disorderly conduct. It was therefore necessary that the disorderly conduct be dealt with, and at that time that was done by virtue of the provisions of the Standing Orders that apply in this House. The provisions of Standing Orders were applied most appropriately, and all honourable members should be ready on this occasion to support wholeheartedly the Speaker of the Parliament in the difficult job he has. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (2.47 p.m.): Debate upon a motion that dissents from the actions and rulings of the Speaker is a very serious matter. The Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) has a reputation among some people for being concemed about the propriety of Parliament and for taking great pride in the institution of Parliament, so I was disappointed to hear him describe as a waste of time a debate on the fundamental right of honourable members to take a point of order. The matter that arose last Thursday, which is the subject of debate today, was the fundamental right of a member of Parliament to take a point of order during a debate. The Minister quoted somewhat selectively from "Hansard" to support his contentions. In fact, if anything can be gleaned from "Hansard" of Thursday, 22 November 1984, it is that there was disorder in the House but, as a person who was present on that day, let me say that there was disorder on both sides of the House. That is the fundamental point that is relevant to the whole debate. A heated discussion took place about the words used by the honourable member for Cook. Those words are recorded in "Hansard", and they were two words, "robustly heterosexual." Obviously honourable members opposite found those words to be offen­ sive. I, for one, would not find it offensive to be described as robustly heterosexual because I plead guilty to that description. The honourable member for Cook was called upon to withdraw remarks that were described as offensive, and found himself ordered from the House under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A. Contrary to the Mr Speaker's Ruhng 28 November 1984 3159

Minister's claims, the reason for this debate being held today is not a question of the individual sensitivity of a member. The sensitivity of the honourable member for Cook is not the matter in question. What is in question is the right of a member of Parliament to take a point of order. I draw the attention of honourable members to "Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice", 20th edition. The leamed authors describe the role and characteristics of the person who is appointed Speaker as follows— "The chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. As a symbol of his authority he is accompanied by the Royal Mace which is home before him when entering and leaving the Chamber and upon state occasions by the Sergeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, and is placed upon the table when he is in the chair." It goes on to say— "Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized." Those points are very relevant to this debate. Let me take them in order. The first reference was to the Speaker's authority and impartiality. That, I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the basic argument being put by the Opposition in this debate. As I said, it was a very disorderly time in the Chamber last Thursday, and when the warnings were given, they were all given to members on the Speaker's left. In fact, in the time that I have been in this Chamber— certainly I have been here only since the last election—I remember only one instance in which a Govemment member was wamed by the Chair under Standing Order No. 123A, and that occurred last Thursday night when the Minister for Transport was wamed by the Speaker. When that waming was given there was an enormous cry from members on this side that at last a waming had been given. Yet last week was a bit like World War II. If we Opposition members had a transfer stuck on us every time we were wamed under Standing Order No. 123A, we would be covered in them. In terms of the other symbolism of this Parliament, mention was made of the Speaker's authority and the mace. I have already said on other occasions that the mace in this Parliament was presented to the Govemment of Queensland, not to the Parliament of Queensland. The action of the Speaker in not upholding that impartial authority of this Parliament illustrates the attitude that has been so often expressed in this place: that Mr Speaker is there to serve the whims of the Govemment and not Parliament. "Erskine May" makes another point that is most important. It relates to the need for confidence in the Speaker. The incident under discussion this aftemoon is not one that generates confidence in the exercise of the Speaker's authority. It is a time when the Opposition feels that it is being placed in an unreasonable position in this Chamber. I have already pointed out that, when the House is in disorder, it is most peculiar that it is only the Opposition that feels the wrath of Mr Speaker when the wamings are given. What is required when there is raucous behaviour in this Chamber, whether it be from the Opposition or the Govemment, is the impartial exercise of the Speaker's authority. It requires balance in the response from the Chair and in the discipline that the Chair requires of this Chamber. Unfortunately, this issue is being debated this aftemoon because that balance is not apparent. Confidence in Mr Speaker's impartiality can be generated only if there really is balance on the part of the Chair. All honourable members are entitled to take a point of order. I believe, as all members ought to believe, that the Speaker is the servant of the Parliament. His position is to uphold the rights and privileges of this Parliament and its members, and one of those privileges is that a member can take a point of order and not be wamed and removed from the Chamber when he seeks to do so. Unfortunately, this Assembly seems 3160 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruhng to have moved no further from the situation which became all too clear when Mr Speaker's predecessor, upon attaining that high office, indicated that he saw himself as the servant of the Govemment; that he was there to do the Govemment's bidding. Unfortunately, that is where this place goes astray; that is why debates like this occur. If Mr Speaker wishes to uphold the dignity of his office, he ought to take to heart the traditions of that office. It is interesting, too, to read a passage from "An Encyclopedia of Parliament". Dealing with the office of the Speaker, it cites the remarks of a very great Speaker when the monarch of the day was endeavouring to apply pressure to him. When the monarch of the time. King Charles, came to arrest honourable members for exercising their privileges in the Parliament, Mr Speaker Lenthall refuted the monarch's right to exercise authority over the members and said to him— "I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me .." The loyalty is to the Parliament and to its members, not to the Govemment of the day. If the role of Mr Speaker is to be upheld in this place, the decision this aftemoon ought to be to agree to the motion. The House should uphold the fundamental rights and privileges of its members. In doing so, it should uphold the fundamental right of a member of this House to take a point of order and to be heard, not to be arbitrarily disciplined by the Chair. I hope all honourable members will accept that principle and support the motion before the Chair this aftemoon. Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (2.56 p.m.): I enter the debate to support Mr Speaker. Mr Davis interjected. Mr POWELL: I would hope that all members in the Chamber would want to support Mr Speaker in his efforts to keep fools such as the honourable member for Brisbane Central quiet when other members are trying to speak and express their opinions. It is symptomatic of this place that Opposition members cannot sit there and listen. They feel compelled to try to shout over the member who has the call from Mr Speaker. I can understand very easily and sympathetically the feelings of Mr Speaker at the time when honourable members opposite, and, indeed, other members in the Chamber, were attempting to take points of order that, in fact, were not valid points of order. Mr Davis interjected. Mr POWELL: The member for Brisbane Central once again is trying to shout someone down. Standing Order No. 119 provides— "A Member shall not use unbecoming or offensive words in reference to another Member of the House." That is probably the only basis on which honourable members should be able to rise to a point of order and ask that words be withdrawn. The Leader of the Opposition, in moving the motion, was fairly reasonable in the remarks he made. Honourable members may have noted that he was listened to almost in silence by the whole Chamber. However, that is not so when honourable members on the Government side speak. I can imagine Mr Speaker's frustration in attempting to maintain order and quiet in the House when honourable members opposite interject continually, jump up and down and, after being warned under Standing Order No. 123A, do not show respect for the position of the Speaker. It does not matter what honourable members think of Mr Speaker, the person. I heard the honourable member for Lytton say what I think every honourable member really believes, namely, that the person presently holding the position of Speaker is a gentleman and a friend to all. Mr Speaker's Ruling 28 November 1984 3161

The member who preceded me in this debate mentioned Speaker Lenthall, a person who rocketed to fame when he refused King Charles entry to the House of Commons on 4 January 1642. In writing about Speaker Lenthall, a very well respected commentator named Dasent said— "In the case of an office like the Speaker's there can be no posthumous fame without contemporary appreciation." That is what this debate is all about. Either this Parliament respects the position of the Speaker and respects the way in which the Speaker operates from the chair, or it does not. If the Parliament does not respect the position of Speaker, it is the first step towards anarchy. If members of Parliament are denied the right to speak and express an opinion clearly and without fear or favour, democracy cannot mle, and will not mle in this State. Opposition Members interjected. Mr POWELL: Some Opposition members do not want to hear me in silence. They wish to keep butting in all the time to have their point accepted. In moving the motion, the Leader of the Opposition said that Mr Speaker should be, firstly, the Speaker of this Parliament; secondly, the member for Toowoomba South and, thirdly, a member of the National Party. Everyone on this side of the House— every single member, without exception—agrees with that order of priorities. Mr Davis interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The persistent interjections of the honourable member for Brisbane Central are intolerable. I ask him to desist. There will be order in the Chamber. Mr POWELL: The Leader of the Opposition, in stating that order of priorities, finds no argument with anybody on this side of the Chamber. I personally believe that that order of priorities is exactly that of the Honourable John Wamer. He does all that he possibly can to maintain order in this Parliament in a gentlemanly fashion. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Ipswich West continually shouts and interjects, and he encourages other honourable members to do the same. That is precisely what is wrong with this House. Until such time as each member of this Parliament accepts the self-discipline needed to sit and listen to debates and, if he disagrees, to take his opportunity to make a speech, order in this Chamber will not be maintained and the proceedings will not mn smoothly. Mr Underwood interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Ipswich West of what I said to the honourable member for Brisbane Central. The honourable member is making persistent interjections and the Minister is not accepting them. So that this debate can proceed in harmony, I ask the honourable member for Ipswich West to desist. Mr POWELL: If democracy is to prevail in Queensland, honourable members must be heard in silence in this place. I turn once more to the words of Speaker Lenthall as cited accurately by the honourable member for Ipswich. Those words are very relevant to this motion. The position of Speaker was first created in 1377 to fulfil a role in the Parliament as spokesman for the King or the Establishment of the day. In 1642, King Charles I decided to take matters into his own hands because be believed that his spokesman was not being heard in the Parliament. King Charles marched upon the Parliament to remove five of its members. I will not repeat the words that were quoted so accurately by the 3162 28 November 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling honourable member for Ipswich. From that time, the Speaker became the defender of the rights of members of Parliament to speak as they see fit. Frankly, I believe that Mr Speaker wiU maintain that principle and will maintain impartiality, as he has in the past, provided that each honourable member in this Parliament gives him the opportunity to do so. The honourable member for Cook was ordered from the Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A because he argued with the Chair. There is no room for an individual member to stand in this place and have a toe-to-toe argument with the Chair. Immediately the Speaker allows that to happen, the authority of the Chair becomes limited. When that happens, order in this Parliament cannot be maintained. I have observed that some honourable members, when they move in and out of the Chamber, do not respect the Chair. During this debate, the honourable member for Bundaberg ignored the Chair completely as he left the Chamber. That is not right. Some honourable members, in ignorance, may not show respect for the Chair. However, it is about time that members of this Parliament recognise the position of Speaker for what it is—a very important and historical position. If honourable members do not have a sense of history about the position of Speaker, the authority of that position and of the Parliament wUl diminish. I think that the honourable member for Lytton spoke about the disrespect that is shown for the position of member of Parliament. He is right. That has happened simply because members of Parliament do not conduct themselves in a professional or proper manner. In the interests of democracy in Queensland, this motion must be defeated overwhelmingly. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (3.5 p.m.): This is another sorry saga in the life of this Assembly. When the House elects a Speaker, it places on the person so elected the responsibility of enforcing the Standing Orders. By tradition, upon his election to the chair, such member is conducted to it unwillingly. It is no wonder! There appears to have been a steady decline in the general attitude of members towards order in the House and, at times, a definite move towards disorder. If members choose to err on the side of disorder, the job of Mr Speaker becomes increasingly difficult. His job is to enforce the Standing Orders to ensure the smooth mnning of the House; otherwise, complete disorder will follow and he will be forced to leave the chair until members decide to abide by the mles. That should never be necessary; certainly, no presiding officer wants to do that. No presiding officer wants to have to wam honourable members ad nauseum because of continual interjections. Sooner or later his patience will mn out and he must then apply the Standing Orders—in this case, the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A, which deals with gross disorderly conduct. The episode that honourable members are debating today ought to be put into context. A reading of "Hansard" for this session, and in particular for the past few sitting days, shows that at times there are patches of continuous intermption by the taking of spurious points of order or by interjections that inflame debate and attract, as Mr Speaker has said, the disciplinary action that is set out in the Standing Orders. The report of the incident involving the honourable member for Cook shows clearly that the House was noisy and that numerous interjections were made. It is fair to say that, during one part of the uproar, Mr Speaker found the most vocal interjection to be that of the honourable member and, in the interests of the House, he applied the mle. Members of this Assembly must face the fact that a responsibility rests upon them individually to maintain an acceptable standard of conduct in the House. Members do have a duty to assist Mr Speaker to mn the House smoothly. It is in the interests of Parliament itself that that should happen. If members do not do that, they collectively share in the downgrading of the parliamentary system to which they are elected and which they have a responsibility to uphold. If all of us do not give that assistance freely and co-operate in maintaining the dignity of the Parliament by showing due respect for the Chair, we let down the very institution of Parliament itself Mr Speaker's Ruling 28 November 1984 3163 The Standing Orders are the property of this Parliament. They are adopted by members of this Assembly and can be amended from time to time by Parliament. The Chair is vested with the responsibility of ensuring that the Standing Orders are complied with and members have a collective responsibility to support the Chair; otherwise. Parliament just will not function. At times, an honourable member might disagree with a decision of Mr Speaker or the Chairman of Committees on a matter relating to the mnning of the Parliament. Such an instance that comes to mind is whether an amendment put forward might or might not be allowed by the Chairman of Committees. Whether that ought to be debated is a matter for the House. I have been present when a motion of dissent in relation to such a matter has been debated and the members of the Parliament decided on the merits of that case. However, when it comes to discipline, Standing Order No. 123A refers to disorderly conduct of a member and requires that a waming be issued by the Chair. When, in the opinion of Mr Speaker, a member persists to act in a grossly disorderly manner, that member is properly requested to leave the Chamber, and he is then to absent himself from the Chamber for the remainder of that sitting day. The question to which honourable members must address themselves today is whether, under the circumstances prevaihng at the time, there was disorder in the Chamber and whether or not the conduct of the member for Cook was disorderly and continued to be disorderly after one or more wamings were given to him by the Chair under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A. I regret to say that, in my opinion, disorderly conduct was in evidence in the House, and the honourable member for Cook had been wamed more than once. In my view, Mr Speaker endeavoured to regain and maintain control of the Chamber under very difficult circumstances. I think that bearing in mind the circumstances then existing in the Chamber, he acted in an impartial manner in maintaining, to the best of his ability, the dignity of the Chair and the respect for the institution of Parliament. Mr Speaker formed his opinion under Standing Order No. 123A. Generally, incidents such as this are to be regretted; nevertheless, honourable members must decide the issue. I cannot support the motion before the House, and Liberal members support the Chair. Question—That Mr Speaker's mling be dissented from (Mr Warburton's motion)— put; and the House divided— AYES, 25 NOES, 44 Bums Ahem Lester Campbell Alison Lickiss Casey Austin Lingard Comben Bailey Littleproud D'Arcy Booth McKechnie De Lacy Borbidge McPhie Fouras Cahill Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Miller Goss Cooper Muntz Kruger Elliott Newton Mackenroth FitzGerald Powell McEUigott Gibbs, I. J. Randell Milliner Glasson Simpson Palaszczuk Goleby Stephan Prest Gygar Stoneman Shaw Harper Tenni Underwood Harvey Tumer Vaughan Henderson Wharton Veivers Innes White Warburton Jennings Wamer, A. M. Tellers Katter Tellers Wilson Davis Knox Kaus Yewdale Hamill Lane Neal Resolved in the negative. 3164 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions Bill

DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3011) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (3.22 p.m.): Opposition members certainly support the legislation. We have no objection to the BiU at all. However, I will put a number of matters to the Minister and I hope that he will be able to satisfy my curiosity. Am I being sabotaged, Mr Deputy Speaker? A Government Member: There is a power faUure. Mr Casey: The lights are out, just as they are going out on the National Party in Queensland. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Indeed, as will be shown in the election on Saturday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! In the circumstances, if the member is to be heard, it will be necessary for there to be complete silence in the Chamber. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have always admired your impartiality and your brilliance in the chair. I never cease to be amazed at some of the reforms introduced by the National Party Govemment. So often members on the Govemment side of the Chamber wave the Labor Party's policy handbook. It is obvious that the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General is at last showing some enlightenment by reading the Labor Party's handbook, because many of the reforms that he is introducing, which Opposition members welcome, are direct lift-outs from a policy that the Labor Party worked very hard to develop. I refer to the appointment that he announced last week of a person to give assistance in the Supreme Court. We welcome that. It is a sad fact of life that for far too long the judicial system in Queensland has been clogged up. Because of the inadequacies in the Queensland system, people have been denied their natural right to justice as quickly as possible. On 13 July, an article in the "DaUy Sun" publicised that, at that stage, 544 people were awaiting a Brisbane District Court hearing. The delay in the Supreme Court, I am advised, is even worse from time to time. It would seem that at long last the Govemment is taking action to overhaul the judicial system in Queensland, and for that reason Opposition members welcome the legislation. On numerous occasions in the Parliament, I and my colleagues have called for the support of our party's platform for the setting up of a courts review commission, which would be responsible for an investigation into Queensland's judicial system, for which purpose it would receive submissions from interested members of the public, from the legal profession—both barristers and solicitors—and from members of Parlia­ ment. No objection to such a practice could be raised. In fact, it would probably be a welcome adjunct to the procedures that operate in this House if an all-party parliamentary committee were formed on a non-political basis to augment parliamentary practices. Although I welcome the legislation that is before the House today, it concems me that the Queensland Govemment and the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General seem to be presenting legislation in a higgledly-piggledy fashion. Rather than being characteristic of a professional body of people acting on proper and correct advice, and approaching matters as the Labor Party believes that they should be approached, the Govemment seems to act in a piecemeal fashion. In the Minister's second-reading speech, he mentioned the appointment of a chief executive officer to assist the Chief Justice of Queensland, and the Opposition welcomes Director of Prosecutions BiU 28 November 1984 3165 that appointment. It is also pleasing to note that at last an appointment will be made to the position of Director of Prosecutions. The legislation provides that the office of the Solicitor-General will become completely separate from the role to be performed by the Director of Prosecutions. I hope that the Minister will outline his intentions in relation to the appointment of the Director of Prosecutions and staff, and the proposals for locating them in suitable premises that will enable their operations to be carried out in a competent and professional manner. One would hope that the establishment of such a section would not be affected in any way by a shortage of funds, which would have a nugatory effect on the legislation being considered this aftemoon. The position of Director of Prosecutions will be a full-time job, and I welcome the Minister's announcement on the duties that it is envisaged will be attached to that role. I note that, apart from appearances in court from time to time, one of the tasks of the director will be to advise prosecutors on substantial legal matters so that an efficient system of preparation of criminal trials can be established. It is equally important that the director oversee the development and training of junior personnel, particularly in the field of criminal prosecution. I draw the attention of honourable members to what occurs in other States as well as in Queensland. It is often the case that Govemments tend to lose out on the ability of people in the public service with legal expertise, especially sections of the Solicitor- General's Office, in which the staff has become fmstrated by the system. In the past, people have felt that promotional opportunities and job satisfaction were of a lesser standard than they should be. The appointment of the Director of Prosecutions and his staff will at least offer additional career opportunities and added interest for officers who are currently employed in the public service. I am pleased to support that section of the BiU. As I interpret the legislation, professional, well-paid positions wiU also be available to people currently in careers outside of the public service area. This aftemoon, I certainly do not intend to speculate about the person whom I consider to be an excellent choice as director. However, it should be said that, whoever the person may be, the salary that should be offered is a matter of concern to me. All honourable members would be aware that the leading barristers in Queensland at present have very lucrative practices. Perhaps one can be critical of salary levels from time to time, but I believe that the director's job is very important. It will play a major role in contributing not only to the proper enforcement of the legal system but also, as I said, to overhauling the court system. The salary has to be attractive and adequate reimbursement for the person who is appointed. No matter who he is, he will obviously walk out of a well paid and successful practice. The appointee will need to be a person of dedication with a desire to make a contribution to the legal system of this State. I now want to refer to a fairly recent newspaper clipping. I do not usually quote from newspaper clippings, but this one is interesting because it is headed, "New Legal Chief takes a pay cut" The article referred to the fairly recent appointment of Mr Ian Tenby, the first Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who took a substantial pay cut when he accepted appointment to that responsible position. The same can be said of Mr Phillips when he was appointed to a similar position in Victoria. It never ceases to amaze me that, despite all the criticism that National Party members like to heap on the Labor Party in this Chamber and on my colleagues federally, it is by no means an accident that any progressive steps taken by this Govemment usually follow initiatives taken by Labor Govemments. It is only now, having seen the success of what was done in Victoria and again recently in the Federal sphere, that this Govemment has at long last decided to move. I am not being critical of the Government for doing so; in fact, I welcome the move because it is a positive and progressive step forward. I just wish that it had been taken a little earlier. 3166 28 November 1984 Duector of Prosecutions Bill

I reiterate my belief in the need for the establishment of a proper body to overhaul the legal system in this State, I certainly do not criticise the Attomey-General, because at present he is doing a fairly reasonable job. But I stUl believe that one of the problems is that the steps being taken—not the advice being given to the Attomey-General—are not being taken on a totally professional basis. Instead of the Minister having to take advice from the Queensland Law Society Incorporated, the Bar Association of (Queensland and others who come up with obviously good and welcome ideas, a professional, full- time body, perhaps along the hues of the Queensland Law Reform Commission but, of course, divorced from that group, should be undertaking an ongoing reform of the legal system in this State, Once again, I refer to Victoria which, in 1982, established a civil justice committee, which has operated along the hnes that I have just described, I understand that, having sat for 18 or 20 months and having received submissions from experts, the civU justice committee wiU, in the next couple of weeks, be able to place a package before the Victorian Govemment, It wiU then be up to the Govemment to decide whether it accepts it. For the sake of Victorians, I certainly hope that it does. While looking at some of the avaUable material relating to the appointment of such directors, I came across an article published in Victoria relating a conversation with Mr John Phillips, QC, who was appointed as the Director of PubUc Prosecutions in that State, It is an excellent article that I commend to honourable members. Two very good points were made in his comments, I intend to read them to the House this aftemoon because I believe that the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General should be made aware of them. If the Minister acts upon them, that wiU be to his advantage and that of the people of Queensland, PhUhps was asked— "What do you regard as your main accomplishments since taking up the position of Director of Public prosecutions?" He replied— "Not long after I was appointed last year I advised the Government that there should be two fundamental changes to the criminal justice system. One was the insertion of time frames in the prosecution process with a requirement that certain things be done within those time frames," Another point made by Mr Phillips was— ",,, judges of superior courts should be invested with appropriate authority to control pending criminal proceedings, I am very pleased that both those suggestions were accepted by the Govemment and have now appeared in legislation which was passed during the summer session of Parliament," My colleague the honourable member for Windsor will make a contribution this afternoon based on the hold-ups in the criminal process at the present time. It would be welcome if our Director of Public Prosecutions were to look at priorities and introduce similar time-frames in Queensland to overcome some of the problems. The second question put to Mr Phillips was— "What are you least happy about with your progress since your appointment in early 1983?" His reply, in these terms, is very pertinent— "I think the time taken to achieve things, I've been confronted, for the first time, with all sorts of public service mles and regulations, I know that, basically, there's a good reason for those things, but that doesn't make the passage of time any more palatable while you're trying to get things done." Whoever occupies the position of Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland wiU strike exactly the same problems in cutting through some of the public service jargon and red tape. I hope that he is given every assistance to do so. Director of Prosecutions BiU 28 November 1984 3167

I have made the point that I would like the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General to indicate to the House the salary range of the appointee to this position. I also have some comments to make on certain provisions in the Bill. On page 4, "Functions of Director" are referred to. One of the director's functions is outlined in these words— "proceedings in the High Court of Australia or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that arise out of criminal proceedings" I take that to mean that his activities will be confined to criminal proceedings. I should hate to see that position prostituted. I note that the Minister is nodding in agreement. I am happy about that. I intended to say that I would not like to see that position prostituted by anyone using, or wanting to use, this person in cases of dispute between the Commonwealth and the State. I am pleased to accept the Minister's indication that that will not happen. On page 5 of the Bill, reference is made to "Powers of Director", and, in part, the provision reads— "may give directions to the Commissioner of Police and other persons with respect to the offences or classes of offences that are to be referred to the Director for the institution and conduct of proceedings." I should be pleased if the Minister, in reply, would indicate what directions the Director of Prosecutions would be able to give to the police force. I understand that, under the Victorian legislation, it is provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions can make a contribution affecting the Commissioner of Police by advising him, or giving him directions about, how questioning of suspects should be handled. If those are the sorts of powers that are to be given to the director, I welcome them. I hope that the person who is chosen for the position of director will be impartial and will have integrity. It will be refreshing if some reasonable directions come from the Director of Prosecutions to the Commissioner of Police in this State. In some small way such directions may contribute to increasing public acceptance of and respect for a police force which, at present, it saddens me to say, does not always deserve respect. I note that one of the clauses on page six of the Bill provides for police assistance for the director as follows— "Where, in relation to any criminal proceedings under consideration or conducted by the Director, a matter arises which requires further investigation, the Director may, in writing, request the Commissioner of Police for the assistance of members of the Police Force in the conduct of that investigation." I would like to know how wide the director's powers will be to make requests of the Queensland Police Force to conduct investigations. I will not refer to the case under investigation at present. Under the terms of the Bill, the matter of police investigating police is only hypothetical at this stage. Such cases have arisen in the past and, no doubt, they will arise again. I do not find the Intemal Investigations Section palatable. If the Director of Prosecutions requires assistance from the police force for investigations into offences committed by police officers, which section of the force will that assistance come from? Will the police force be able to give the director a couple of officers from the Intemal Investigations Section? That is really like a dog chasing its tail. I tum now to the appointment of deputy directors. In welcoming this legislation, I am confident that, in this instance, the appointment of the director will not be a political appointment. If it is, it will be a disaster from the outset. I hope that the positions of deputy directors will not be used to provide jobs for the boys, or for the girls, or for supporters of the National Party. I hope that the people who will be appointed to those positions will have had adequate years of practice in the profession and will have shown outstanding ability. They should be honest people with integrity. Most importantly, they should be divorced from party-style politics. If they are not, from the word go the 3168 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions Bill community will be suspicious about how cases will be handled by the office of the Director of Prosecutions. In closing, I refer briefly to a clause on page 10 with the heading "Director's professional involvement no bar". It is highly likely that whoever is appointed to the positions of director and deputy director will be involved in cases at the time of their appointment. Their clients will be relying on them. Their clients deserve the utmost protection and they have the right to expect that the person whom they have employed to represent them will carry their case through to its conclusion. My understanding of the legislation is that, as soon as a person is appointed to the position of director or deputy director, he will have to drop the cases that he may be involved in at that time. As a result, another person will have to step in to represent his clients in court. I have no intention of waffling on about the legislation. I could probably talk on it for an hour if I really wanted to. The fact is that I welcome the legislation, which is long overdue. The Bill is a good one and the Opposition is more than happy to support it. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (3.46 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I join the debate. I am pleased that the Opposition supports the Bill. The need for the BiU has been brought about by the Minister's restmcturing of the department so that he can isolate public prosecutions from the Solicitor-General's Office. I welcome that move, as does the Opposition. The number of criminal cases coming before the courts has increased greatly. In the last two years an additional six judges have been appointed, with no increase in the number of prosecutors. The appointment of a Director of Prosecutions is an important one. The Opposition has said that it looks forward with anticipation to the Minister proposing a suitable person to carry out the functions of the Director of Prosecutions. No doubt the appointment will be scmtinised by members of the House. The Minister's judgment will be closely considered, and members will exercise their democratic right to criticise the Minister if they do not agree with his recommendation. The primary responsibility of the Director of Prosecutions will be overseeing aU criminal prosecutions and, in particular, ensuring, after studying depositions, that aU criminal prosecutions that should be brought are promptly proceeded with. From time to time criticism has been made in other States of the manner in which prosecutors have carried out their responsibility. If one person is appointed as Director of Prose­ cutions, he is answerable to the Minister who, in tum, is answerable to the Parliament on the way that he carries out his duties. The Director of Prosecutions will have to make an annual report to the Minister, who will have to table it in the House. I know that that is the tradition, but it should be noted that it is a requirement of the legislation. The legislation also contains the mechanics for the appointment of the Director of Prosecutions and his term of office, which is to be no more than five years, although he is allowed to be reappointed. The legislation protects those working in the public service who wish to be appointed as Director of Prosecutions. They can take on the job and, at any future date, retum to the public service without losing their rights. That is very important because it allows the Minister to choose from people who are either within or outside the public service. I know that many people, when they resign from the public service, feel that they are starting a new phase of their lives. They think very seriously before severing their connections with the public service, with its security and the privileges that that service gives to them. If they do not enjoy the job, if they do not wish to continue, or if they wish to be relieved of their duties, it is important that they be allowed to rejoin the public service. That is a very important facet of the Bill. The Opposition spokesman asked about the salary that will be paid to the Director of Prosecutions. From the inquiries that I have made, I understand that the Govemor Director of Prosecutions Bill 28 November 1984 3169 in Council will determine the salary after receiving advice from the Minister and discussions with the chairman of the Public Service Board. It is obvious that the person whom the Minister would wish to appoint, as was pointed out by the Opposition spokesman, would receive a salary similar to that received by some of Queensland's leading legal practitioners. The position will be a prestigious one worthy of substantial remuneration. No doubt that matter will be taken into consideration. Honourable members have said in this Chamber that judges often suffer a reduction in income when they are appointed to the bench. However, many ladies and gentlemen have an ambition to achieve the high position of a judge, even though it involves a cut­ back in their remuneration. However, I think that the Minister will take on board the comments that have been made. The Bill provides that the Director of Prosecutions has the power to liaise and will liaise with the courts, the police and defence counsel so that the courts can operate more smoothly. From time to time, complaints are made to members of Parliament that the court system is clogged up. Quite often, when I have made inquiries I have discovered that a particular matter is not before the courts. Because of a lack of liaison, a doubt often exists as to whether a barrister is available and whether a judge is available at a particular time. It is easy for some solicitors to advise clients that they have difficulties in getting cases heard. Legal matters take some time. Time is needed to prepare cases. A barrister may require extra time to prepare a defence. Sometimes not all the facts are known. It is important that the Director of Prosecutions be able to liaise so that, where possible, trials can get to court without delay. That should obviate the hiccups that occur in the system from time to time. I support the Minister for bringing the legislation before the House. I note that the Opposition supports it. Honourable members will be looking forward to see how the Director of Prosecutions works in Queensland and how effective the system will be. I am sure that it wiU assist in the smooth mnning of justice in this State. Honourable members look forward to it very much. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (3.55 p.m.): I support the legislation. The problems of prosecution, the problems with the backlog and the problems of the total efficiency of the criminal justice system are constant. It seems to me and, obviously, to many other people who have analysed the criminal justice system, that to identify and to compart­ mentalise the whole responsibility for the criminal justice system at the trial level is designed to lead to more efficiency. Perhaps it is designed to lead to more responsibility. I hasten to add that that does not detract from the hard-working commitment of professional legal officers of the Department of Justice over many years. Those officers exercise skills and expertise of a high order. They have a good record of efficiency and of commitment. The problems of delay and increase in work-load are more and more on people's lips. Perhaps there is a backlog because the number of cases is greater. Modem communications, a modem sense of urgency and modem sensitivity to rights all lead, quite rightly, to demands that the criminal justice system be as speedy as possible. People already in prison awaiting trial have always been given maximum priority. Even in that instance, delays occur occasionally. When a person is out on bail, some of the pressure is off, and significant delays do occur. The member for Lockyer outlined some of the delays. There are other practical reasons for delay, quite apart from those caused within the legal profession—competition for legal counsel; the need to obtain expert evidence, such as ballistics evidence; and sending out private investigators to investigate avenues that appear to be open to the defence barrister in a trial. That is a new practice. Frequently, the private investigators are former police officers. Police convenience is also a problem. I have defended accused persons in criminal trials, and I have prosecuted on behalf of the State. It is a reality of life that the legal system accommodates the police officer who is on recreation or long service leave or what have 3170 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions BiU

you. Many reasons exist—all human—for delays. Pressure must be applied at the top to ride over matters that may be for the convenience of people who are merely cogs in the system in favour of bringing to speedy justice, in the interests of the State and of the individual, those who it is alleged have broken the law. The legal system in Queensland has already seen the use by the Department of Justice of the private legal profession. For many years—about 10 years or more—the private legal profession has been used to supplement the legal officers in the Department of Justice in bringing prosecutions in both the District Court and the Supreme Court. That was a welcome initiative. It was welcome because it allowed the State to take up the slack without the appointment of permanent officers. It was good for the system in the sense that it aUowed barristers who perhaps saw only one side of the fence to see the other side of the fence. It is to be hoped that it also benefited those in the professional prosecuting ranks who got some cross-fertilisation of attitude or exchange of skills from members of the private profession. In many ways, I found prosecuting easier than defending. The prosecutor's basic job was to know the law and to keep the case on the rails. Frankly, one was not as emotionally committed to the outcome. If one ensured that there was sufficient evidence upon which to found a proper prosecution and ensured that the legal mles were complied with, it was then essentially for the jury to decide whether they accepted the evidence and concluded that it was such as to warrant a conviction. One's heart was not in the pit of one's stomach when the jury retumed with its verdict, which is certainly part and parcel of life for defence counsel. No matter what sort of a scallywag one appears for, no matter what his record, one tends to sweat on the result. It is commendable that the move culminates with the appointment of a Director of Prosecutions who, it is clearly envisaged, will be recmited from the private bar. Again, that comment is in no way to be taken as detracting from the skills acquired by specialist officers in the Department of Justice. Many have skills of an extremely high order. To open the door to the full range of possibilities, it is desirable to appoint somebody from the private bar whose skills are outstanding and recognised throughout the profession. Such an appointment might enable systemic or stmctural constraints of a type to which all of us have become accustomed in many spheres of govemmental activity— for example, those occasioned by red tape—to be viewed with new eyes and eliminated. The provision for an annual report is very important. The appointee will carry the responsililty of telling the House, as well as the Minister, what the state of play is. That responsibility will not be diffused among the Crown Solicitor, the Chief Crown Prosecutor and the list clerk in the District Court. There will be a single, final point of responsibility. The position will institutionalise a sense of independence. Although the executive is tied to a political system—and rightly so, because that is the system in which we believe—from time to time suggestions are made that the system is not completely independent. Certainly, the person on the losing side—sometimes it is a relative of the person convicted, or the accused himself; at other times it is a relative or a fiiend of the police—feels that somehow the result is not what it should have been. That leads others to raise the spectre that in some way there has been political influence or a failure to act with diligence. Sir William Knox: It might be as in the case of the Federal Attomey-General in relation to the High Court. Mr INNES: Yes, indeed. It is a matter of some comfort to the Attomey-General—and I am not referring to his lying back, enjoying life—that he is able to say that the Director of Prosecutions is independent, with a statutory right. Therefore, there may be no suggestion that the Director of Prosecutions Bin 28 November 1984 3171

Attomey-General has interfered, or that the political process has interfered, to prevent justice taking its course, whatever course that might be. The independence is important. Members of the Liberal Party make a suggestion in relation to a matter currently attracting attention. We support the bringing forward of the legislation as a matter of urgency, because we know that the Minister would like to make an appointment as soon as possible. We support the appointment of a Director of Prosecutions at the earliest possible opportunity. We suggest that that sense of independence could well be used in a matter currently being discussed in the House. I refer, of course, to the allegations made in connection with a child pomography ring. It is clear that there are allegations. Members of the Liberal party have been careful not to react with any undue haste to those allegations. It was suggested yesterday that the allegations by the Opposition were based almost entirely on mmour. We have looked at interviews the media held with the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police last week. We have seen interviews with the Deputy Commissioner of Police. We have listened to the Minister in the House. It is clear that some matters that are accepted by the Minister—they are on record from the Minister—and by the Deputy Commissioner of Police are beyond mmour—for instance, some long-standing allegations about the discovery by police of numerous obscene photographs depicting male youths having intercourse with other males. Sodomy is illegal in Queensland, and the provisions that make it a crime ought to be retained. The fact that sodomy is a crime should promote energetic investigation into criminal activity of that sort by police officers. I do not suggest that, in making investigations police officers will be breaking down bedroom doors to discover how adults behave on all occasions; but certainly conduct of a criminal nature that occurs between adults and young males demands the most diligent and energetic type of investigation. The admission by the Minister for Lands, Foresty and Police that a police officer took young persons to premises occupied by someone who had been criminally convicted, a person who is presently awaiting trial for sexual offences and who had collected, or had under his control, foul and obscene photographs, "raises very grave questions", to paraphrase the words used by the Minister. Even if because of a technical legal problem relative to corroboration no irrefutable evidence is available that would lead to a conclusion of guilt, the circumstances suggest that something is dreadfully wrong with the process of selection and appointment of police officers, and also with the exercise of control over their activities. The whole matter, including the mmour that was acknowledged on air by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that "many big names were involved", raises a feeling of disquiet that requires an independent investigation. Because of the involvement of young males and the admissions made by the Minister that an extensive child pomography ring exists, a strong and vigorous investigation must be seen to be carried out. One would hesitate to act on the allegation by the Opposition, which has a political role to play, that people have attempted to make complaints but have been dissuaded by the suggestion that embarrassment could be caused to alleged victims and their families. However, that is a serious allegation and an independent investigation is needed. Members of the Liberal Party in this House suggest that one of the earliest roles performed by the Director of Prosecutions should be to take this matter in hand. In saying that, I realise that his role will take him slightly outside of the proposed legislation; but it should be home in mind that the investigation of crime and ordinary offences are within the purview of the director. Offences such as sodomy and indecent dealing with youths, investigations into the distribution of films under the provisions of the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, and offences under the Police Act are all capable of being directly dealt with under the purview of the director or, at the direction of the Minister, could at least come within his purview. Members of the Liberal Party point out that, in the same way as the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions has been 3172 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions Bin engaged, the Government, through the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, should have the Director of Prosecutions, armed with the right to request that the Commissioner of Police carry out further investigations and report on the matter to the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, engage in a full investigation of the matter. The matter to which I have referred and the role of the Director of Prosecutions both relate to the administration of justice in Queensland in a very important way. The call for involvement by the Director of Prosecutions arises from the vital quality of independence that will be part of the establishment of that role. That particular quality enhances the confidence of the public and even encourages the confidence of critics in that office. Members of the Liberal Party support the establishment of the office of Director of Prosecutions and express the hope that the selection of the appointee will be based upon merit. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that other than a person with outstanding ability and appropriate qualifications will be chosen. Future reports made by the Director of Prosecutions are awaited with eagerness, as are future recommendations for improvement in the legal system that will be made to the Minister. I am sure that the passage of time will show that the step that has been taken today is another very important milestone in the development in Queensland of an efficient criminal justice system that is responsive to the increasing demand placed upon it by the pressures existing in a modern community. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (4.10 p.m.): As my colleague the member for Wolston has already stated, the Opposition supports the Bill. In fact its provisions are part of a long­ standing justice policy of the Australian Labor Party in this State. The Minister is to be commended for introducing the Bill. It has often been said that the mle of law is the hallmark of democracy; the most important single factor distinguishing democracy from tyranny. However, the notion of equality before the law is of much reduced significance if persisting and unacceptable delays occur in the hearing of cases by courts. The resolution of litigation, whether civil or criminal, within a reasonable time is essential to a sound system of justice. Shom of such lofty notions, the system of justice in Queensland over the last few years, with its delays and associated deficiencies in the courts, has led to community exasperation with the system. This Bill goes a long way towards removing some of that exasperation. As stated in the Minister's second-reading speech, this is a step towards restmcturing the Department of Justice in order to bring about an improved efficiency and a consequential decrease in delays in dispensing justice to the people of this State. The Minister referred to other steps taken by him, namely, the appointment of a chief executive officer to assist the Chief Justice of Queensland with administrative respon­ sibilities, and the appointment of six additional judges in the past two years. The appointment of judges is, of course, one of the traditional and fairly ad hoc remedies that conservative Governments in Australia produce as a means of reducing delays in the dispensing of justice. The Opposition believes that more is required than merely presenting more judges on the bench. The justice system is, of course, a conglomerate of prosecution, defence and judges, all having to get together. Time is required for cases to be prepared for defence and prosecution, so the simple appointment of additional judges is certainly not sufficient. The Director of Prosecutions Bill represents an important and historical development in the law and practice governing the prosecution of offences against the Queensland law. The BiU establishes the office of the Director of Prosecutions, with the main function of conducting criminal prosecutions and exercising discretion in relation to prosecutions. In fact, the terms of reference are that the director shall prepare, institute and conduct on behalf of and in the name of Her Majesty criminal proceedings. One can look to similar offices of directors of public prosecutions that have existed in the United Kingdom since 1879, in Victoria since 1982 and, of course, in the Commonwealth since late last year. Director of Prosecutions Bill 28 November 1984 3173

Recent revelations of unacceptable delays and other deficiencies in the administration of Queensland's criminal law, and especially those constant revelations in recent years by former Judge Gibney, have provided ample evidence of the need for an improvement in the justice system. I will pat the Minister on the back and say how wonderful the Opposition believes the appointment will be, and what an improvement it will make. Of course, I refer to the appointment of such a director in Victoria by an Australian Labor Party Government. Once again a conservative Govemment in this State is steahng the Labor Party's clothes while it is out to bathe. But we get used to it; we are prepared to put up the ideas and be the creative thinkers in this State and have the Minister come along belatedly with his advisers saying, "That is not a bad idea; it is working in Victoria" In Victoria the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982. The director has the responsibility, amongst others, to prepare, institute and conduct prosecutions in the County and Supreme Courts; precisely the same responsibilities as are found on page 4 of the Bill before us. The Director of Public Prosecutions, as part of his responsibilities for the preparation of criminal trials in the higher courts, took over the Criminal Preparation Branch of the Law Department. That has resulted in an administrative reorganisation and the supply of additional resources together with a very substantial reduction in the number of cases awaiting trial. That is the cmx of this appointment—a reduction in delays for defendants and prosecution officers in criminal trials. In Victoria, the number of delayed cases dropped from more than 900 in 1982, to about 630 a year later. The Victorians see the optimum figure as being between 300 and 400, which would produce an average delay of three to six months between committal and trial. That is considered a reasonable period for adequate preparation. In Victoria, in less than a year, the delays between committal and trial have been substantially overcome. I certainly hope that that is what will happen in Queensland, and that Queensland may be as well served as Victoria by the appointment of the Director of Prosecutions. I shall refer briefly to the Commonwealth experience. The Commonwealth position of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was created only a few months ago. It was filled by a well-known, capable lawyer, Mr Ian Temby, QC, who was described in the article in "The Courier-Mail" referred to by the honourable member for Wolston as a person who was impossible to ignore. The importance of the appointment lies in what the Commonwealth Government sees as the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth Attomey-General, Senator Gareth Evans, said— "The Director of Public Prosecutions is a key figure in the Federal Government's plans to revitalise and reorganise Commonwealth prosecution processes." It is interesting to note that, in this House, Govemment members constantly claim that the Hawke Government is not doing anything to fight organised crime. The creation of this post by the Commonwealth Government, ahead of Queensland, indicates that, once again, the Commonwealth is in the vanguard of creative legislation that will do something to combat the massive crime problems facing the whole nation. Those problems should be dealt with on a national level. Criminals share with cattle ticks and teachers an ability to cross borders. All matters conceming agriculture, teaching and crime should be dealt with on a national level. Until that can be brought about by reasonable Governments Mr FitzGerald: You are a centralist in everything. Mr COMBEN: I am certainly a centralist, because Australia is one nation. I have no qualms about saying that I would vote in this place for the abolition of the State Parliament. I have no hesitation at all in saying that. 3174 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions BUI

Government Members interjected. Mr COMBEN: One day regionalisation will come to Australia. At present Australia has one of the most inefficient federal systems that can be imagined. Sir William Knox: Why do you bother coming here? Mr COMBEN: I come here because it is easier to reform the system. Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. Does not the honourable member transgress the oath that he took in this place by claiming that he wants to see it abolished? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I do not see any point of order. No reflection has been cast on the honourable member, Mr COMBEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, That was an excellent mling, Mr FitzGerald: What do your colleagues feel about it? Mr COMBEN: I have no hesitation in standing here and saying that I would abolish the State Parliaments, It is easier to work within the system to get the system changed, than it is to work from the outside, Mr Simpson: You agree with Bob Hawke? Mr COMBEN: I have no hesitation in agreeing with Bob Hawke and what he said in his Boyer Lectures three years ago. Senator Gareth Evans is reported as saying— "The establishment of the office of director will meet a pressing need to place existing prosecution arrangements on a more effective basis. It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. It will be means by which administration of the Commonwealth criminal law, particularly in relation to organised crime and cormption, will be rendered effective, expeditious and just." Surely that is what we should be discussing in this place. Few higher responsibilities can be given to an unelected individual in our democracy than that given to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and to the individual who will be appointed to a similar position in this State. The need to battle organised crime and cormption and to render the legal system of the Commonwealth effective, expeditious and just is a great and noble responsibility. Because of that, the Opposition must support the legislation. Finally, I wish to make two suggestions to the Minister over and above my first suggestion of abolishing State Parliaments. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr Innes: You listen to the moderating voice of the socialist Left—the member for Wolston. Mr COMBEN: Does that mean that the honourable member for Sherwood is moving to the Left and agreeing with the principles of the Opposition? Obviously he supports my colleague the member for Wolston, and it is interesting to note that our arguments have finally persuaded him to adopt a reasonable stance in this place. I suggest to the Minister that, in his reorganisation of the system of justice in this State—which is to be commended—he should examine the article by the Honourable Jim Kennan, MLC, Attorney-General of Victoria, which was reported in the "Law Institute Journal" of April 1984. Mr FitzGerald: You abolished it here. Director of Prosecutions Bill 28 November 1984 3175 Mr COMBEN: The honourable member for Lockyer said that the Labor Party would abolish the Legislative Council in Queensland. I remind him that it was abolished on 22 March 1922. It is worth noting that, a few years ago, in New Zealand, a conservative Govemment—the honourable member shares its philosophy—aboUshed its Upper House. 1 do not see how the Queensland Government differs from that New Zealand Govemment, and it has made no attempt to restore the Upper House in Queensland. It is obvious that the Govemment is happy with the present system that supposedly reflects the will of the people of this State. Mr FitzGerald: Will you abolish the Senate? Do you support that? Mr COMBEN: I no longer support the abolition of the Senate. That policy was removed from the Labor Party's platform a number of years ago. Mr FitzGerald: But you did support it. Mr COMBEN: Some years ago, I did support it. I do not believe that any Parliament should have an Upper House. The will of the people is reflected in this place. I ask the Minister to read the article to which I have referred because it contains an interesting section on the position of part-time judges. For the elucidation of honourable members, I will read from the article as follows— "Modem judicial administration thinking emphasises the need for more effective case management based on accurate case progress information and flexible deploy­ ment of judge-power. In this context it is worth considering the merit of part-time (as distinct from acting) judges. Part-time judges can be recmited for the purpose of reducing sudden back-logs, for easing the transition from one court system to another when substantial re-organisation is undertaken, for dealing with bottlenecks caused by temporary resource inadequacies, and for dealing with week-to-week fluctuations in case-loads caused, for example, by short-term unavailability of full- time judge-power." That has been the recent experience in Queensland when a number of judges were presiding over royal commissions or assisting with the Commonwealth Games. Obviously, it is not right that the court system should become dependent on part- time judge power, but it is worth considering whether such judges could play a very useful role in Queensland, at least in the months immediately ahead. In the county court system in England, considerable use is made of what are termed temporary judges in the local district courts. Local barristers, who cannot appear in the cases that are to be heard, perform in an acting-judge capacity. That system is to be commended, and it may be a possible solution to help reduce the backlog of cases that the State faces at any time. From the same article, a paragraph dealing with Victoria headed "The Shorter Trial Committee", which was referred to by my colleague the member for Wolston, states— "A Committee known as the Shorter Trials Committee has been established under the chairmanship of Mr Justice McGarvie on the initiative of the Bar Council. The Committee was asked to make recommendations upon ways and means of shortening higher court criminal trials and preliminary hearings and lowering their cost. The Committee has taken the view that the trial ought not to be considered as an isolated phenomenon and that much that happens at the pre-trial stage has an impact on the nature and conduct of the trial. Consequently the Committee decided to make the pre-trial process the focus of its initial inquiries. The Committee has produced and circulated to judges a detailed questionnaire, and Peter Sallmann of La Trobe University (consultant to the Committee) has prepared an Issues paper." The initiatives being taken by that committee are worthy of consideration in this State. An overall need exists for the examination of the entire justice system. From the Minister's initiatives in recent times, I am weU aware that he is undertaking an 3176 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions BUI examination of the system. We on this side of the House commend the Minister for that, although we do not believe that he has gone far enough. Although it may not be my party's immediate view, and it certainly is not the immediate view of the member for Sherwood, I certainly hope that these are temporary measures until Australia has one overall justice system. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (4.27 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I indicate to the member for Wolston that I appreciate the need for an adequate salary for appointees to an office such as this. In fact, the salary bracket will be between those of a District Court judge and a Supreme Court judge. I should acknowledge my appreciation of the assistance that has been given to me during the lead-up to the restmcturing process, which is now taking shape, by the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Brennan and Mr Leo Pitt. All honourable members would appreciate that the Public Service Board has the responsibility of advising Ministers on matters of employment. I am most appreciative of the support and assistance given to me in this matter. The position of Director of Prosecutions will be outside the public service, as I indicated in my second-reading speech and as indicated in the Bill. I reaffirm the assurance that I gave to the honourable member for Wolston that the Director of Prosecutions will be responsible for criminal proceedings only and not for quasi-criminal proceedings. That has been a traditional role of the Sohcitor-General but, with the appointment in the not too distant future of the Solicitor-General as a statutory officer— I hope to be in a position to make such an appointment when the House resumes in the new year—he will have responsibilities in the other areas of representation of the Crown, such as constitutional matters. The member for Wolston referred to clause 11, which deals with the right of the Director of Prosecutions to give general guidance to prosecutors and the Commissioner of Police. I invite the honourable member's attention to the fact that, under those powers, he may furnish guide-lines to Crown prosecutors and the Commissioner of Police. However, that power does not authorise the director to fumish guide-lines in relation to a particular case. Those guide-lines are of a general nature and he must report to the Minister and record any that are given. The Government believes that it is necessary that the Director of Prosecutions have the ability in some instances to take an interest in a prosecution from the lower court stage to completion. Certainly that will not be the case on all occasions, but there could well be times when the Director of Prosecutions sees a need for him to become involved at a time before indictment. As a result, that has been made possible. In regard to police assistance—the director may in writing—I emphasise that it must be in writing—request the commissioner to carry out further or other investigations. That is a statutory clause. It is a requirement for the Commissioner of Police to assist when the Director of Prosecutions considers that to be necessary. As to clause 27—the honourable member for Wolston referred to the director's professional involvement being no bar. I inform honourable members that the potential appointee has co-operated with me for some time. We have been involved in discussions. In fact, together we have made trips interstate in the development of this position. He has taken the action that he has considered appropriate in respect of those briefs that have been held by him and offered to him. There will be no problem in that area. I thank the honourable member for Lockyer for his contribution. I also take the opportunity to express my thanks for his assistance and support in the preparation of the legislation. He is chairman and member of my parliamentary committee. He has been of considerable help to me not only in the preparation of this legislation but also in other areas of legislation at the committee level. The honourable member for Sherwood referred to the need for and the existing use of the private profession. He expressed the hope that that procedure would continue. Director of Prosecutions Bin 28 November 1984 3177

At least for the present, that wiU be the case. It is my eamest hope that members of the private profession will take appointments within this section. In order to encourage that, provision has been made specifically for those members of the profession who have the desire to gain the experience that prosecution work offers. If they gain from the experience that the prosection work will give them, under the Director of Prosecutions, I am sure that they will become better qualified in their own field and, as their potential increases, Queensland will have on the bench of the District and Supreme Courts judges who have had experience in that area. That will be to the advantage of the community generally. Provision is made to specifically encourage members of the private profession to take, at their choice, even short-term appointments into that area. The honourable member for Sherwood expressed the hope that the appointment would be made in the near future. That is certainly my intention. The appointment will be made as soon as the paperwork can be formalised, which will be almost immediately. Naturally, that will be at the convenience of the appointee, having regard to his present commitments. The honourable member for Sherwood also took the opportunity to raise the matter of a former policeman. That matter has been canvassed adequately in this House in recent days. My colleague the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police indicated to the House yesterday that the file on that particular person had been referred to me for pemsal by the acting Solicitor-General in regard to charges. That does not seem to have been picked up by very many honourable members. However, the Minsiter for Police made that point. That is fact. The acting Solicitor-General has that file and has been giving to that file the necessary consideration appropriate to the request by the Minister for Police. The member for Windsor referred to a number of matters. Without casting undue reflection on him, I am afraid that I must point out that he is well off the line, quite apart from his attitude to the position of the democracy of Australia and the sovereign rights of States. Whereas he referred to the establishment of an office of Director of Public Prosecutions, the fact is that the office to be established is one of Director of Prosecutions. The Bill does not make provision for the director to have responsibility mainly for criminal matters; it provides for the Director of Prosecutions to be responsible for criminal matters and, as I indicated eariier, not for quasi-criminal matters. The honourable member for Windsor referred also to the position in Victoria. He made much of the fact that the Victorian Attorney-General, Mr Kennan, has indicated that the aim of the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions, is a three-month to six-month period between committal and trial. Of course, the fact is that Queensland, in the main, already has a better record than that, and I am sure that, with the introduction of office of Director of Prosecutions, Queensland's record will be bettered in that area. I thank the honourable member for Wolston for his compliment that the legislation is creative. I agree that it is creative legislation. The honourable member for Windsor is not the Opposition spokesman for Justice, or anything else. However, he is an influential member of the Australian Labor Party, representing it in this House. I noted that, with a great deal of pride, he indicated to honourable members and the people of Queensland that he would vote for the abolition of the State Parliament. Of course, his comrades in earlier years voted for the abolition of the Legislative Council in this State. However, it is interesting to note that his comrades in the upper houses in their States are not prepared to abolish themselves. The honourable member for Windsor has made much of the fact that he would, with pride and joy, vote for the abolition of State Parliament. That would certainly be destmctive legislation in a State that has sovereign rights. I remind the honourable member that Queensland is a State in a federation of States, a federation that was agreed to at the turn of the century by people who formed part of sovereign States. Queensland is a sovereign State, with its rights.

64170-108 3178 28 November 1984 Director of Prosecutions BUI

Obviously, the honourable member for Windsor wants totalitarian mle in Australia, as do many of his comrades. Fortunately, not all of the honourable member's comrades in this House, but many of his comrades in the Federal scene, also want totalitarian mle in Australia. Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order. I object to the Minister stating that I want a totalitarian State. I am a democratic socialist. I ask that those words be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Windsor is offended by the words, "totalitarian State". I ask the Minister to make another suggestion. Mr HARPER: As the honourable member for Windsor has expressed concem, I withdraw them. Mr FitzGerald: He also indicated that he was once in favour of the abolition of the Senate, but he has changed his mind. Mr HARPER: I thank the honourable member for Lockyer. However, if it is offensive to the honourable member for Windsor to be labelled as a totaUtarian, I withdraw that comment. He is a socialist republican, and everyone knows that socialist republicans are in fact totalitarian. Perhaps the honourable member would prefer me to say that he believes in a single party. His claim of being a socialist republican automaticaUy indicates that he belives in a single party and, if that is not totalitarianism, I do not not know what it is. The honourable member is not satisfied with cutting off the flag at the knees. Now he wants to cut off the democratic parliamentary system at its knees. Over the last few years, the Australian Labor Party has consistently cut the Australian flag off at the knees. Now the honourable member for Windsor wants to cut State Parliaments off at the knees. Again, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I partic­ ularly thank the Opposition for its approval and support for the legislation. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. Committee Mr Menzel (Mulgrave) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Harper (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses I to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10—Functions of Director— Mr INNES (4.41 p.m.) I use a minute of the Committee's time to respond to the Minister's reply to the debate on the second reading. The point put by the Liberal Party is this: although we recognise that there is a reference to the Solicitor-General—and in terms of the present stmctures, there is a motion requiring all material relative to the child pomography ring to be referred to the Solicitor-General—I specifically stated that this should go to the Director of Prosecutions as soon as he is appointed, because he is clearly seen to be, and intended to be, totally independent by virtue of the legislation. Secondly, we said that his powers should even be extended, by request of the Minister and the Government, to encompass a total examination of all the implications of that matter because of their general importance to the administration of criminal justice by the police in this State. I say to the member for Windsor, who apparently believes in the abolition of the functions of the director and any other officer of the State, that, if he wishes to live in a country without a federal system, he should return to the land whence he came. Perhaps, detecting his accent, if he had been brought up in Scotland, Wales or Northem Ireland, he might not have the same warm feelings towards central govemment that he Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill 28 November 1984 3179 apparently has at the moment. He totally forgets—perhaps it is induced by his meandering round the northern part of the Great Dividing Range for so long with amnesia, or whatever it was —that the distances involved in the country to which he has come are far greater than those in the country he left, whose institutions are so warm and dear to his heart that he would like to see them in this country. Mr Comben: What are you talking about? Mr INNES: I said, "Go back home." Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28—Retention of rights as public servant— Mr HARPER (4.44 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 10, line 44, after the word 'effect' add the words— 'and to rights in respect of long service leave that would have accmed to him had he remained such an officer' " It is a machinery amendment, intended to further clarify the intention to retain for those present members of the public service who choose to serve under the Director of Prosecutions their entitlements as members of the public service. The same effect could have been obtained by including such an arrangement in their terms of employment. However, for greater clarity and to ease the minds of any who are concemed, I believe that the addition of those words will make it clear that those people retain the rights to long service leave that would have accmed had they remained as officers of the public service. Amendment (Mr Harper) agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 and 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31—Provisions concerning superannuation— Mr HARPER (4.46 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 13, lines 15 and 16, omit the words— 'after consideration of a report by the Treasurer'." This amendment relates to the superannuation that will apply to members of the section to be known as Director of Prosecutions. The words that presently appear in the Bill are unnecessary, and I ask that those words be omitted. Amendment (Mr Harper) agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 34, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Harper, read a third time.

MORTAGES (SECONDARY MARKET) ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3015) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (4.49 p.m.): As predicted by the Leader of the Opposition when the original Bill was mshed through just two months ago in order to grab publicity, numerous amendments are necessary. 3180 28 November 1984 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BUI

In fact, it is common knowledge that the under treasurer had grave reservations about pushing the Bill through because of its inadequacies. But the Premier and Treasurer persisted, because he wanted to create the impression that Queensland was the first cab off the rank. Because of this bungling, the development of a secondary mortgage market in Queensland has been stalled awaiting these amendments. To suggest that this legislation will promote Queensland as" a financial capital is to suggest something which is naive in the extreme. I noted with interest the recent announcement by the Premier and Treasurer that he would travel to Hong Kong to negotiate with Hong Kong bankers for the establishment of accounts in Queensland when the colony's lease agreement terminates. I have news for the Premier and Treasurer. Some eight months ago, the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales beat him to it. The bungle over the original legislation, which this Bill is designed to patch up, confirmed the widespread view in the financial community that this is a hill-billy Govemment lurching from fiasco to fiasco. In fact. Sir Edward Lyons, chairman of the Govemment-appointed committee to investigate the establishment of a market in Queensland admitted recently at a public function that he— "didn't know too much about the technicalities of the secondary mortgage market and didn't know what it would specifically do for Queensland." In fact, the Opposition believes that this legislation will actually restrict the development of a secondary mortgage market in Queensland, not promote it to the extent that it will be promoted in the southem States. I predict that further changes will be necessary to bring the legislation into line with the initiatives that will be announced by both New South Wales and Victoria. It is obvious from the Bill that the committee that investigated the establishment of a secondary mortgage market in Queensland had only a partial idea of what the market is about. Currently in the Australian secondary mortgage market investors can purchase— (a) The beneficial and sometimes also the legal interest in one or more mortgage; (b) A security giving a specific or an undivided interest in one or more mortgage; and (c) A debt security of a corporation whose primary assets are mortgages. Investors in a secondary mortgage market who purchase mortgages or mortgage-backed securities can trade them between themselves as they would with any other negotiable asset in their investment portfolios. Investors purchase this type of security on the basis of the risk and return offered by the security, its maturity and opportunities for portfolio diversification. Current secondary mortgage market activity in Australia is largely confined to the sale or issure of securities backed by short-term, interest-only mortgages relating to non- owner-occupied housing and commercial property. There is also limited issuing of mortgage-backed bonds or bills. Impediments to the development of a secondary mortgage market in Australia have been— The large proportion of outstanding mortgages which are interest-regulated, variable-rate, credit-foncier loans with the right of mortgagors to repay early; The diversity of mortgages and the lack of standard documentation; The stamp duty payable on the transfer of marketable securities; Various aspects of the companies and securities legislation which inhibit the offering of mortgage-backed securities to the public; and Asset restrictions on building societies and credit unions which could inhibit their involvement in a secondary mortgage market. Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill 28 November 1984 3181

Many of those limitations have already been overcome by Victoria, New South Wales and, to a lesser degree, Queensland. The benefits of a secondary mortgage market in Australia have usually been seen in terms of improving the volume and stability of funds flowing to housing. The Martin report, like its predecessor the Campbell report, concluded that the major benefits of an active, broadly based market would be to— (1) Increase the aggregate flow of funds to housing and/or put downward pressure on the interest rate stmcture of housing finance institutions by enabling them to sell mortgages or mortgage-backed securities to investors, such as life offices and superannuation funds, not usually involved in lending for housing; (2) Assist the liquidity management of housing finance institutions and smooth the flowo f finance to housing by enabling the sale of mortgages on the secondary market when monetary conditions are tight; (3) Cushion the impact of monetary policy on savings banks and building societies, which have traditionally home the bmnt of any credit squeeze; (4) Allow greater mobility of housing finance flowsbetwee n regions of excess supply and excess demand, thereby reducing interregional disparities in the availability and cost of housing finance; and (5) Add to the choice of financial instmments available to investors. The Campbell and Martin reports did not recommend the use of a Commonwealth agency to develop a secondary mortgage market as long as housing interest rate controls apply. The Martin report, however, gave qualified support to the concept of an industry- based agency promoting the development of a secondary mortgage market if interest rate controls were removed or significantly relaxed. The Federal Govemment has, of course, moved to deregulate financial markets and, as such, has made possible these developments in the secondary mortgage market area. To understand the likely development of a secondary mortgage market in Queensland and Australia it is very useful to look at the experience in the United States of America. The American secondary mortgage market developed after the Great Depression of the early 1930s. The United States Federal Govemment was determined to overcome a severe shortage of housing finance available from traditional sources. The creation in 1938 of the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as "Fannie Mae", provided a vehicle by which mortgagees could sell mortgages. "Fannie Mae" bought outstanding mortgages from mortgagees, thereby providing them with further funds for on-lending. The secondary mortgage market expenditure slowed growth and remained fragmented until the early 1970s. In 1968, Federal legislation was passed establishing the Govemment National Mortgage Association, often known as "Ginnie Mae". That legislation split the original "Fannie Mae" into two new entities, namely, "Ginnie Mae" and a new "Fannie Mae", which became a federally chartered corporation, owned by private share-holders. In 1970, further legislation was passed to create the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, also known as "Freddie Mac" Mr Lee: You had not read that brief before you started. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Would the honourable member believe me if I said that I did read it? Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The levity in the Chamber must come to an end sooner or later. It would be well if it came to an end now. 3182 28 November 1984 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BUI

Mr R. J. GIBBS: In 1970, further legislation was passed in order to create the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, also known as "Freddie Mac". Mr Deputy Speaker, I am afraid I am unable to continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is certainly a change of mood in the Chamber. Mr Casey: The Christmas spirit is upon us. Mr R. J. GIBBS: It certainly is. The Opposition is highly critical of the legislation. On my reading of the Bill, it appears that the coUateralised and over-coUateralised mortgage securities will not be permitted in Queensland. Once again, the National Party has created another fiasco by mshing in with inadequate legislation. Although the Opposition certainly disagrees with the legislation, it will not be opposing it. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (4.58 p.m.): The Liberal Party makes the point that haste does not lead to good legislation. Undoubtedly there was an intention—and we understand the intentions in politics and commerce—to get in first. When the original Bill was first before us, we in the Liberal Party made the point that too little time was allowed to read it and to absorb its implication. At the time, I questioned some provisions. Today, they are to be amended. I do not say that they are to be amended in all respects in line with my questioning, but at that time on the mn it was easy to see that some matters took a little grasping or could lead to problems. Frankly, we are no better served today. Honourable members have been bombarded with legislation once again because of what appears to be an almost congenital inability to properly organise the business of the House. An impossible burden is placed on members of the House in trying to absorb six or seven pieces of legislation in two or three days. My comments are not confined solely to the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General. The Liberal Party supported the principles and the main mechanism of the original legislation. However, it must be remembered that this legislation relates to a highly technical and completely professional area in which finance companies act on the advice of their accountants and lawyers. The roles of the tmstees that are created under this legislation are put through the microscope daily. The haste with which the original legislation was introduced could only lead to problems, and the Liberal Party knew that it would. Frankly, the Minister cannot expect the assistance of this House. He cannot expect mature reflection by honourable members to assist in the process of law-making; nor can he expect them to willingly concede to him their right to make reasonable inquiries to satisfy themselves that the legislation is in the broad public interest. Since the introduction of the original Bill, the Minister has had the benefit of specialised advice and consultation, which he had the right to seek. The House cannot perform its function properly and laws cannot be made responsibly—and they wiU not be made responsibly—unless time is given for honourable members to seek advice or to study the implications of legislation. This amending Bill has been introduced before the original legislation has come into force. I predict that further amendments will be necessary, and the Minister conceded that in his second-reading speech. On the last occasion, the Liberal Party suggested that amendments would be necessary. I hope that, next year, as a new year resolution, the Government will come to understand that the Parliament cannot be held in contempt and that it is not a mbber stamp for whatever it wishes to ram down its throat. Parliament is an institution in which many members take their responsibilities seriously and wish to understand what Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill 28 November 1984 3183 is being put before them. By giving legislation the benefit of different approaches and the different banks of information, skills or expertise that honourable members have access to, the Parliament can ensure that only legislation of the highest quality is passed. I ask the Minister why the original legislation needed to be introduced so hastily. The Govemment has gained a political headline, but, with this legislation, it has not gone any further than where it was several weeks ago. I do not confine my comments to this Minister, but this type of legislation will mn the gauntlet of solicitors and accountants who will be looking at every angle of it to save every cent of stamp duty and every dollar of profit in order to compete with everyone else operating in the modem money market. Because the political process is home on the Minister's shoulders, I ask him to use his influence with the Govemment to stop this sort of exercise being repeated in 1985. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (5.4 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I beheve that time will prove the speculation of the Opposition spokesman for Justice to be inaccurate. I appreciate and I have noted his comments on "Fannie Mae" They were most admirable. I wonder whether there is any relationship with another family Mr R. J. Gibbs: The disappointing thing was that I didn't get to "Ginnie Mae" Mr HARPER: I was really thinking of the sumames and whether there was some connection with other families in the area. However, I am sure that all honourable members appreciated the admirable comments of the honourable member for Wolston in regard to "Fannie Mae". The honourable member for Sherwood indicated that, since the original legislation was introduced, I have received specialised information. That is correct. I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that, when introducing that Bill, the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer forecast amendments. Likewise, when introducing this leg­ islation, I indicated that I expect that, as the market settles down, further amendments will be necessary. Indeed, it would have been possible for the Govemment to introduce further measures at this time but, because it is a relatively unknown field, it chose not to do so. The process of establishment of a secondary mortgage market will require time. As the participants settle down in the market-place, no. doubt further changes will be necessary. Neither the Government nor I mns away from that. I am sure that the honourable member understands the need for these proposals and he will understand the need for those that lie ahead. Honourable members suggested that, had the Premier and Treasurer not introduced the legislation when he did, the establishment of the secondary mortgage market would have been as far advanced as it now is. That is simply not correct. The fact that the Queensland Parliament maintains its ascendency over the other States in the establishment of a secondary mortgage market shows that this State is definitely further ahead than it would otherwise have been. The legislation has facilitated industry input. Because of the legislation, the industry has known the attitude and the intentions of the Government. I earlier indicated the proposed changes. The most significant is the appointment of a five-man board which will consist purely of free enterprise people. As I indicated in the debate on the Director of Prosecutions Bill, I give the House an assurance that the integrity and the ability of the appointees to the board will gain similar applause from all members of this Chamber and from the business community of Queensland generally. Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. 3184 28 November 1984 Health Act Amendment BiU (No. 2)

Committee Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Harper, read a third time.

HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3061) on Mr Austin's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (5.10 p.m.): The Opposition agrees with the legislation, which was introduced into the House yesterday. I voice the opposition of members on this side to legislation coming before the House only one day before it is debated. Only two weeks ago I expressed my disappointment at the Trasplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment Bill (No. 2), which related to the problem of AIDS, being mshed through when in August this year the Minister had stated that he knew that he would have to introduce such legislation. At that time he indicated that the legislation was ready. The Government's introduction of legislation two weeks ago and its introduction of this Bill yesterday is a very sloppy way for it to go about its business. One wonders whether all the legislation that is needed to do something about the AIDS problem has been introduced, or whether in Febmary the Minister will introduce more legislation dealing with the problem. The Government is going about the matter in a very piecemeal manner. The Minister should look more closely at how he can do something about the problem. In the last couple of weeks the AIDS issue has been canvassed very well not only in this Parliament but throughout the media. Anything that honourable members can do to stop the spread of AIDS should be done. Following the Minister's announcement two weeks ago that babies had died after receiving contaminated blood transfusions, I was very disappointed when the leader of the National Party in the Federal Parliament (Mr Sinclair) tried to blame the Australian Labor Party. That would be one of the lowest and most despicable acts ever. Mr Sinclair tried to sheet home to the Labor Party the blame for that particular travesty. It was one of the most stupid statements that could have been made. In a responsible way, the Federal Minister for Health called together the Health Ministers from round Australia. Mr Austin had to come away from that meeting and once again try to score political points by saying that in some way the Labor Party was at fault because it had not given money to Red Cross for a computer. Mr Austin interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I did not mention the Minister. He should listen to what I say. That is a way of scoring what I believe to be a fairly cheap political point. If all political parties in Australia, no matter to which Parliament they belong, could get together and do something about the problem, that would be a more responsible way of going about it. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. The Bill allows the Health Department to track down the contacts of AIDS victims. I question the need to increase from $1,000 to $10,000 the maximum fine for people with venereal disease who fail to Health Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3185 comply with the Act. That is a fairly heavy increase. Recently, when the Minister said that he was increasing fines and penalties in line with inflation, I noted that gaol penalties increased from one year to two years. I do not know how one increases a gaol sentence in line with inflation, but there has been a 100 per cent increase. I do not know from which base it is taken. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. I hope that this legislation will stop the spread of AIDS in Australia. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (5.14 p.m.): I rise to support the legislation and to correct a misunderstanding in some parts of the community. Some people do not realise that it is still safe for male donors to give blood. The blood can be treated, made safe and used as plasma. A great deal of blood is needed at Christmas-time when, unfortunately, camage takes place on the roads. The Red Cross is looking for all the male and female donors it can find. On Monday, a special meeting of Red Cross was held in Nambour. The representative of the Red Cross asked, "Why is it that the Labor States of Australia are not introducing legislation similar to that introduced in Queensland?" I had to inform them that that could not be done because all members of the ALP, from Mr Hawke down to Mr Warburton, are locked in with the Labor policy of acknowledging homosexuals and not aUowing them Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. What the member for Cooroora is saying is ridiculous. On two occasions—once two weeks ago and once today—the Labor Party in Queensland has supported legislation that attempts to prevent the spread of AIDS. The honourable member for Cooroora is trying to do exactly what Ian Sinclair tried to do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! WiU the honourable member for Cooroora accept the explanation of the member for Chatsworth in relation to the current debate? Mr SIMPSON: Yes. It does confuse me, but I accept it. I heard the honourable member say that he supported this legislation. I appreciate that, and I appreciate Labor Party members' stepping outside the guide-lines outlined in their policy. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. Labor Party members have not stepped outside any guide-lines. I ask that the member for Cooroora withdraw that remark. Mr SIMPSON: I will withdraw it. It can be read in the context in which it was made. The people of Queensland must judge for themselves where members stand. The co-operation of every State is necessary if this serious problem is to be overcome. States that do not support the views held by the Labor Opposition must encourage a change of attitudes so that, at the next State conference, the policy is changed. They wiU then support the legislation introduced by the Minister. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (5.18 p.m.): In the debate on the Transplantation and Anatomy Act Amendment Bill (No. 2), I think I said something to the effect that the proposal was a minimal move not a major move. I said also that the strongest defence against AIDS is community attitudes, and nothing has happened to cause me to change my mind. The responsibility of those who pass on AIDS in circumstances similar to those that led to the first piece of legislation should be investigated from the point of view of breaches of the criminal law in Queensland. It is a crime to cause the death of another person directly or indirectly—1 will use the words of the Criminal Code as I remember them—without lawful excuse or justification. In my opinion, the Department of Justice 3186 28 November 1984 Health Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Police Department should investigate the matter. I know that it is a novel proposal and that the police sometimes have a fear of acting on such proposals. However, after receiving advice from the Solicitor-General's Office, I should say that good reasons exist to investigate deaths resulting from transfusions of blood infected by AIDS. Consideration should be given to potential criminality and possible guilt of manslaughter if the person transmitting the blood knows that he or she is one of a class of persons to whom the warning issued at the blood bank applies. Manslaughter is a very serious charge, for which a maximum sentence of life imprisonment may be imposed. It seems to me that if a person who is within the at-risk zone because of homosexuality or bisexuality has engaged in such behaviour within the previous five years, is wamed by a notice that he is at risk and still gives blood that is contaminated, clearly he has indirectly caused the death of someone who develops AIDS. In those circumstances, it seems to me, he is without lawful excuse or justification. I have said that publicly before. There is far too much shilly-shallying on this issue. Too many people take the intellectual cop-out. There is too much protestation about the rights of people's sexuality and a deliberate disregard for the rights of the person who, in the extreme case, is killed as a result of being contaminated with AIDS. In my opinion, the Govemment has a responsibility, albeit in a sensible way—I would avoid the word "sensitive", because too much sensitivity is being shown in the argument—to emphasise that there is no AIDS unless there is male intercourse with males. That is the overwhelming medical evidence to date. There is talk about saliva and other possibilities; but the predominant, established source is male intercourse with males. From there, other consequences can flow. For example, AIDS can be transmitted by transfusion of contaminated blood. Essentially, however, the basic cause is male intercourse—sodomy—which in this State is a criminal act. AIDS can also be transmitted through the use of contaminated needles—for instance, by heroin junkies; but, again, the blood would originally have been infected as a result of anal intercourse. Further, it is clear from research overseas that AIDS can be developed also by female prostitutes. But again, it is because of unnatural intercourse with bisexuals. Unnatural male intercourse is the fundamental act that gives rise to AIDS and begins the chain of contamination. In my opinion, it is deplorable that that fact is ignored. Everybody skirts round it. That central tmth is not publicised—and publicised clearly— to the generation which I believe is most at risk, that is, those in their late teens. An examination of the motives of the people who will risk infecting innocent people with AIDS makes it perfectly clear that the strongest motivation is provided by the opportunity for the male homosexual to benefit from free blood-testing without being identified. If a person goes to his own doctor, no doubt he has to say, "I am a homosexual. I want to be tested for syphilis and hepatitis." At the blood bank, however, there is anonymity, with the exception of a confidential letter. I have no criticism of the blood bank. To date, it has done all within its power in terms of modem technology. But, quite clearly, the predominant motivation of male homosexuals to start this process is the opportunity to have free blood tests. My mind absolutely boggles at this. The homosexual community has known for two or three years the risk involved. I cannot conceive how anybody, for the sake of a free test, could be prepared to inflict on others death through a dreadful and incurable disease. That is the slaughter of the innocents. No amount of talk about the rights of sexuality can overcome the fact that these people are prepared to cause death to others by being the source of a pool of infection. On three grounds, as a matter of public health and education, young people should be told that the risks of homosexual behaviour, at least for males, are—hepatitis, syphiUs and now AIDS, for which there is no cure. There is good reason to create an argument about social attitudes. There are those who will say that that trespasses on political attitudes. If it does, so be it. Many members of the Australian Labor Party are, in moral terms, conservative, and I do not condemn the whole of the Australian Labor Party. It is no doubt the case that some political groups have members who have been homosexual activists and who have demanded changes in moral attitudes. These changes are associated with the reduction in or Health Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3187 elimination of a sense of disgust towards male homosexuality and towards an attittide that it be condemned or at least the subject of disapproval. I am sure that the Australian Labor Party has members who can be classed as contributors to such changes. However, I ask all honourable members: What is the result of that change in attitude? Where has AIDS broken out? It is clear that AIDS has broken out in places in the worid where society has changed its attitude towards male homosexuality. In almost every other issue of public health, no qualms are expressed about taking action that will, to some extent, trample or trespass upon the freedom of action exercised by some individuals. Such situations are essentially catered for in the provisions in the Health Acts. I point out that, when Australia was first settled, quarantine stations were estabhshed to accommodate people who had contracted contagious diseases. People were compulsorily confined there, and rightly so. Elimination of the disease was embarked upon. Nowadays, however, on the basis of the defence of rights that relate to sexual freedom, the attitude of people has changed from one of condemnation or disapproval— or even sadness— about people with homosexual instincts to one of active approval, and the establishment of homosexuality as a norm. Mrs Chapman: That affects the rest of society. Mr INNES: It does affect the rest of society, and the consequences are now being suffered by the innocent. In the most overwhelming tragedy, death has resulted. I do not believe that the situation can be excused. Only the restoration of traditional social values that classified homosexuality as unnatural and odious will redress the situation and lead to containment or cessation of AIDS. One only has to reflect upon history. As I have said before, history has a habit of providing simple solutions. For instance, in the Middle East countries, certain conduct was taboo and rejected by those who followed the creeds of the main faith. Studies of epidemiology have revealed that conduct that was taboo led to disease. Long before people became geneticists, incest was declared taboo. Earlier this year, the honourable member for Mirani and I visited the south-west Pacific area. There I met someone who said he could retrace his direct ancestry back 30 generations. That was important to ensure that one would not intermarry with close relatives. We are all aware of the consequences. Homosexuality has also been declared taboo, and it is likely that, over time, generations had deduced that it was a potential source of infection and sterility. Modem medical science has now proven that that is the case. Under the common law principles from which our legal system emerged, homosexuality was referred to as "the abominable crime", and in our code that was written late in the nineteenth century, it was referred to as "an unnatural offence", with the word "sodomy" used in the title. The word "Sodom" comes from a biblical reference to a town that was ravaged by decadent behaviour. All the lessons of history and modern medicine point out that homosexuality— male homosexuality, in particular—is dangerous. It is unnatural, and it should be the subject of disapproval. I strongly agree with the article that was published under the name of B. A. Santamaria in "The Australian" yesterday. Homosexuality has been the subject of a very distinct swerve in moral values. Although I could not be classed as a pmde, I am strongly against the modem proselytising and evangelising of the homosexual movement. I receive letters threatening that one in 10 of my voters is a homosexual and that at the next election I wiU suffer a reversal of 6 to 7 per cent. To hell with them! I don't care! It is more important to me that my children are brought up in an Australia in which it is not seen to be approved behaviour. I know that in the future people will be afflicted by homosexual instincts. As I said before, one has some compassion for those who are involuntarily overwhelmed. But, by crikey, a lot more people are influenced by the smart, the bitchy, the witty and the 3188' 28 November 1984 Health Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) affluent homosexuals in cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, San Francisco and now Brisbane. It is well known that they are aggressive and that they proselytise. Why do so many homosexuals turn up at blood banks—in numbers far in excess of what one would think to be the statistical norm? One sees the incidence of modem proselytising homosexuality round a suburban electorate and, unfortunately, most public toilets stand testimony to that. One has to tell one's children not to use them. That has happened in my own electorate. I have had to tell my own children not to use the public toilets in the local park, because of the number of incidents of people being accosted by adult male homosexuals. That is wrong. That is when somebody else's so-called rights cut across my rights and the proper rights of the community with consequences that are now known to be dangerous and even fatal. I have talked about AIDS in a physical sense, but there is also AIDS of the mind. I have here a copy of an article in the September 1984 edition of the magazine "Quadrant". I would have said that it was a reputable magazine until I saw the articles that it contains nowadays. It is a magazine with a significant history in the intellectual life of Australia. The article, by Andrew Lansdown, is titled "Paedophile Liberation and the Radical Homosexuals" It is said to be a chapter from his book titled "Blatant and Proud: Homosexuals on the Offensive" Those are the sort of words being used about how to approach the conversion of the whole community to the acceptance, not of homosexuality but of paedophilia and how to use paedophile advocates. He says— "A working alliance between gays, feminists, paedpohiles, children and other progressive movements is a necessary first step. We have a lot to leam from each other. We must not let fear, misunderstanding or oppression stop us, or divide us." In passing, I say that the use of the term "gay" is absolutely wrong. The word "gays" should not be used by people, because it gives homosexuality a respectability that it does not in any way deserve. Mr McPhie: They have destroyed a good and beautiful word. Mr INNES: Exactly, and there are people who proudly bear the surname "Gay" who do not like that sort of thing, either. To continue, there are other statements such as— "At this early stage there is still the basic groundwork to do—raising the issue, especially in the (homosexual) movement and on the left." That is a reference to a political and sociological grouping. The article states further— "Homosexuals have developed a number of clever tactics in their attempts to justify paedophilia. For example, rather than advocate the right of aduUs to have sex with children, they are advocating the right of children to have sex with adults." He refers to a tireless advocate of paedophilia who wants— " 'to help children stmggle against their oppression' within the family and capitalist society." So there are those who deliberately set out to use political structures for their own sociological purposes Mr Kruger interjected. Mr INNES: The article is obviously not written by a member of the Liberal Party or National Party—and, 1 hope, not by a member of the Labor Party. However, it has been published in one of the supposedly most prestigious intellectual magazines in this country and tells how to go about converting people, not just to homosexuality but to paedophilia and to approval of paedophiles. The article continues— "A workshop on paedophilia at the Eighth National Conference for Lesbians and Homosexual Men (Canberra, September 1982) illustrates how paedophile advo­ cates are influencing the wider homosexual 'community' " Health Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3189

Where does it stop! I am aware of the argument about not making criminal some overwhelming compulsion that is genetic, or whatever, in some people. I suppose that there have been homosexuals as long as society has been in existence; but, hitherto, in almost all societies, homosexuality has been strongly disapproved of and homosexuals have been contained by that sense of disapproval. Mr Comben: What about the ancient Greeks? Mr INNES: Apparently there were times when the ancient Greeks espoused the practice, but, clearly, at other times, they did not. I know the sort of reaction a modem Greek community would have to the issues of homosexuality and paedophilia. I would not do them the discredit or the disservice of suggesting that they approve or in any way support the sort of intellectual infiltration that is proposed in such essays to convert the community generally into supporting behaviour that has to be condemned by any mature, reasonable person as outrageous and wrong. I am afraid that the acts of the aggressive homosexual movement have infiltrated, and do infiltrate, political parties and other bodies, in attempts to change the social circumstances and create an atmosphere in which the practice is not disapproved, with the consequence that people who would not normally be homosexuals are influenced, and a pool of behaviour is created that has led to the problems that we face. That is why I strongly support the maintenance of the offence of sodomy in the Criminal Code of Queensland. It is not because I wish the police to break down the doors of every pair of adult males who live together, I hope that there is still room in this world for friendship between people of the same sex and of the opposite sex. Retention of that crime will allow action to be taken against its public manifestation and against those who seek to impose their views on others. It would underline that it is behaviour that should be disapproved. Tragically, modern medicine and the spread of this dreadful disease have demonstrated why the crime should remain in the Criminal Code and why, traditionally, that behaviour has been abhorred and disapproved. Sensitivity can be taken to the point of inaction, but I call for an investigation of the sensible ways in which the medical dangers of male homosexual behaviour—hepatitis, syhpilis and AIDS—can be brought to the attention of modem young people. I have in mind that generation going out into the world which, at the moment, is likely to be influenced by aggressive proselytising of homosexuality. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health) (5.38 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that all parties support the legislation. I can give the honourable member for Chatsworth no guarantee that I will not be back in the House early next year with a Bill relating to the AIDS problem. The Queensland Government is prepared to leave no stone untumed in trying to solve this problem in the Queensland community. I cannot give the honourable member that guarantee because the knowledge of the disease and the technology relating to its detection are changing so rapidly that it would be foolish and wrong of me to give him an undertaking. Indeed, it was wrong of him to suggest that it would be improper for the Government to come back at some stage in the near future with a Bill that may help to resolve what I believe to be a grave problem facing the community. The honourable member for Chatsworth referred to the Honourable Ian Sinclair's comments. I thought I made myself very clear on the day that the honourable member for Cook was removed from the House, when I answered the Opposition's question on that matter. Mr Fouras: You didn't answer it. Mr AUSTIN: I will tell the honourable member what I did. I read to the House the policy of the Australian Labor Party on homosexuality. That caused an uproar in the Chamber. That answers the comment of my colleague the honourable member for 3190 28 November 1984 Health Act Amendment BUI (No. 2)

Cooroora. If the people reading "Hansard" wish to pursue the matters raised by him, they should refer to that particular debate in "Hansard". In dealing with the political accusations levelled by the honourable member for Chatsworth, I must say that, when members of Parliament become involved in any issue, of necessity and as a matter of course, the issue in general terms is political. If that were not the case, politicians would not be involved. Mr Fouras: There is a difference. Mr AUSTIN: Just let me finish. The decision to call a national conference was a purely political decision. I do not oppose that decision but it was made by a politician to take emphasis away from what may or may not have been done by a particular Govemment. I do not object to that. However, I draw to the attention of honourable members what resulted from that decision. The comments that I will make relate to the matters raised by the honourable member for Sherwood. The Govemment supports his view. It has no intention of taking it easy on the homosexual community in this State. One of the resolutions from the national conference was to set up an AIDS advisory committee. One of the prerequisites for the formation of that committee was that homosexuals be represented on it. The Queensland Govemment declined to have such a nominee on that committee because it was merely a sop to a minority group in the community. Because the health of the vast majority of the public is concemed in this issue, I do not believe that homosexuals have a right to a say on that committee. A technical committee into which the Queensland Govemment has an input will be set up as a result of the national conference. As to other matters raised by the honourable member for Sherwood—the Govem­ ment views with concern the lack of knowledge within the community, particularly among young people, about this disease. To that end, this week I approved the production of publicity material in an attempt to educate particularly young people in the community about the dangers that the honourable member for Sherwood quite correctly pointed out. As to the legal questions that he raised—I am neither competent nor do I have the advice before me to answer his questions. I undertake to refer a copy of the honourable member's speech to the Attomey-General and to seek advice on the matters that he raised. I am not sure whether I correctly understood the member for Sherwood about whether or not the blood bank is to be excluded from the legislation. Because the blood bank is a laboratory that performs screening tests, it is covered by the legislation. If as a result of tests carried out by the blood bank it is revealed that a person has positive AIDS antibodies in his blood, that person will be notified automatically to the Director- General of Health and Medical Services. I think that that probably covers most of the points raised by the honourable member for Sherwood about the blood bank. I cannot go back over past history, and the legislation is not retrospective. However, I will take up with the Attomey-General the matters of law that the honourable member raised. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the legislation has the full support of the House. Motion (Mr Austin) agreed to.

Committee Mr Randell (Mirani) in the chair; Hon. B. D. Austin (WaveU—Minister for Health) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Wheat Marketing BUI 28 November 1984 3191

Clause 3—Amendment of s. 54; Provisions relating to venereal disease— Mr AUSTIN (5.44 p.m.): Because of a minor drafting error in the Bill, it is necessary that I move the following amendment— "At page 2, line 42, omit the expression— 'paragraph (b)' and substitute the expression— "subparagraph (ii)'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Austin, read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Will the Clerk please read the next order. The CLERK: Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2), resumption of second-reading debate. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN: (Wavell—Minister for Health): I move— "That Orders of the Day Nos. 4 and 5 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting." Motion agreed to.

WHEAT MARKETING BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3104) on Mr Tumer's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr KRUGER (Murmmba) (5.47 p.m.): What has just happened is an example of the confusion that occurs in this House when people find it convenient to absent themselves from the Chamber. I can quite understand the Clerk's embarrassment when he had to call on the Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2). Obviously he had not been informed by the Leader of the House that the order of dealing with Bills had been changed. Only a few minutes ago Mr Lee: You will have to speak off the cuff. Mr KRUGER: That is all right. I can do that, which is more than the honourable member can do. It is improper for the member for Yeronga to make those sorts of statements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is improper for this debate not to continue. I suggest to the member for Murmmba that he continue with his speech. Mr KRUGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest to the member for Yeronga that he not get involved. The Opposition decided that it would accept the fact that debate on the Bill had to take place this week. Initially, the Bill was to be introduced today, to be debated tomorrow, or it might have gone through all stages tomorrow. However, the Minister said to me last night that he would like to introduce it yesterday and give the Opposition 3192 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing Bill an opportunity to consider it. That is a fair and reasonable approach. I recognise that the legislation needs to be finalised before the end of this session. However, the arrangements did not come to pass and I am quite sure that the Minister would not be happy with what has happened. However, the Opposition is in a position to debate the issues. I point out that this is yet another example of the Government mshing legislation through in the dying minutes of a session. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is very unfortunate that last month the temporary legislation was dealt with by the House in my absence. At that time I was representing the State of Queensland at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. Several primary industry related Bills were passed through the House without the Opposition spokesman having an opportunity to debate them. If I had been in the House at that time, the problem would not have arisen and this issue would not be under debate this evening. Mr Turner: The interim legislation that was agreed to was legislation complementary to Commonwealth legislation. Mr KRUGER: What I am suggesting is that arrangements could have been made for the Bill to have been debated in my presence instead of my absence. I was not away on a junket, as is the case with many honourable members. I was representing the State at a parliamentary conference and it would have been reasonable for the Govemment to have arranged for the debate on that Bill to take place in my presence. Unfortunately the Government is now trying to msh this Bill through before the end of the session. Mr Wharton: We have more Bills on the sheet for you. Mr KRUGER: Mr Deputy Speaker, what did the little man over there, who is not even in his usual seat, say? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I will determine who wiU speak from his usual place or otherwise. The honourable member will refer to Ministers by their correct title. Mr KRUGER: The Minister was not in his right seat. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry, but I was not sure of the Minister's title. In his second-reading speech, the Minister pointed out quite clearly that the legislation was complementary legislation. I know that the Federal Govemment wants this legislation to be passed. I know that the State Govemment, with good intent, also passed temporary legislation, expecting that it would have satisfied the requirements for the time being. However, because of certain events, in the last couple of days the Minister made a statement to the House, to which I will refer later, in which he indicated that some problems have been encountered. I believe that the Minister went off the deep end in making statements condemning the Federal Govemment and the Australian Wheat Board. As a matter of fact. State Parliament could have allocated some time to deal with the matter. Be that as it may, the legislation needs to be tidied up so that the wheat-growers in Queensland can be paid. It is necessary for this complementary legislation to pass through its remaining stages quickly to overcome the problems to which I referred earlier. The Minister also stated— "I state quite categorically and unequivocally that the Australian Wheat Board, in refusing to pay Queensland growers until this particular piece of legislation is enacted, has attempted to usurp the functions of this Government and the Com­ monwealth Government." The responsibility for the problems is being placed on the Wheat Board. I can quite clearly understand why the Minister would express that feeling. Later in his second-reading speech the Minister condemned the Federal Government. I do not think that the Federal Government is to blame totally. The Wheat Board had Wheat MarkeUng Bill 28 November 1984 3193 a situation that it wanted to examine. Possibly the Federal Govemment and the Wheat Board are not used to retrospective legislation being passed as regularly as it is passed in Queensland. Over the years, it has become common practice for retrospective legislation to be passed in the Queensland Parliament. The Minister continued— "The crisis was caused purely and simply by procrastination and indifference on the part of the Commonwealth Government and by the arrogance and sheer bloody-mindedness of the Australian Wheat Board." I would like to think that the reason for the procrastination was not as spelt out by the Minister in this Chamber. The Minister has used the legislation, as his colleagues have used the sugar industry in Queensland, to bash the national Government in Australia. That is not always fair and reasonable. Matters need to be tidied up. All parties have a responsibility. The wheat-growers in Queensland want to be paid. 1 believe that the Australian Wheat Board procrastinated more than the Federal Government. The Minister and his colleagues in this Chamber are never prepared to miss a chance to belt the Federal Government, particularly when it is a Labor Federal Government. Mr FitzGerald: If they deserve it, they deserve it.

Mr KRUGER: It is not a matter of deserving it at all. The honourable member for Lockyer would be the Federal Government's greatest opponent in this House. Time and time again he has been outspoken Mr McPhie interjected.

Mr KRUGER: The honourable member should not throw his glasses round. If he keeps throwing his glasses round, one of these days he will lose them. He is blind enough with them on, let alone with them offl In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "Further, I have indicated to the Commonwealth many times that the Queens­ land legislation would be applicable from 1 October 1984 so that the board could make payments without any fear of subsequent legal problems." I think that the Minister has acted in good faith. However, as I indicated, those sorts of actions are not common in other places. Although the passing of retrospective legislation is seen as being reasonable in this Chamber, people in other parts of the Commonwealth do not share that view. The Minister further stated— "I also point out that the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry has had the power, since 1 October, to direct the Australian Wheat Board to make payments." Although he may have had the power to do so, it is obvious why the Minister would like the legislation tidied up before those payments were made. I think that the Minister has acted in good faith by trying to solve those problems. The Minister further stated— "Of course, this is typical of the Canberra socialists, and their attitudes to the needs and problems of farmers. They do not care about Queensland."

It is utter garbage to say that the Commonwealth Minister and the Prime Minister do not think anything of Queensland. For many years they have been part of Australia. The Queensland Government tends to get the impression that if anybody opposes any section or any thing, they are anti-Queensland. I would go so far as to say that the 3194 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing BiU people in Queensland are generally anti-everybody else. The Queensland Govemment wants to knock, knock, knock on every occasion. It does not seem to understand. The Govemment wants to promote Queensland as a place that is entirely different. It wants to say, when things are good, that Queensland has everything to offer. However, it does not want to admit that there sometimes could be some problems. That is very serious. If relations between the States and the Commonwealth are to be conducted in a sensible manner, the States have to give and take. Unfortunately, in Queensland, it is all give and no take. Do not get me wrong. Do not start jumping up and saying, "We give to them." The Queensland Government gives the impression to the Federal Government that that Govemment is doing everything wrong. It does not want to take any responsibility. Every time the State Govemment gets the opportunity, it criticises the Federal Government—bang, bang, bang. It is ridiculous. I want to know what is wrong with Queensland? It has mucked things up to a degree. Instead of introducing temporary legislation, the Government should have gone into the matter more deeply. The Minister will probably say, "That temporary legislation was accepted by the Federal Parliament." Mr Turner: It was drafted by the Federal Govenment. Mr KRUGER: OK, it was drafted by the Federal Govemment. The Minister indicated in his speech, and in documents that I will produce later, that there was a problem with it. If that is the case, why did he not say, "There are problems with the draft. We cannot accept it"? A mix-up has occurred somewhere. The Commonwealth Government has the upper hand. It has the Austrahan Wheat Board and Queensland has the State Wheat Board. However, there must have been room for negotiation with the Federal Govenment. The State Govemment could have pointed out quite clearly to the Federal Govemment, "This cannot work. It does not tie in with the Queensland Govemment's attitude towards wheat-marketing." The Minister gave the Federal Govemment a good old serve when he said, "We will break away from you. We will do this and that." That is not good public relations. If the legislation had been satisfactory, the matter could have been settled at that time. The Queensland Government did not press the matter far enough. It showed weakness. The Federal Government accepted the proposal in good faith, but it did not work. Now it has had to come back with this complementary legislation. I place the blame squarely on the Queensland Government. The Minister said— "Since 1949, the Queensland Wheat Crop has been marketed by the Australian Wheat Board." Today, there are marketing problems not only with wheat but also with sugar, dairy products and other primary produce. The Federal and State Governments have to work together to secure outlets for primary produce. The Minister said that the Queensland Government will break away. Without a united approach, Queensland will not be able to sell its primary produce overseas. There is no way in which Queensland will be able to compete on the world market if Australia cannot do so. Recently, the Queensland Government condemned Hawke and Kerin for the prob­ lems in the sugar industry, and pointed out that something needs to be done about the marketing arrangements. If that is the case with sugar, it is certainly the case with wheat. It is utterly ridiculous for the Minister to talk of Queensland's breaking away. That threat will not improve the position of the wheat-growers. Although, in the short term, that might appeal to the wheat-growers, it will not be the long-term answer. The Australian Wheat Board, which is under the control of the Australian Government, has to find outlets for wheat. Wheat Marketing Bill 28 November 1984 3195 Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m. Mr KRUGER: Before the dinner recess I was discussing the Minister's threat to break away from the Australian Wheat Board, with Queensland marketing its own wheat. That is always a possibility. He has left his options open. However, I warn the Minister and the country generally that that would not be in the best interests of the industry. The markets overseas are in such a depressed state that Queensland needs to have the fullest participation in the sale of its product. In his speech, the Minister said— "The Bill will repeal the old complementary wheat marketing legislation, namely, the Queensland Wheat Marketing Act 1979-1984, and provide for the essential features of the new national wheat-marketing plan." That is acceptable. We understand that. He went on to say— "Basically the Bill mirrors the corresponding provisions of the Commonwealth Act .." He went on to refer to the additional safeguards. I would expect a Queensland Minister to say such things. However, we have to be very careful in the attitude we adopt in the disposal of our product, particularly bearing in mind our public relations profile. The Minister later said— "With the exception of the question of grower membership of the Australian Wheat Board, general agreement by all parties has been reached on the provisions of the new wheat-marketing plan." Much discussion has been held between the State and Federal Ministers and the State and Australian Wheat Boards to make sure that the best result is achieved for all. In any new move, such actions have to be taken. I appreciate the role played by all parties in attempting to achieve the best possible results. One finds after a considerable time that provisions in an Act have to be changed. However, the intent on all sides was exceptionally good. It is to be hoped that we have obtained the best out of it and that alterations in the future will be minimal. Membership of the board is a Commonwealth matter. However, the Queensland Minister has conferred at length with the Federal Minister about the possibility of reducing grower representation. From discussions I have had with the Federal Minister, I understand that he is quite prepared to negotiate the matter. By 1985, changes will have to be made to cater for representation on the board. That is reasonable. Naturally, in this day and age, although it is desirable to have grower represenation, growers do not always possess marketing expertise. If representatives looking after the growers have selling expertise, the combination is most acceptable to all. That observation would apply to all marketing concepts. It has always been Labor policy that growers be involved. Certainly, I will be speaking to the Federal Minister to achieve the best possible representation on the board, both for growing and for selling. The Minister's speech then dealt with the various provisions in the Bill. I understand that it is the desire to have this Bill pass through aU stages so that other legislation may be dealt with. I appreciate the way in which the Minister and his advisers have spelt out the contents of the Bill. A provision I have taken particular note of is explained in this way by the Minister— "The Commonwealth Minister will determine the guaranteed minimum price of different categories of wheat by 1 March each year." That is essential. My friend and colleague the member for Bundaberg (Clem Campbell) explained in a previous debate on the legislation how that would work. Therefore, I will not pursue it at any length. Prices will change from time to time. If the Federal Minister has his finger on the pulse, as he generally does, it will be to the advantage of all wheat- growers in the State. The Minister continued— "These GMPs form the basis of the Commonwealth's underwriting of wheat- marketing arrangements." 3196 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing BiU

The floor price, if I may call it that, in wheat-marketing is an exceptionally sound process that has been adopted for some time. It has been formalised by the introduction of the legislation. Certainly, no interference will be caused by this legislation. Some of the more complex features are noted by the Minister, such as the differentials for premium wheat and the different levels of guaranteed minimum price that were developed with the assistance of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. That shows quite clearly that the federation played a significant part in the legislation that is now before the House and provided a very important and sincere element in the introduction of the legislation. The Minister expressed his reservations about features of the new national wheat- marketing plan in the area of differential underwriting and explained that that was why it was necessary to provide safeguards in the Bill to protect the position of the Queensland wheat industry. I wish to know whether the Federal Govemment has been made fully aware of the sections that have been written in to safeguard the Queensland growers. If the Federal Government is not aware, I ask the Minister why the Federal Govemment has not been advised of the Queensland Government's intention. When complementary legislation is involved, all parties should be aware of relevant provisions. I am sure that the Minister will address some remarks to the question I have asked. I hope that the safeguards that have been written into the Bill for the benefit of Queensland growers have been provided in good faith by both the State and the Federal Governments, especially as far as the Australian Wheat Board is concemed, and that no adverse ramifications wiU arise in the future. The Minister also said that the legislation provisions have been drafted in such a way as not to jeopardise the State's role in the national scheme. Although that comment really summarises the position, I ask the Minister for clarification. The Minister also said that, as far as he was concemed, the Australian Wheat Board was on trial and that it had disgraced itself over the past couple of weeks. It is possible that some problems have arisen during the last couple of weeks because the Australian Wheat Board has not effected payments to growers; but as a public relations exercise, it was not good for the Minister to make such a speech that engendered confrontation when efforts are being made to stabilise the industry and improve legislation for growers all over Australia. I feel that, under the circumstances, a better use of words would have been an advantage. However, I understand what the Minister meant and I certainly recognise the point that he was trying to make. Although it is probably valid for the Minister to think, "All right—we have got the numbers and we do not have to worry," I honestly believe that the Minister's remarks will not improve the relationship that exists between Govemment and representatives of the industry. The Minister said that if the board cannot produce the goods, it may not be marketing the Queensland wheat crop for much longer, and that is another example of an antagonistic approach that is inappropriate when efforts are being made to improve State and Federal relationships. I refer to statements made recently in this House that recount discussions that have taken place between the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Queensland Minister. An outline of discussions that have resulted in the presentation of this legislation was also presented by the Minister. I regret that, to my knowledge, the Minister did not quote from a telex that he received from Mr Kerin. The telex reads— "Reference your telex of 20 November 1984 concerning payments to Queensland wheat growers from the current wheat harvest. For wheat receivals up to 1 October, payments have been made under the early delivery payments scheme. My understanding is that there are two matters that concern the Australian Wheat Board regarding further payments for 1984-85 receivals. Wheat MarkeUng Bill 28 November 1984 3197

The first is under the payment provisions under Clause 20 of the State Model Wheat Marketing Bill 1984. There seems to be some question as to whom payment will be authorised to be made under the Queensland BUI; whether it will be to growers, to the State Wheat Board, or to a combination of the two remains unclear, following very recent consultations between your State Wheat Board and the AWB. Clarification of this matter is essential if the Australian Wheat Board is to be able to assure itself that any payments it makes will be in accordance with the Queensland legislation. The second matter concerns the advice which the AWB has received from the State Wheat Board that some alterations may be made to Clause 15 (6), of the State Model Bill. The corresponding provision in the Commonwealth Act is the basis for my determination of the guaranteed minimum prices for the different categories of wheat. My understanding is that individual State legislation would need to be consistent with this provision. If the provision in the Queensland legislation were not consistent with the equivalent sections of the Commonwealth Wheat Marketing Act 1984, the legality of payments to growers by the AWB could be in question. It is essential therefore that these matters be clarified as soon as possible. As you will appreciate, the AWB needs to be assured that any payments made to Queensland growers will not be in breach of the forthcoming Queensland legislation." That telex was sent by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 20 November this year. A document from Mr Kerin's officers reads— "Statements relating to non-payment of growers are absolute nonsense. The situation arose because the Queensland Govemment did not have its BUI prepared in sufficient time, and was unwiUing to clarify with the Australian Wheat Board the situation relating to two crucial elements—the first, the payment provisions under clause 20 of the State act and the second, the determination of the GMP for different categories of wheat under Clause 15 (6)." Mr McPhie: There are clauses in the Federal Bill that clearly commit the Australian Wheat Board to making those payments, irrespective of Queensland's complementary legislation. Mr KRUGER: I will not take the interjection while the honourable member is in his incorrect seat. If the honourable member wants to move to his correct seat, I will then take him on, just as I will take on any other Government member, because none of them know what they are talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Toowoomba North that, if he wishes to interject, he return to his usual place. Mr KRUGER: The document continues— "Clause 20—statements made by the Queensland Govemment left some doubt as to whom payment would be authorised to be made under the Queensland legislation i.e. whether payments would be made to growers, the State Wheat Board or a combination of the two. Even following consultation between the State Wheat Board and the AWB this was unclear." I raised that question because the telex said that. I am now saying that the position is still unclear. The Federal Minister, the State Wheat Board and the Australian Wheat Board were all unclear about the position. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I feel that the Minister and this Government attempted unnecessarily to bucket the Australian Wheat Board and the Federal Govern­ ment. That quotation clarifies what I am saying and clearly points out that the people who are really involved were still in a quandary about what was to happen. 3198 28 November 1984 Wheat MarkeUng Bill

The problem may be overcpme by this legislation, but there is some problem on that score relative to the previous legislation. It is certainly an interesting situation that has arisen. I also emphasise the Federal Minister's comments in his second-reading speech in the House of Representatives. He said— "... the wheat marketing arrangements which will apply from the 5 years commencing on 1 October 1984. The wheat arrangements automatically expire at the end of each 5 year period when a complete review takes place. The review has been completed, the lAC has submitted a report to Government and consultations have been held with the States and the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation (AWE). The scheme is a co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and State Governments because certain essential elements are the constitutional responsibility of the States. Complementary legislation will therefore be required in each of the States to implement a national scheme and I understand that legislation will be passed by the States as soon as their parliamentary programmes allow." Because that BiU was introduced some time ago, it is possibly this Govemment and not the Federal Government that has been procrastinating. In regard to an overview of the whole situation, the Minister said at the time— "The Bill continues in operation the basic elements of the current wheat marketing arrangements. Growers' net retums will be underwritten at 95 per cent and they will receive a high first advance from the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) when they deliver their wheat." The honourable member for Bundaberg raised a number of other points when the interim wheat-marketing legislation was debated recently in this House. I will not go into great detail on those points except to say that the Federal Minister has gone out of his way to ensure that, when this legislation hit the deck, everything would be in order. When the Queensland Minister made a ministerial statement on 22 November, some of his comments indicated that this legislation would be a reasonable attempt to overcome the problem, but they certainly did not prove that this State had reaUy gone out of its way to improve the position. I do not want to delay the House too long because of the pressure of business, but I want to quote an article in the "National Farmer" I will read it into "Hansard" only because I believe that many members would not be aware of the position. It was headlined, " 'No crisis'. Govt tells angry growers", and read— "Government agricultural spokesmen have blasted wheat farmers with allega­ tions of fabricating an industry crisis. While hundreds of NSW growers packed wheat crisis meetings called by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association (LGPA), State Agriculture Minister Jack Hallam made scathing attacks against the 'aristocracy' of agriculture. Irate calls had already been coming into the LGPA after reports Primary Industry Minister John Kerin had laid the blame for wheat woes at the association's door. Hallam's outburst in State parliament, however, went much further. He claimed the crisis was 'just a bunch of agri-politicians looking for an issue' He said speakers at the crisis meetings had tried to stir up growers with "allegations that were either false of misleading', and that criticisms of freight and handling charges were unfounded. 'Rather than being on the verge of being driven off their land, wheat farmers would have by far the highest cash receipts of any mral activity in Australia,' Hallam said." I have not seen that refuted in any way. According to the statements that I have referred to, and other statements that I have read, the wheat-growers are in a reasonable situation. Wheat Marketing Bill 28 November 1984 3199

Mr Neal: Neville Wran went and talked to them and found out that Hallam did not know what he was talking about. Mr KRUGER: The media concocted that story. I assure the honourable member for Balonne that Jack Hallam and Neville Wran know what they are talking about. If we could get the same class of people mnning this State as mn New South Wales, Queensland would go ahead. New South Wales National Party leader, Leon Punch, was reported as "thundering" back. In doing so, he spoke a heap of garbage, which is typical of National Party people. Jack Hallam pointed out quite clearly that the wheat-growers had no real grudge and were talking a heap of garbage. Another article that appeared in the "National Farmer" was headed, "Bitter brawl empts among wheat chiefs" I wish I had the time to read all the details in the article, because it states the situation quite clearly. Mr Prest: Get into it. Mr KRUGER: Very well, at the request of the member for Port Curtis, I will read some of it. The article reads— "The Australian Wheat Growers Federation has empted into bitter brawling between the 'old guard' and the 'young turks' factions which threaten to rip it asunder." Mr Neal interjected. Mr KRUGER: It does not. It is like some of the National party discussions that I have heard in the corridors of this House, more particularly before the last election, when the National Party was fighting with the Liberal Party. I also heard some discussions among the Liberal Party members. They thought they would bring the Nationals undone, but they did not—they almost brought the Nationals undone. They set the pattern. After the next State election. Labor will have control of this House, and the Premier will be gone. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I suggest that the honourable member continue discussing the Wheat Board. Mr KRUGER: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got carried away by Govemment members. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: You are not talking about the Wheat Marketing BUI, because you are not at home in the wheat area. You do not know a great deal about it. Mr KRUGER: The Premier has a number of areas that he should not be involved in. In the near future, I will teU the House about them. Mr Simpson: He sold out because he thought he would have to pay capital gains tax to the Hawke Government? Mr KRUGER: Who sold out? Mr Simpson: You did. Mr KRUGER: If Parliament sits tomorrow, I can easily make a personal explanation that will cmcify the honourable member for Cooroora. Govemment members have been trying to give me a serve. They do not know what they are talking about. In the long term, I will prove them wrong. If they think it is illegal to sell a piece of freehold land in Queensland—and in this instance, the land has not been sold—I wiU straighten them out. If the honourable member cares to talk to me outside, I will not put a writ on him; I will put a fist on him. 3200 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member get away from intimidation and back to the Wheat Marketing Bill. Mr KRUGER: I will do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not have to put up with the garbage spoken by Government members. The article headed, "Bitter brawl empts among wheat chiefs" continued in this way— "The move follows a no-confidence motion in Flugge passed by NSW growers, and a similar motion of "extreme disappointment' from Queensland, offset by congratulations to Rugge from his WA supporters." That shows that Mr Flugge had been propped up by the Western Australians and abused in the Queensland Parliament. It proves that the Queensland Govemment had been knocking the Federal Government for no good reason. I should like honourable members to read the article. If they cannot afford to buy the book, I will shout each of them a copy of the page that I have been referring to so that they may read the details. It spells out the situation with the Australian Wheat Board and the disruption in that board. I read the debate that took place in my absence. I will not put honourable members to the misery of listening again to what they said. In his reply at the second-reading stage on the Wheat Marketing Act Amendment Bill, the Minister stated— "I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I do not believe that any honourable member from either side of the House opposed the BiU, which simply changes the home consumption price formula. That change has the support of the Government and of industry and will apply retrospectively—this is not retrospective legislation—from the start of the current wheat season, which is 1 October. The price will be adjusted on a quarterly basis instead of annually. I thank the honourable member for Mourilyan for his support of the legislation." That shows that, on 10 October, the Minister for Primary Industries was sure that there was no opposition to the Bill. He has stated that the temporary legislation had the sanction of the Federal Parliament; but, there may be some misunderstanding because I am not sure whether appropriate discussions had taken place. Such discussions should have taken place. Perhaps in his reply the Minister can state whether that was the case. If there has been misunderstanding, that is unfortunate, and it caused some delay. In last week's "Graingrower" an article reported that— "Primary Industries Minister Mr Neil Tumer has strongly criticised the Australian Wheat Board over the Board's failure to make payments to wheat growers in Queensland in regard to current deliveries from the 1984 harvest." 1 must say that 1 agree with the Minister. If the legislation was in order, the Australian Wheat Board should have paid the growers. The Minister has said that the legislation was reasonable and that everything was in order. However, he did not let it go at that. In that article, the Minister finished up by saying— ' " 'I think it's about time we had a good hard look at whether Queensland would be better off marketing its own wheat rather than letting the AWB do it for us. The Australian Wheat Board has shown time and time again that it is prepared to ride roughshod over the interests of the Queensland wheat industry. This is just another example of it.' " Having said that, the Minister has laid the blame Mr Austin: You are not making another speech out of press statements? Wheat MarkeUng Bill 28 November 1984 3201

Mr KRUGER: No, I am not. Out of a very long article I have quoted a couple of short sentences. The Minister for Health would not understand, because I am told that he has trouble reading. Mr Austin: I will tell everyone about the rort that you pulled with that gravel. Mr KRUGER: Which gravel? Mr Austin: You know which gravel. Mr KRUGER: Perhaps the Minister wants me to go through the details again about the land deals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! Because the House may adjourn tonight, I think that honourable members have become a little light-hearted. I suggest that the honourable member for Murmmba restrict his comments to the Bill. Honourable members who wish to interject should do so from their usual places. Mr KRUGER: I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will stick to the Bill under discussion. If honourable members opposite wish to interject, I suggest that they do so about my comments on the Bill and not about my private operations. I will not get off the track, but honourable members opposite will because they do not know what the Bill is all about. The Minister made it quite clear in his statement in the "Graingrower" that the Australian Wheat Board was to blame. However, in his statement to the House recently, the Minister was not satisfied until he had given John Kerin and the Australian Government a serve. That is wrong and I would not do that. I would not give honourable members opposite a bit of a belt if I did not think it was deserved. The Minister knows quite well that I would not do that. I quote now from a media release of 10 August from the Federal Minister for Primary Industry as follows— "The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin announced today that he had had extremely positive discussions with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in Melbourne this morning. The Minister said that the discussion had centred on the changes to wheat marketing arrangements announced recently." The Minister went through the whole deal with the people he should have been talking to. The release further states— "Mr Kerin said that the Wheatgrowers Federation had expressed their satisfaction with the progress made so far on the new arrangements and he said that agreement had been reached on a plan for the implementation of a new stmcture for the Australian Wheat Board. Mr Kerin said that the Board now deals with a crop worth about $3 Billion a year financed entirely from commercial sources." It is a very big industry and I am pleased that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry ensured that the people involved in the industry in the various States are happy with events. On many occasions in this place things are quite different. Ministers claim that they have spoken to people in industry and that the legislation is in order. Then Opposition members get a blast from industry people because we supported legislation that they did not want. Although I do not want to involve you in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, 1 know that from time to time you would have been concerned about supporting a Bill with which a primary industry group may not have agreed, even though the relevant Minister claimed that he had consulted with the industry. I know that the Government has not always done that. 3202 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing BiU

Mr Turner: We have conferred with the industry on this Bill. Mr KRUGER: Yes, on this Bill. What I am saying is that that has not always been so. Opposition members are always a little doubtful about this. In a media release headed "Wheat Legislation Through House", the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr John Kerin) said— " 'The Legislation including the amendments which I introduced last night was the result of detailed negotiations with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and I am pleased to see that the AWE and farmers generally have welcomed the new wheat marketing arrangements embodied in the legislation,' Mr Kerin said. Under the legislation, the current Board including the ten grower members and the extra four members with special expertise will operate until the 1st Oct 1985." From my travels throughout the State and the discussions in which my party has been involved, I know of the need for grower representation. The Queensland Graingrowers Association got into trouble because it had no expertise, grower or otherwise, to overcome the little problem that it ran into. Mr Kerin is trying to ensure that those who are selling grain know how to do so in the best interests of the producers. Until I entered this place, I was involved in primary production all of my Ufe, I certainly am not lost to that cause. I would like to think that those people who are marketing my produce can do all necessary things to make sure that my product is saleable. I have said in this place time and time again that what is wrong with primary industries generally in this State and this country is that, through a series of Liberal and National Party coalition Governments, not enough research has been undertaken into marketing. I do not believe that any Government has ever sought out those markets that will buy Australian farm products. I could give the House many examples in my own field in which I have produced several articles that have been unsaleable. When growers produce an unsaleable article, not only do they get nothing out of it, but the consumer does not benefit from low prices, either. That is the case with the recent problem in the sugar industry. Primary producers have to know in which direction they are headed. In that regard the Federal Minister has done an exceptionally good job with consultation and getting things organised. I have read a press article in which the Minister for Primary Industries urged Mr Kerin to act on cash owed to Queensland wheat-growers. I can understand his concem, but I question that concern because the Federal Minister has proved conclusively to me that he has been waiting for something to happen in Queensland. On the other hand, the Queensland Government has been saying that the Federal Government has been procrastinating. I hope that in his reply the Minister wUl be able to point out to me quite clearly that the discussions that have taken place and the Bill that is now before the House have been communicated to the Federal Government and that the Federal Govemment is fully aware of the contents of the Bill. I would hate to think that in some way or other the Minister has once again introduced legislation that honourable members think is in order but will suddenly find in the future that it is not. I do not wish to add anything as I know that a couple of other members wish to speak in the debate. If the Minister is prepared to stand in reply and contradict what 1 have said, certainly at the Committee stage 1 will be prepared to discuss those issues and debate the clauses to whatever length I think is necessary to prove the Opposition's point. However, if everything is in order and the Minister accepts the points that I have made, it certainly will hasten the passage of the Bill through the House. I hope that in the future the Opposition will not again be forced into debating legislation much earlier than was intended. It is not always easy to obtain the necessary information. The Opposition would have been fully prepared to debate the legislation tomorrow. The Oppostion has been forced into a situation of having to tmst the Minister and trust the Government. With the Government that this State has, that is not always Wheat Marketing Bill 28 November 1984 3203 easy to do. However, the Opposition has accepted the Bill in good faith. If, in fact, something is proved to be wrong with the Bill, we on this side of the House will not take any responsibility, because the Bill was introduced into the House last night with the intention of allowing the Opposition to research it today and tomorrow moming and debate it later tomorrow. That has not proved to be the case. If in the future anything needs changing, the Opposition will take no responsibility for the problems that might confront the Government. Mr NEAL (Balonne) (7.44 p.m.): I have never heard such a load of codswallop as I heard from the member for Murmmba. He spent half the night quoting from papers and Lord knows what. He could not even quote them properly. Honourable members have had to suffer 42 minutes of absolute drivel from the honourable member. At the outset, he said that interim legislation was introduced while he attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. Whether or not he thought that the legislation would be delayed until he came back, I do not know. He said that the non-payment to growers would not have arisen if he had been in Brisbane. After 42 minutes of the drivel to which he subjected honourable members, I say "Thank Heaven he was not here! Thank Heaven he has had absolutely no input into the BiU." The honourable member said that, because the Bill was being mshed through the House, the Opposition would accept no responsibility for it. Provided the industry is reasonably happy with the Bill, that will suit me down to the ground. I could not care less whether the honourable member accepts any responsibility or not. Tonight he has shown honourable members how much he thinks of wheat-growers. He had the hide to quote Mr Hallam, who attended the meeting. The honourable member is tarring them all with the one bmsh. A few people have done well and made a few quid out of it. The honourable member for Murrumba thinks that every wheat-grower is in the same boat. I would be interested to know what he has planted to make his gravel grow. I am pleased to support the Minister in his introduction of this complementary legislation. It needs to be passed so that the growers can be paid their first payment. I am dismayed that the Australian Wheat Board has seen fit not to make the first payment on the basis that the Queensland legislation was not in place. That is not good enough. In 1979, at the commencement of the previous five-year marketing arrangements, the fact that Queensland's complementary legislation was not in place at that time was no impediment. First payments were made as a matter of course, and the complementary legislation was introduced and passed at a later date and made retrospective to 1 October of that year. There were no problems then. One must now pose the question: Why are there problems now? Obviously, the model legislation provided by the Commonwealth did not suit Queensland, because Queensland has special needs. Queensland had to be sure about the allowable deductions and its system of premium payments. It is only right that they should be protected. Queensland was not prepared to give to Canberra control of those matters or control of the State Wheat Board. The legislation had to be redrafted. Mr Davis: Where does Canberra come into it? Mr NEAL: If the honourable member looks at the Federal Wheat Marketing Act, and if he listens more closely, he will find out more about it. The legislation had to be redrafted. Queensland had to make sure that the wheat industry was reasonably happy and that, in the main, it suited growers. It was interesting to learn that the Federal Minister agreed with the interim legislation and with Queensland's position. Agreement was reached at the last Agricultural Council meeting when it met in Townsville. As far as the Queensland Government and the Australian Wheat Board were concerned, under section 26 of the Wheat Marketing Act the Australian Wheat Board has the power to make the first payment. Furthermore, if the board is not prepared to 3204 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing Bill make the payment, under section 2 of that Act the Minister has the power to direct the Australian Wheat Board to perform its function. All that happened is nothing short of humbug. The growers, who have delivered their wheat to the board, and are therefore entitled to their year's income, have had to sit round waiting to be paid. There is no way in the world that the board could not have made the first payment. It received an assurance from the Minister that the legislation would be introduced, and that when it was passed it would be made retrospective. As I said earlier, that was done in 1979 without any problems. I cannot see why it could not have been done on this occasion. Honourable members should examine the wheat-marketing legislation and see what took place in Canberra when the Australian wheat-marketing legislation was passed. In the Parliament at that time Mr Kerin said, "If this legislation is held up in the Senate, the wheat-growers will not receive their first payment." He held a gun at the Senate and said that, if his proposals were not accepted, the wheat-growers would suffer. One does not need to be a genius to work out what is going on. It has been nothing short of absolute humbug. The growers have had to pay contractors and other people associated with harvests. They have bank overdrafts, and they have to meet fuel and other costs. Because of the system of payments in Queensland, the State Wheat Board advised the growers that they would be paid within about 10 days of receipt by the board of their crop claim. However, because of the humbug by the Australian Wheat Board, that did not take place. Nobody can blame the growers for being very upset. Mr Kerin decided that he wanted to reduce the number of grower representatives on the Australian Wheat Board. He eventually agreed that the grower representation should remain the same, but only for a 12-month period. The member for Murrumba has left the Chamber. He suggested that some of the grower representatives on the board be replaced by people with expertise. Expertise can be hired by the board; experts are always available. In my opinion, experts should be on tap and not on top. Mr Kerin is setting out to make the wheat board subservient to his wishes. He wants to control it. Mr Davis interjected. Mr NEAL: The member for Brisbane Central knows nothing about it. All he knows could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a thick pen. If the legislation does not suit the Australian Wheat Board and Mr Kerin decides in 1985 to change that legislation—the grower representation on the board has been appointed for only 12 months—1 cannot see any reason why, if that amended legislation does not suit growers in this State, Queensland cannot go it alone and market its own wheat. That is what should be done. This State has high-quality protein wheat, and it was sold by the State prior to 1949. Queensland has the expertise. There is no reason why it cannot maintain its own State Wheat Board and its own system of payments and protect premiums. That is what it is all about. If Opposition members examined the costs associated with the handling of wheat in New South Wales, they might gain an understanding of the problems. In relation to the new wheat pricing, I quote the following statement by the Federal Minister— "The new domestic price is $24.16 per tonne less than the 1983-84 price for ASW wheat under the previous scheme." The wheat industry would be one of the few industries that has had to accept a reduction in the domestic price that it receives. Opposition members say what a great bloke Mr Kerin is, that he is a friend of the farmer and that he is a great Minister for Primary Industry. What did Mr Kerin do after he had negotiated that new domestic price? I will tell honourable members what Wheat MarkeUng BUI 28 November 1984 3205 he did. He went out and crowed to the metropolitan media of Sydney, Melboume and all the big cities about reducing the price of bread by a couple of cents a loaf The wheat-growers of this State are subsidising the bread of Australia. That is what Mr Kerin did. Opposition members cannot say that the wheat-growers have a friend in Mr Kerin. They have not. The wheat-growers should not have any fancy ideas about the attitudes of the Opposition or of Mr Kerin. If the member for Murmmba had not heard the Minister's second-reading speech, he would not have been able to speak to the Bill. I am pleased that this legislation has come before the House. Pressure has been brought to bear on members of the Government to introduce it because of the humbug spread by the Australian Wheat Board. It is pretty poor that Mr Kerin had the power to direct the board but did not use it. It is a pretty poor show that the Australian Wheat Board, which has a moral obligation to pay the growers, has not done so. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (7.55 p.m.): Two members have made a contribution to the debate. A major contribution was made by the member for Yeronga, who, as soon as the spokesman for the Opposition rose to speak, heaped ridicule and interjection on him. That will be his only contribution to the debate. His ridicule is about on a par with his competence in the field. The member for Balonne raised two interesting points. He said that the shadow Minister spoke drivel and humbug. What a contribution to the debate! The honourable member said that the Government is worried about giving away powers to the Federal Government and about the Australian Wheat Board. The Australian Wheat Board has been marketing wheat on behalf of Queensland growers since 1949; yet the Minister for Primary Industries, who has been in the portfolio for only 12 months, said in his second-reading speech, "I will question what they are doing." The member for Balonne made a similar statement. I repeat that the Australian Wheat Board has been marketing Queensland wheat since 1949. What a threat for the Minister and the Government to make! What experience do these people have to question the Australian Wheat Board? Mr De Lacy: Tell us about the democracy exhibited in the membership of the Queensland Sugar Board. Government members talk about democracy on the Australian Wheat Board. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes. It was very interesting to hear the member for Balonne speak about democracy and grower representation on the Australian Wheat Board. What has this Government done about grower representation on the Sugar Board? Not one person on the Sugar Board has been nominated or elected by growers. The Govemment's sincerity is reflected in its actions. Mr Davis: They are quiet now. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes. Honourable members opposite believe in democracy—a totalitarian democracy! They believe in mle by the National Party only. This is an important Bill; the wheat industry is important to Queensland. For the first time in the history of Queensland, over one million hectares has been planted to wheat. The expected production is over two million tonnes. The industry is so important that the National Party State Government has been prepared to put politics before the industry. That is disappointing. It has already done it to the sugar industry. The sugar industry is the largest primary industry and manufacturing industry in Queensland, but the Government is prepared to put politics before the growers and the industry. The legislation before the House required co-operation with Australian farmers to ensure the legality of payments made to growers. The Minister made many statements that were uncalled for. Perhaps they were not from his heart but were forced on him 3206 28 November 1984 Wheat MarkeUng Bill by the Premier and Treasurer, who adopts the attitude of a combatant whenever Canberra is involved. Talk about procrastination and indifference on the part of the Commonwealth Government and sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the Australian Wheat Board does not help to obtain a spirit of consensus. Queensland cannot hope to secure the best deal with an attitude such as that. It was not only on one occasion that the Minister was critical. He went on to refer to the Canberra socialists and their attitudes to the needs and problems of farmers. The Minister said, "They do not care about Queensland." Such comments cause dissatisfaction, discontent and fear in the minds of growers about the Federal Government. I believe that the Minister only makes these comments because of the forthcoming Federal election. I suggest that the Bill could have been introduced more easily and that it would have been agreed to by all honourable members had the Minister not resorted to scaremongering and political point-scoring. Two major differences arise in the Federal Govemment and State Govemment provisions contained in the complementary legislation. The first concerns the payment provision provided for under the State Act and the second is the determination of the guaranteed minimum price for different categories of wheat. For the benefit of the honourable member for Yeronga (Mr Lee), I emphasise that the initials GMP stand for guaranteed minimum price. Doubt remained about whether the Queensland Govemment would authorise payment to be made to the growers, the State Wheat Board, or a combination of the two. This caused a problem for the Australian Wheat Board and the Federal Govemment. It is important, therefore, for the Queensland Opposition, in the interests of the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Government, to ensure that payments made to growers are legally authorised and are in fact made to the growers. I refer to previous examples of the sugar industry and the Rural Reconstmction Board Fund. The Queensland Government had siphoned off funds that should have been provided for the benefit of growers and farmers in Queensland. The Queensland Government indicated that it intended to change these provisions, and the Australian Wheat Board was then placed in the difficult situation of not knowing just what action the Queensland Government intended to take, and in what respects the Queensland legislation would differ from that of the Federal Govemment. For that reason, it is important to make certain that the legislation is complementary and that the provisions authorising payment are legal. Representatives of the Queensland wheat-growers and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation met with representatives of the Australian Wheat Board in the Federal Department of Primary Industry only last week. At that meeting, the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation representatives clarified their intentions relating to the two courses that are presently a matter of contention, and this information was conveyed to the Queensland Minister the following day. It is interesting to note that it was not until the BiU was introduced yesterday that the Australian Wheat Board could have been certain as to the provisions contained in the Queensland legislation, and I ask the Minister to confirm that the Federal Government did not know until yesterday exactly what the ramifications of the legislation would be. If any breakdown in communication occurs, perhaps it is as a result of the course of action that I have outlined. Perhaps it is because the Queensland Govemment has not been prepared to work with the Federal Government in the interests of growers, Mr De Lacy: Would you tmst a tory? Mr CAMPBELL: 1 would not trust a tory with the sugar-growers' money or with the wheat-growers' money. Wheat Marketing Bill 28 November 1984 3207

Until the Australian Wheat Board received this information, it would have been possible for payments to be made without any legal basis at all. That is interesting because the honourable member for Toowoomba North (Mr McPhie) said that there was no need for the Opposition shadow Minister to ensure that the legal basis was clear. It was the same honourable member who this moming told us that he knew all about the provisions of Standing Orders. Suddenly he knows all about the legal basis for payments to growers. Mr McPHIE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Bundaberg is making accusations against me, but he will not specify the accusations. If he is going to accuse me, I ask the honourable member to elaborate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! There is no point of order. Mr CAMPBELL: Because I was intermpted, I will have to retum to the beginning of my speech. A document that I received from Mr Kerin's office stated— "Any delay Queensland Wheat-growers have experienced in receiving the preliminary GMP is entirely the responsibility of the Queensland Government—if it had made known the way in which it intended to handle clauses 20 and 15 (6) then no delay would have been experienced." I find two aspects of that very interesting and important, because this legislation is intended to help the Queensland growers. To begin with, I come back to what the Minister said in his speech— "Thus Queensland growers of premium wheat as well as having their prime hard and hard wheat underwritten at higher levels than ASW wheat, will, more importantly, receive a higher overall first advance." Why should they put themselves in jeopardy if they were going to receive a higher overall advance? I believe it would have benefited growers to receive that higher overall advance and that this Government should have endeavoured to co-operate. The Minister also said— "The intention is that the Queensland scheme will be similar to that applying in the other States, but in Queensland it will be administered by the State Wheat Board with permits being issued on the payment of prescribed fees." It is great to be different. At least the system will provide more flexibility and that will benefit growers. I give the Minister credit for that. The Minister also said— "The Australian Wheat Board is on trial as far as I am concerned. It has disgraced itself over the past two weeks. Now it must produce the goods by way of immediate payments to growers and efficient marketing of the crop. If the board cannot produce the goods, it might not be marketing the Queensland wheat crop for much longer." 1 do not believe that those sentiments are in the interests of an Australian industry; they are not in the interests of an industry whose growers should be working together. It is appalling to think that this Government, with aU its experience, has to make such threats and adopt such a pathetic attitude, particularly when it is realised that the Australian Wheat Board has been doing the job since 1949. I believe that the Minister is sincere in many of the things he does, and perhaps pressure placed on him by the Premier and Treasurer has caused him to adopt such a confrontationist attitude. In this instance all States should get together and thus make certain that Queensland grain-growers, as well as all other Australian wheat-growers, will benefit from this legislation. 3208 28 November 1984 Wheat MarkeUng Bill

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (8.8 p.m.): I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the Minister. I agree whole-heartedly with the criticism that he has levelled at Mr John Kerin and with his threat that possibly Queensland would become an independent exporter. I want to comment on a couple of points made by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger) spoke about Queensland's stance and how it was no good for public relations. It seems that he is trying to achieve consensus. I put it to him that that is pure hypocrisy, because if the ALP was tmly looking for consensus, Mr Kerin would have readily agreed to release the money. Mr Kerin is talking semantics when he asks whether the money will go to the State Wheat Board or the growers. The honourable member also said that the Queensland Govemment had been highly critical of Mr Flugge. I do not recall any criticism by the Queensland Govemment or the Minister of Mr Flugge; the criticism has come from the growers themselves. The ALP finds it very difficult to make any inroads into the grain industry in Queeiisland, because the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the State Wheat Board—in fact all the growers—are rock solid behind the Queensland Govemment. Govemment mem­ bers are espousing their thoughts; they are here representing the growers themselves and not spouting ideologies Mr Campbell: The grain-growers are going to go back to marketing sorghum themselves are they? Mr LITTLEPROUD: They are marketing. The member for Bundaberg said that the Australian Wheat Board has been marketing wheat and acting as the sole selling agent since 1949. That is correct. That is why Queensland did not take lightly any consideration of going it alone. But why should Queensland growers take such a decision, and why would the Minister threaten that Queensland would go it alone? It is because the Govemment has been approached by the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the State Wheat Board and told how they feel. They have no confidence whatsoever in the proposed changes to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board. They find that they are now being stood over by a Minister who is using the power of the purse. At the last moment, he thinks that he can withhold money so that the growers will become discontented. He thought that they would vent their spleen on the Queensland Government. In fact, his move has backfired. In recent days. Government members have had consultations with all levels of the industry. We found that the Govemment is espousing the theories that they favour. They want it to go ahead with this legislation. The honourable member for Bundaberg displayed his great understanding of economics when he said that one of the provisions in the Federal legislation meant that there would be a higher first advance to growers. I remind him that the first advance has a lower priority than the final payment to growers. I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the viability of wheat farmers is of great concern. I have identified the major cause of the trouble as the on-farm costs. I will give more details concerning those costs in due course. Before doing so, I want to defend the efficiency of the grain-farmer. Australian primary producers are amongst the most efficient producers in the agricultural industries of the world. Indeed, the grain industry, in particular, has a long history of being highly innovative and inventive. History records that Australian farmers invented stump-jump ploughs and other cultivation equipment, and H. V McKay was credited with the invention of the forerunners of the present grain-harvesters. Today, the agricultural machinery manufacturers of Australia are recognised as being to the fore in the invention of air seeders. Air seeders are implements used for planting grain. They enable broad-acre farmers to plant large areas quickly and sow their crops Wheat Marketing Bill 28 November 1984 3209 under optimium soil conditions. The Dalby manufacturer, Napier-Grasslands, is one of Australia's leading innovative manufacturers. That puts to rest any claim about the Australian grain industry being inefficient. The tme attack on the viability of the grain industry comes from off the farm. Much of the blame can be placed on the Federal Govemments over the years. For many years, the uninformed people of this nation have carried the notion that farmers receive huge subsidies at the expense of urban dwellers. It is tme that the average Australian farmer is the recipient of Govemment subsidies calculated by the Industries Assistance Commission to be worth approximately $4,500 a farm each year. The people who continually attack the subsidies—and the honourable member for Brisbane Central is certainly one of them—should listen carefully, for there is more to this issue. It should be revealed that the protection paid to other Australian industries is so huge that is has been estimated to cost $12,600 a farm each year. In fact, after examining the whole matter, Mr Julian Cribb, a noted agricultural joumalist, had this to say— "Australia's farmers are losing the great Australian handout grab by a mile. When the total cost of tariff protection to each farm is weighed against the total assistance the farmer receives, he is losing about $8,100 a year, on average." It can be asserted that tariffs affect farmers in four ways. Firstly tariffs jack up the cost of farm inputs. The result is that, because farmers must sell their wheat on the world market, the cost of production in Australia is loaded with tariffs that their overseas competitors do not have to bear. Secondly, tariffs lower export retums for the exported products because the Australian dollar is lifted to an artificially high level on the international market. Thirdly, tariffs shut overseas manufacturers out of the Australian markets and create bad trade relations. Fourthly, through the wage rise/tariff nexus that exists in Australia, tariffs have the effect of driving up the national inflation rate. Economists calculate that the real value of the tariff protection is of the order of $35 a tonne of wheat. If the current price of wheat is about $145 a tonne for ASW quality, it can be seen that the $35 represents a significant impost of about 24 per cent on each tonne of wheat. To be more specific about the actual items carrying tariff protection, I could quote the findings of the Industries Assistance Commission, which claim that the direct cost of tariffs is about 5 per cent to 6 per cent of all farm costs. Of course, tariffs are also an indirect cost. Many industries servicing the farm sector must buy cars, tyres, steel buildings, and so on, that carry tariff protection. These industries then pass on the tariff charges to their clients, the farmers. In reality, the direct and indirect costs of tariffs to farmers are far more than 5 per cent to 6 per cent a year. The Industries Assistance Commission has calculated that a $12,000 farm vehicle carries a $4,200 farm impost, and that a cultivator worth $13,500 carries a loading of $2,025 in the form of tariff protection for the steel industry and other industries. The 15 per cent tariff paid on grain-headers increases the price of that machinery by $10,000 per machine. I have made these comments because grain industry leaders and the State Govemment are determined to protect the interests of the wheat-farmers of Queensland. The legislation before the House has been subject to some political manoeuvring by Mr John Kerin, who is keen to force the State Wheat Board into submision by withholding growers' first payments for the current crop. The grain industry in Queensland is united in the stand that is is taking. It is imperative that the Queensland Wheat Board controls the receipt, transportation and export of Queensland grain. To highlight the validity of this stand, I remind honourable members opposite of the tragic burden being carried by wheat-growers because of the carry-over of wheat in storage in New South Wales. Currently in New South Wales the carry-over of last year's

64170—109 3210 28 November 1984 Wheat Marketing BiU crop is 3 500 000 tonnes. It has been estimated that this is costing each grower $25 for each tonne that he has delivered to the board. No-one can afford to lose $25 per tonne. Why should Queensland wheat-growers pay for the inefficiency of the New South Wales Grain Elevators Board and the New South Wales ports? It must be remembered that Queensland wheat-growers have no say in who mns the New South Wales facihties or how they are mn. Why should the wheat-growers of Queensland be penahsed by bodies over which they exercise no democratic control? I fully support the efforts of the Minister for Primary Industries in introducing this legislation, I congratulate him and industry leaders in Queensland on negotiating our stance and acting as a unified body to implement this State's policies. It is little wonder that the National Party has a long history of acceptability in mral Queensland, Hon. N. J. TURNER (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries) (8,17 p,m,), in reply: I take this opportunity to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. This Bill is complementary legislation, and it has the support of most honourable members. My department has consulted with the industry, and the Bill has the support of the industry, I thank the honourable member for Murmmba for his contribution. He suggested that, in relation to my introductory statements on this Bill, I may have been a httle harsh. I assure the honourable member that my words describing the Commonwealth Govemment and its actions were mild compared with the words of the wheat-farmers who have yet to be paid. Although the Australian Wheat Board should have paid Queensland wheat-growers, it must be remembered that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry has the power to direct the Australian Wheat Board to effect payments and to shoulder its responsibility to Queensland wheat-growers. The honourable member for Murmmba spoke about a mix-up or a lack of negotiation between the State and the Commonwealth. I assure him that consultation at ministerial and departmental level has been taking place since July last. Constmctive discussion has not been helped by the refusail of the Commonwealth to reply to a number of letters from my department. The real problem is that the Australian Wheat Board has not paid Queensland wheat-growers when it had a duty to do so. As to the safeguard measures—I hope and expect that the Commonwealth Govem­ ment and the Australian Wheat Board will get on and do their job. The Australian Wheat Board is on trial. The legislation that I have introduced meets Queensland's obligations. The Bill is completely in keeping with the agreement that I negotiated with the Federal Minister at the last Australian Agricultural Council meeting in TownsvUle. If the Federal Minister and his department are unclear about Queensland's position, I must say that I do not think that they have done their homework. As I have said, the Commonwealth has not replied to my department's correspondence on the subject. I stress that the real problem over recent weeks has been the failure of the Australian Wheat Board to pay the money due to Queensland wheat-growers. The Federal Minister has not seen fit to force the Wheat Board to pay up under the powers that he has under the Act. Because the member for Balonne is a wheat-grower, he has an intimate knowledge of the industry. He made very valid points about the attitude of the Queensland industry to this Bill. I have been in close consultation with Queensland wheat industry leaders and they support fully the stand that has been taken on this complementary legislation. The industry leaders and I are determined that we will not sell out the Queensland industry or the State Wheat Board. For this reason, I have no intention of accepting in total the model draft legislation that the Commonwealth tried to thmst on Queensland. Let there be no mistake—that point has been made for many, many months. The point was made at the July meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council when I Stamp Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3211 thought that I had Mr Kerin's support. In fact, my department has endeavoured to obtain confirmation from the Commonwealth department on these points. That the department has not replied to these letters can only lead honourable members to draw their own conclusions. I do not want a breakdown in the wheat-marketing arrangements, but I will not let the interests of Queensland wheat-growers or the State Wheat Board be compromised or jeopardised. The honourable member for Bundaberg spoke at some length, and I was at sixes and sevens to know whether he was talking on the wheat industry or the sugar industry. I thank him for his interesting discourse on the contemporary history of the Australian wheat-marketing arrangements. However, I do not agree that the Queensland Govemment has put politics before the industry. In fact, the Govemment has put Queensland wheat- growers first, and will continue to do so. I agree with consensus, but I will not lie down and let Queensland wheat-growers lose their rightful position in the Australian wheat industry. The honourable member for Bundaberg apparently expects the Australian Wheat Board to direct the Queensland Govemment and the industry in this State. I assure the honourable member that the Govemment of Queensland, of which I am a member, will not tolerate such impertinence. What the honourable member apparently cannot recognise, even though I have said it several times, is that the content of the Queensland legislation is in keeping with the agreement that was reached with Mr Kerin at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting this year. It is not for me to advise the Australian Wheat Board; that is Mr Kerin's job. I indicated that he and the Australian Wheat Board had the power to pay the growers. Either Mr Kerin has fallen down on his job or the Australian Wheat Board has. I am not interested in who is responsible. The point is that Queensland—and only Queensland— wheat-growers have not been paid because of a breakdown in the Canberra system. My information is that growers in other States were paid before the passing of the complementary legislation. I question why. The honourable member for Condamine spoke of tariffs and I completely concur with what he had to say. I thank honourable members once again for their contributions to the debate. The House has other legislation to deal with, so I simply commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Turner) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 48, and schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Tumer, read a third time.

STAMP ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3092) on Mr Gunn's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (8.26 p.m.): At the outset, I want to make some comments about the proceedings tonight. I understand that Parliament could be rising this evening. That is a tremendous surprise to me, particularly as it was considered that Parliament would be sitting tomorrow. Parliament wiU certainly be sitting late tonight. Honourable members have seen the usual sausage-machine approach to Bills that were brought in at very late notice. The Opposition is being forced to debate them tonight. The Opposition and anybody else who is concemed about the Bills cannot give due consideration to them. 3212 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Perhaps I should not say that it surprises me to leam that the Govemment intends that the House rise this evening. I can well understand why Govemment members want to get out of this place as quickly as possible. They want to get out because of the pressures that have been applied and because they do not want to give an opportunity to the Opposition tomorrow to continue the probing to which they have been subjected for a long period. That is unfortunate, because many questions need to be answered. I understand that, following the debate on this Bill, one of the casino Bills is to be debated. It was brought to my notice that the casino Bill is chock-full of stamp duty exemptions that will benefit people such as Mr Thiess and people of similar stature involved in casino operations. It is a great shame that the Queensland Govemment has been selective and has not given the same type of stamp duty exemption to a host of other persons. I refer particularly to transactions that take place within the ailing sugar industry. I hope that when the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill is debated within the next hour, honourable members will take note of what I have said about the stamp duty concessions that the Queensland Govemment intends to give to people involved in that casino operation. Unquestionably, the Stamp Act is one of the most complex pieces of State legislation. Needless to say, the Bill does not make the position any clearer. As I said, the Govemment has adopted a sausage-machine approach to this legislation. That inevitably results in mistake after mistake being made by the Govemment. Honourable members have seen that happen before. They saw the mortgages (secondary market) legislation introduced in a great flurry, with the Premier and Treasurer entering into a public relations fiasco, only to see it amended considerably today through absolute necessity. Suddenly a great msh has come over the Govemment to introduce what it regards as urgent legislation. I repeat that, in respect of that type of legislation, it is inevitable that mistake after mistake will be made. I understand that the member for Murmmba, when speaking to another Bill, said that the Opposition cannot accept any responsibility for the legitimacy of the proposals that are now under consideration. It is impossible for Opposition members or, for that matter, any other interested person, to give a considered opinion on complex legislation that is bundled on at such late notice. The Opposition is expected to debate the matter whUe the Govemment endeavours to hurry through it and get away from the fire and brimstone that it has had to face in recent times. Mr Menzel: Rubbish! Mr WARBURTON: It is not mbbish at all. If only Govemment members knew the full story. If the House sat tomorrow, they would find out exactly what I mean. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees who is interjecting and doing the very things that on a previous occasion you and the Speaker said that the Opposition should not do. That honourable member, who holds such a responsible position in this Parliament, is repeatedly interjecting. As I said, it is impossible for the Opposition to give a properly considered opinion on some aspects of the Bill. It would seem to be one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament for a long time, and the Opposition deserves the opportunity of examining it closely. The Govemment, in its wisdom, has decided to give stamp duty tax relief selectively in respect of mral properties transferred from parents to children or from grandparents to grandchildren. That selective treatment will apply also to certain family businesses. The BiU ensures that no stone is left unturned in making mral properties and certain businesses subject to this tax-free transfer. The tax-free transfer in the case of mral property, for example, will include buildings, chattels and personal property. A prescribed family property includes shares in or a right in respect of shares in a family company that holds property consisting of land and estate or interest in land together with chattels and other personal property. Stamp Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3213

The selective tax relief for small businesses is discriminatory and must be destined for trouble. The Govemment intends to give stamp duty tax relief to one section of business and not another. Parents who give a shop to their children, which might be an extremely lucrative business, will be exempt from paying stamp duty. The fact that the parents may be millionaires or that they may own countless other businesses and properties does not appear to matter to this Govemment. On the other hand, parents who, for example, own a hotel in one of our dying country towns—a business that has suffered because of this Government's lack of decentralisation policies—and decide that they have had enough of the stmggle and would like to hand the business over to their children will, under this legislation, still be required to pay stamp duty tax. That is the difference. On the one hand the Government will grant stamp duty exemption on a shop, workshop or factory if it is handed from parents to children or from grandparents to grandchildren; on the other hand, other businesses such as hotels and motels will not enjoy that privilege. It is one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation ever to hit the table of the Parliament. Let me give a typical example of this Government's discrimination. Hundreds and hundreds of elderly pensioner couples throughout our State have dedicated their lives to improving their lot in life. If one such couple reside in my suburb of Deagon and if they decide to give their children their home, which they have only recently paid off after making interest and redemption payments for their whole lives—the husband has been a labourer and only in the couple's later years have they paid it off—what happens to them? Will they be given the advantage of the stamp duty relief that is given to the Gunns and the Bjelke-Petersens of this State? No fear! If they are very old and desire to do something for their children by handing their property over to them, what do they get? They get what they have always received—a bill for stamp duty! Mr Casey: This is the Year of the Family—National Party families only. Mr WARBURTON: Yes. It is discriminatory. I repeat that it is one of the worst pieces of discriminatory legislation ever to be presented to the Parliament. The elderly pensioners I used as an example are required to obtain a valuation. The Govemment's Stamp Duties Office charges ad valorem duty at the rate of $1.50 per $100 for the first $20,000. The rate increases with the amount. Elderly people, because they do not own rural properties as do the Premier and Treasurer, the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer and most National Party members, will continue to pay stamp duty on property transfers. That is absolutely obnoxious. Because the property given to their children is not a shop, a factory or a workshop, no matter how lucrative the business might be, the Government simply says, "Bad luck. It is bad luck to you elderly people. We promised tax relief, and what better idea than to give it to our friends and not the needy?" That is the concept adopted by the Govemment. I ask the Minister to explain to me and to the House how the Govemment can give stamp duty relief to a selected number of businesses. Heaven knows how the legislation will work out in the long mn. If the small business community in this State knew what was happening, they would be absolutely up in arms. It is bound to fail. It is bound to be the subject of a degree of controversy. There is no doubt about that. How can the Govemment say that people with large mral properties Mr Gunn: There are no little ones? They are all large. They are all monstrous. What about kids who have worked all their lives on the family farm? Mr WARBURTON: I am talking about the large ones at the moment. I am talking about the properties owned by the Deputy Premier, the Bjelke-Petersens, the member for Warwick (Mr Booth) and some of the other back-benchers. They are too fond of making life good for themselves. That is their whole philosophy in life. Their whole philosophy is to look after themselves and their friends. No means test is provided for in the Bill. The concession is granted no matter how lucrative the business might be. 3214 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment BiU (No. 2)

Mr Gunn: Everybody is a big man, according to you, and it is all according to a plan. Mr WARBURTON: I am glad that we have stirred the Deputy Premier out of his stupor. He has made the legislation to suit himself He should be condemned for it. The legislation means that he can hand his property to his children or to his grandchildren without paying stamp duty, whereas the ordinary workers of this State who have a home cannot transfer their property to their children and receive the same concession. That is why this is the worst sort of legislation that any Government could possibly bring down. It is appallingly discriminatory. Mr Gunn: You are very anti-mral. Mr WARBURTON: I am not anti-mral at all. What the Minister is trying to do is set up a hierarchy. Mr Gunn: You are a socialist. Mr WARBURTON: For the assistance of the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I will go as far as saying that there are some people in poor circumstances who are not so well off by virtue of living on the land and who may benefit from this legislation. However, I repeat that the legislation is not particularly designed for that purpose. Opposition members are aware of who was responsible for the introduction of this measure, and I have no doubt that other honourable members will also wish to address some remarks to this issue. As I said, the legislation "smells" of giving to the rich while continuing to take from the poor. I repeat my allegation that the Bill is completely discriminatory, yet typical of the selective way in which the Queensland Govemment conducts its affairs. The legislation would be better described as the "Bjelke-Petersen/Gunn Family Stamp Duty Rehef Bill" Mr INNES (Sherwood) (8.41 p.m.): I reiterate some of the complaints that have been made by the previous speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, about complicated legislation that was presented to honourable members for consideration only 24 hours or so ago. Having to debate the Bill tonight is a heavy imposition and an impossible task. However, from the brief reading that one has been able to undertake Mr Gunn interjected. Mr INNES: At least I read the legislation, and I point that out to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Many questions arise from the principles of the BiU. Apart from not having had the time to check matters of detail, insufficient time has been allowed to check the amendments against the original intention of the Act. Important questions of principle appear to be involved in this legislation, and I mention that without having had an opportunity to make anything but a rudimentary comparison between the Bill and the phraseology of the principal Act, quite apart from delving into the provisions of the Bill in any detail. The resolution of questions of principle necessarily involves the examination of the underiying policy, the traditional policy that frames the Act, and what is stated to be the effect of proposed exemptions. Exemptions, impositions and reversals of existing legal interpretation are all involved in this legislation, and I turn now to deal with exemptions. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the legislation is highly discriminatory. In broad terms, the Act has always worked on the basis that the impact of its provisions should fall upon all transactions that are represented in documentary form, regardless of the class of transaction. I repeat that the exemptions apply irrespective of the class of document involved. Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3215

It is obvious that no service is provided in retum for the imposition of tax. We know that the tax is purely an impost. It is of significant importance in the provision of revenue for the State of Queensland. It is one thing for the impact to fall squarely on all those who engage in certain kinds of transactions, because taxes have to be paid so that Government services are provided; it is another thing to provide concessions for some only, and this is the area in which significant problems emerge. A brief examination of the broad concepts of the Bill indicates that important questions must be asked. For instance, the provision applies to all transfers of mral property, land and interest in land and chattels that are necessary to carry on the business of farming, dairying, or grazing on that land. There is no exemption; there is no limit; there is no threshold. It could be a $ 3m or a $ 5m property.

Mr Warburton: It could be five farms. Mr INNES: Yes, it could be five farms. It could be an enormously wealthy interest that is passed on. Let us not beat about the bush. Everybody knows that this legislation has emerged from the bush. It is designed and introduced because obviously some people with access to power have determined that they do not like paying the impost that everybody else has to pay. Other people automatically pay a certain rate of tax according to the value of the property. As I said, a broad category of people is exempted, and exempted without limitations on amount. The legislation has been dressed up with some concession for the small- businessman, but it is not yet known who that will be, because, as I see it, that wUl depend upon categorisation. What is known is that the legislation will apply to some small businesses, but not to others. Every professional is specifically excluded. If a person leaves an accountancy practice, a solicitors practice, a medical practice or premises in which they are conducted to his children—no exemption! The Government says, "We will be looking at the concept of a shop, workshop or factory and its succession." I do not think that any member would support taxing people so that family income- producing properties can no longer be transferred from parent to child. Gift duties and death duties of a significant order can be iniquitous and can cause the breakdown of income-producing property. But stamp duty has not been of that order. After all, if one is forced to sell a property, stamp duty is payable. It is different from death duty. If one looks at the alternative of a forced sale, stamp duty is payable anyhow. This involves exemption from a tax which normally attaches to the document of transfer, in this case from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. And there are real problems about it, because it is highly selective. It does not apply to the sort of property owned by virtually everybody in this State or to vital transactions in which virtually everybody is involved. There are many elderly parents who would like to leave their family home to their children. There are many elderly parents who have a child who lives with them and looks after them for the majority of their lives, and, as a gesture they wish to and do leave the house to the child. But there is no exemption in this legislation for the httle person or for a general range of transactions that would offer to the general community some benefit from the concession. The other face of this legislation is that what is exempted has to be picked up somewhere else; it is not an exemption pure and simple and that is the end of it. The need for revenue remains, and the burden goes to other people. The burden goes to the everyday transaction in which the ordinary Queenslander is involved. Hire-purchase documents attract stamp duty; cheques attract stamp duty; insurance policies attract stamp duty—almost everything one does in life attracts stamp duty. Two or three years ago I gave an illustration of an average small business in which I think about 12 per cent of turnover went in stamp duty of one form or another. There is a problem with this legislation and members have not been given sufficient time to look at it. 3216 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

I am very concerned about the rationale behind it. As I have said, I have no problem about devices to stop the breakdown of a family business and the maintenance of an income-producing family business. The way in which that legislation is framed, there is no ceiling for mral properties, irrespective of how much money is involved, but a ceiling of $500,000 applies to the small businesses that are exempt. What is the difference? Is it because a small workshop is in an urban area of Australia? Is a small workshop worth $600,000 different from a small farm worth $600,000? Should there be discrimination between a small businessman in a city or town with a business worth $550,000 and a grazier with a property worth $10m? I do not think that there should be. I cannot see the rationale behind such a distinction and it is absurd to try to debate such an important matter at this hour. People who conduct small businesses are also to be subjected to extraordinary discrimination. The professional people do not get a fair mn in this Parliament. There seems to be a dislike of professional people. Mr Campbell: And education. Mr INNES: Education is a problem. Why should medical practices, legal practices and other professional practices be discriminated against? What reason is there for discriminating against them and not another small business? Do they not employ stenotypists and other young people? Do they not involve a lifetime of building up assets? Where is the logic? Govemment members cannot come up with a logical answer. Another discrimination is made against "attractive", easily resaleable capital invest­ ments, such as hotels and motels. I know some hoteliers in Queensland whose families have been in business for four generations. The families could rightly say, "This is our livelihood; this is our heritage. We intend to leave it to our children. We do not intend to sell." But they are not exempt. Where is the rationale behind the distinction, except that very limited, very special categories of people are being catered for? To go a little further—let me point out what happens when people are exempted. The Government has to tighten up elsewhere. One section that is tightened up deals with small business itself A decision was handed down in the courts of this State in the case of Kemtron Industries and the Commissioner of Stamp Duties. Quite a usual device for small businesses is the setting up of a tmst or a unit tmst system. Those systems are specifically mentioned for the favoured businesses that fall within the exemptions of this legislation, such as grazing properties and very special small businesses. The case of Kemtron and the Commissioner of Stamp Duties involved a transfer of five out of 20 units in a unit tmst system. It was a quite usual, lawful device for people in small businesses and family partnerships to use to arrange their affairs. As 1 recall it, the commissioner had maintained a distinction between interests in private unit trusts and public unit trusts. Private unit tmsts were assessed according to one consideration and public unit tmsts were looked at as marketable securities—in the same way as shares—and the duty was 60c per $100. In the case of units in a private trust—and legally I cannot see the basis for distinction—the rates were the same as for real estate, that is, $1.50, as a base, up to $3.75 per $100 at the maximum level. The stamp duty in the Kemtron case was assessed on the gross value of the tmst. An appeal was lodged and the Supreme Court held that it should be assessed on the value of the trust less liabilities. For instance, if the trust assets were a farm worth $lm, and if the trustees were involved in a loan of $800,000, the assessable value would be $200,000, not $lm. The person assessed for stamp duty in that case appealed and the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected the distinction that was drawn and said that the value was assessable on the gross value less liabilities and on apportioning the relevant number of units. Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3217

As I understand it, this legislation reverses the effect of the decision in the Kemtron case. However, I understood that it had been intended not to reverse that decision. With this legislation, the Government wiU preserve a discrimination against private tmsts, whose unit values will be assessable at the same rate as real estate with a basic valuation of $1.50 up to $3.75 per $100, depending on the value. Public tmsts, public companies or big corporations will be assessed at the rate of 60c per $100. I have not had time to go through the full details of this legislation and I am very deeply concerned about its implications. Liberal Party members have not had time to sit down and discuss its implications. We do know that it is revenue-raising legislation, and that was mentioned in the Budget. Liberal Party members also know that much discretion can still be exercised by virtue of the legislation to determine which unlucky business will miss out and which lucky business will be in. I must say that the fundamental principle or general philosophy of the Act concerning the taxability of transactions of a certain nature, no matter where they fall, has been substantially changed and modified. Under this legislation, some people will be real winners; the rest will be losers, and the losers will have to make up the difference. Why should a grazier with $10m worth of property be exempt from the provisions of the legislation because he wants to leave his assets to his children whereas a person who has a non-exempt small business will be assessed at the going rate? The only basis for that distinction is the completely sectional favouritism of this Govemment to people on the land. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (8.58 p.m.): The fair and equitable principle of taxation—equal taxes for those with equal ability to pay—is broken by this legislation. I am concemed and disappointed with the disturbing trend displayed by this Govemment to discriminate and to give concessions and sectional benefits to those who least need them. In other words, the benefits flow to the wealthy. Many members of the National Party Govemment will personally benefit from this legislation. The Government has a very selfish attitude. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer displayed that same attitude when he was talking about aid to the self-help sugar project in Bangladesh. He was prepared to say that charity begins at home, even though that project is to help starving people. As the honourable member for Mackay has said, this year has been the Year of the Family. It has been the year of the National Party family. Mr Casey interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I remind the honourable member for Mackay that, as the Leader of the Opposition is in the Chamber, he cannot be representing him, so that he must be in other than his usual place. Mr CAMPBELL: Because the Bill forms part of the Budget, it will be passed without a division being caUed. I accept that. But the Bill is very bad. I hope that the House never sees the likes of it again. Although this Govemment can now give concessions to the wealthy, and on a very discriminatory basis to small business people, only last year it increased the imposition of stamp duty payable by the battler and the ordinary Queenslander—the home-owner. I will take the Chamber back to 1983 when savage increases in stamp duty on home fire insurance were introduced. The Govemment displayed its attitude of "sock-it-to- 'em" and "bleed the last dollar" out of pensioners and home-owners in Queensland. One Bundaberg pensioner owns a $40,000 house and received an insurance biU of $66, of which $16.50—that is 25 per cent—was stamp duty. I repeat that that person is a pensioner. Yet the Government can, a year later, give concessions to the wealthy, to those who have the ability to pay. That same pensioner now pays a $48 fire services levy, which means that $64.50, or 98 per cent of his premium, is now paid in State 3218 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Govemment charges. It is the unemployed home-owner, the Queensland family and pensioners who have the least ability to pay. Because the Government is prepared to impose savage increases on pensioners in one year and give concessions to those who least need them the next, this legislation is repugnant. Personally, I am totally opposed to it. However, because the legislation is part of the Budget, I will go along with it, but I personally would have been prepared to call for a division. That the Government is prepared to tax pensioners to the extent of 25 per cent of their house insurance while giving concessions to the wealthy is both bad and immoral. I am totally ashamed to be part of the legislative process that will pass this Bill. I oppose it totally. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (9.3 p.m.): I am very proud to take a positive stance in opposition to the views of the member for Bundaberg. I represent a mral area, one that has many, many small businesses. The benefits that will flow as a result of this Bill to those communities and, therefore, to the whole of the Queensland community will last for many, many years. Therefore, the whole Queensland community will benefit. Mr Campbell: What about the pensioner? Mr STONEMAN: The pensioner will benefit in untold ways. One must remember the old maxim: You have to leam to walk before you can mn. The benefit to the mral communities will mean that those who are in the forefront of free enterprise in this State—farmers and small-businessmen—will be able to survive and continue to pay taxes and thus serve the best interests of the community, which is made up of pensioners, politicians and many others. This is the Year of the Family and I am proud that the Govemment has seen fit to introduce this beneficial measure in such a year. The Govemment has recognised the means by which it can help to keep families together on their farms. My area has 800 cane-farmers. I would be interested to hear the honourable member for Bundaberg teU the cane-farmers of his electorate that he is ashamed of the legislation, that he is opposed to it and that if he had his way he would call a division in the House and vote against it. Mr I. J. Gibbs: Mr Casey said that he wanted to bring death duties back. Mr STONEMAN: I know that. I will be very interested to see the reaction by the people who will benefit from this measure to the recognition by this Govemment that they need to be given assistance to survive. In the unlikely event that Mr Hawke is returned, I will be interested to hear their reaction if he brings in death duties, gift duties, other duties and the assets test. Opposition members purport to be very interested in the welfare of pensioners. However, they condone the introduction of the assets test and say that, under that test, very few persons will pay. It is like Big Brother; 1984 is definitely here. People will have to declare account numbers of their savings accounts and things such as that. However, the honourable member for Bundaberg said that he is ashamed that the Queensland Government is trying to assist those persons in private enterprise, who are paying the taxes in this State, to survive. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is counteracting the capital gains and other taxes that are being proposed. Anything that helps business must help employment; anything that helps employment must help the tax-paying pool in this nation. The legislation contains positive gains for every member of the community. The member for Sherwood referred to real winners and losers. If one looks at an Act of Parliament in a narrow sense, I suppose there are winners and losers. The people are the losers because of the taxes foreshadowed at the Federal level. Queensland is taking positive action to overcome some of the problems. Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3219

The farmer and the small business person and the pensioner cannot strike for benefits. Unfortunately, the pensioners had no say about the assets test. Hundreds of pensioners have entered my office, saying, "What do we do with these papers?" Mr Warburton: Are you telling them the tmth? Mr STONEMAN: I have told them the tmth. I have told them that that is the sort of thing that Mr Hawke and his Govemment are bringing in. Pensioners cannot strike for the benefits that this State is trying to obtain for them. Most farmers are battlers. I have been a farmer all my life, and it is a battle from go to whoa. A person might be a miUionaire in asset terms today, but tomorrow he might be a pauper. I wish all farmers and graziers drove Rolls Royce motor cars and flew big aeroplanes. If they did that, they would be spending money, paying taxes and providing jobs. People at every level of community life would benefit, because the nation would not be going into debt more and more to pay the way of those less fortunate. The people who could afford to pay the taxes would be paying the taxes that are being imposed. I commend the Minister, his committee and the Government generally for recognising that a problem exists. If Mr Hawke were to win on Saturday and if all the taxes proposed were imposed, the problems could be exacerbated. If that does happen, I will ask the member for Bundaberg what he will say to the farmers and the small business people in his electorate—I acknowledge that he is a oncer—when he has said, "I opposed the legislation. I would have voted against it. I would have divided and done everything within my power to stop the legislation." I ask the honourable member to remember those words. He says that he is tmly interested in the primary producer and the smaU- businessmen in this State. As I said earlier, I commend the Minister on his introduction of the legislation. I support it totaUy. People from all political parties in my electorate are delighted with it. In my electorate there are many farmers, small-businessmen, pensioners and people who, unfortunately, do not have jobs. I am delighted, and I am sure that they are delighted, with the introduction of this Bill. Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (9.10 p.m.): Usually, Govemments are criticised for implementing taxes. This Government is removing a stamp duty tax, and it is being criticised for doing so. Mr Innes: More exemptions for more people. Mr JENNINGS: Obviously, there are many areas in which taxes could be looked at. Australians have a right to know what any Govemment will do in regard to taxes. That is a basic right. I notice that the Chamber is silent. That is because members of the Opposition agree with that. It is the right of the man in the street; the man on the bus—anyone—to know what the Govemment will do in the future. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is denying the people of this country the right to know what will happen in regard to capital gains tax, the assets test, death duties, gift duties—you name it, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Govemment is prepared to tell the people of Australia what it will do to try to help the family man who has a farm to reduce a few taxes. The Prime Minister of Australia is denying the people their basic right to know what he will do. It is incredible that the Labor Prime Minister is prepared to do that. I reiterate that it is a denial of basic rights. The honourable member for Bundaberg said that he opposes what the Govemment is trying to do. It is trying to enable certain families to remain productive units. Opposition members have said that the stamp duty tax relief does not apply to this and it does not apply to that. Of course it does not apply across the board. It is for a specific purpose. 3220 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

This year is the first year in which the National Party Government has been in control in Queensland, and this is one of the many steps that the Govemment has taken to help the family man and family businesses. Many other areas need to be looked at, and the Govemment will look at them. This Govemment is always looking towards the future, because it is progressive. It does not hide behind a Prime Minister who denies people their basic rights. This Govemment is prepared to tell the people of Queensland what it is doing. What it is doing is clear as a bell, in black and white, for everyone to see. The honourable member for Bundaberg says that he does not accept the Bill. He said that he would vote against it. WUl Opposition members support him? Who is the Leader of the Opposition? Is it the honourable member for Bundaberg? I thought that the honourable member for Sandgate was the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that this Bill assists the productive unit. An honourable member said that many members of the Queensland Government will benefit from the Bill. I do not know about that. Many Queenslanders will benefit from it; no doubt many members of the Opposition will benefit from it. That is what this Govemment is all about. It provides for all Queenslanders, not just for people from its own side of politics. It would like to do away with all taxes. I compliment the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on the introduction of the Bill. It will assist many people with family businesses—that is important to everyone—and enable them to provide for their children in the future. What is wrong with trying to protect the future of children? Opposition members might be against that, but this Govemment has a responsibility to protect families. That is what this Bill is all about. The Premier and Treasurer is looking after the whole of Queensland. It is a dynamic Bill—the first such Bill to be introduced in Australia—and it is introduced by the National Party. The Labor Party does not like it, because we are first again. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (9.14 p.m.), in reply: I thank aU honourable members for their contributions. Today I had the pleasure of announcing the move to Queensland of a large Victorian firm that is to employ 400 people. Mr John Reid, who is the managing director of Comsteel-Vickers in Victoria, said that his company is coming here because of this State's lower taxes. He says he will save millions of dollars by coming to Queensland. We have been progressive. Mr Borbidge: Workers' compensation is cheaper, too. Mr GUNN: For the same industry in Victoria, workers' compensation is 19 per cent. Here it is 6 per cent. The total enterprise is being moved to Queensland. They will be followed by many more. Mr Reid said that he had mng Mr Cain to tell him that he was coming to Queensland because it is a low-tax State. We have low taxes and duties. The Labor Opposition condemns us. The Bill contains many important provisions, and it would appear that the main issue for the Opposition is that dealing with the transfer of property by families. The Leader of the Opposition wants the people to believe that everybody on the land or in smaU business is wealthy. Nothing could be further from the tmth. The member for Mackay would know that well. I need only refer to the sugar-farmers in his electorate and in Bundaberg. Recently I was in Bundaberg, where I received deputations from farmers who wondered how long they could remain in business. It is imperative that families be retained on the farm. The honourable member for Sherwood said that he had not had time to read the Bill. Only this moming a leading Liberal solicitor rang me commending us for the introduction of the Bill. He said that it was a step in the right direction. Mr Davis: Who was that? Des Draydon? Stamp Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3221

Mr GUNN: No, it was not Des Draydon. However, the person I spoke to was echoing the sentiments of many people. Mr Innes: Who was that? Mr GUNN: That is my business, and his. I will not reveal information about private calls. What I will say is that he is more respected in the profession than the member for Sherwood. The member for Burdekin has a wide knowledge of smaU business and the man on the land. The Bill will be of great assistance to them. It will help keep families on the farm. I make the point that many young people have worked on the land for their parents, who are now pensioners and would not survive without the pension. They have never received any wages. Mr Stoneman: They are battlers. Mr GUNN: Yes, they are. I know dozens and dozens of them. Mr Warburton: What about the other battlers? Mr GUNN: The Leader of the Opposition worries about someone who may have made a few dollars. That is his biggest trouble. That is why he will always be in the Opposition. I make no apologies for the Bill. The amendments are excellent. I agree with the member for Southport. Mr Innes: Forget about the big guy. Mr GUNN: The member for Sherwood has made his speech. Mr Innes: What about the woman who stays at home and looks after the household? Why shouldn't she get it? Mr GUNN: We have been very progressive. The member for Sherwood must have a very short memory. We have gradually reduced pay-roll tax and stamp duties. Mr Innes: That is very good. Mr GUNN: We will continue to give consideration to them. Mr Borbidge: We have gone further than any coalition Govemment. Mr GUNN: The longest joumey begins with the first step. The Govemment has made a very important step with this Bill. I hope that the Liberal Party supports the Bill, which is of great importance for the people of Queensland and the free enterprise system. It is a first for Australia. Whereas other States are raising taxes, we are trying to give relief I am amazed at the attitude of the Opposition. The member for Mackay said that he would reintroduce death duties. I hope that that is printed in "The Daily Mercury" He will have to defend himself in Mackay. Similar comments apply to the very new and green member for Bundaberg. I have no further comments to make. Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. Before the House proceeds with a vote on the second reading, I seek a mling from the Chair. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to clause 18 of the Bill, which clearly identifies in its definitions— " 'business of primary production' means a business that the Commissioner is satisfied is a business of agriculture, pasturage or dairy farming" Further provisions in the Bill relate to prescribed family properties, definitions, and the way in which beneficial holders of family properties are connected with the legislation. 3222 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

I relate the provisions of the Bill to Standing Order No. 158, I seek a mling—and it is a very important mling—on a point of order. Standing Order No, 158 clearly states— "A Member shall not be entitled to vote either in the House or in a Committee upon any Question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed." It is a well-known fact that the Premier and Treasurer and the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, as well as more than half of the honourable members on the Govemment side, come under the definitions provided in clause 18 because they are engaged in the business of agriculture, pasturage and dairy-farming. I seek a mling on the eligibility of those honourable members to vote. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! It is my opinion that the subject that has been raised by the honourable member for Mackay in his point of order falls outside the normal circumstances of a decision that can be required from the Chair. I decline to mle on the point of order, and I declare that there is no point of order. Mr CASEY: Then I take a further point of order. In this instance. Standing Order No. 158 is again clear. It distinctly states that the vote of any member who has a pecuniary interest in a matter being debated by this House must be disallowed. I say that there is one way in which a mling can be given in this issue. Any member of this Parliament who is so affected, by having a pecuniary interest, because he is engaged in the business of agriculture as defined in the clause of the Bill, that is, the business of agriculture, pasturage or dairy-farming, should declare his pecuniary interest and refrain from voting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I declare that the suggestion made by the hon­ ourable member for Mackay is an exaggeration of the provisions of the Standing Order referred to, and I will not allow any point of order to be taken. Motion (Mr Gunn) agreed to. Committee Mr Booth (Warwick) in the chair; Hon. W. A. M. Gunn (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18—New ss. 55B and 55C— Mr WARBURTON (9.24 p.m.): The particular matter I raise has previously been canvassed by myself and the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes). It relates to the stamp duty tax exemption that will apply to certain sections of small business. I contend that it is not good enough for the Minister to say— "In seeking to isolate small businesses, the Govemment will be looking to exclude those businesses that are usually regarded as being very attractive and easily resaleable capital investments—for example, hotels and motels." It is also not good enough for the Minister to say— "Within the qualifying category, the idea would be that a small business would be typically based on a shop, small workshop or small factory and would cover such activities as small retail outlets, printers, small engineering works, bakeries, small produce merchants, restaurants and cafes." Surely the Minister must be in a positon to answer my questions tonight. How does one of those businesses quahfy for stamp duty exemption? That question should be able to be simply answered. In other words, does the Government have some sort of specific lists? Are there schedules? Are members able to see tonight which businesses will fall into the category to which stamp duty applies and which businesses do not? Will some sort of means test be applied? Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3223

I put this to the Minister as an example: What is the difference between the need for stamp duty tax rehef for a small town hotel-owner and the need for similar treatment to be meted out to the owner of the shop or the workshop across the street in that same small town, when parents are transferring their property to the children or the grandparents are transferring it to the grandchildren? I am asking for something specific. The Bill does not spell it out, and certainly the Minister's speech did not do so. Members ought to be told. Mr GUNN: It would be impossible to put aU that in a Bill of this magnitude. It will appear in the regulations; it will have to. It could not all be set down. Mr WARBURTON: This is what members get! It will come in regulations! The Committee is arguing tonight about a Bill that the Govemment has introduced in some haste and one that is so important, as Govemment members said, for the future of this great State. What members are not being told is how it wiU work. Government Members interjected, Mr WARBURTON: After I have spoken, those members who are interjecting can tell me what I want to know. If they can do so, fair enough, because the Minister cannot. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that these things wiU appear in the regulations, because I doubt very much whether this Govemment is capable of clearly outhning exactly how that provision wiU work. I ask once more: Which owners will be exempt? Which owners of business will not be able to hand down their property to their children free of stamp duty, and which will be? That should be simple enough. Mr GUNN: If the honourable member wants me to read this explanatory note, I will. "Prescribed family business" is isolated to a situation in which the parent or grandparent is holding his interest in the small business through his partemship interest, his shares in an exempt proprietary company or as a sole trader or under a famUy tmst or unit tmst scheme. As an additional criterion, the lineal ascendant must either personally or as a director manage or direct the management of the business and the business must not be a subsidiary or a small part of a larger business enterprise and the business must carry on prescribed business activities."Prescribed business activities" are those which are conducted on land owned by the business and which are of a type which is approved. Those approvals will come in regulations. I do not have them listed here; nor wiU I have them listed. Mr WARBURTON: That does not explain the position. What the Minister is saying could apply equally to a hotel in a small town as it would to the httle shop across the road. I want to know why the owner of a hotel in a smaU town that is dying or is not going so well cannot get the exemption from stamp duty when he passes the property down to his children, whereas the owner of the shop or the workshop across the road can do so. The Minister should be able to answer that. What is the difference? Mr GUNN: Once again, it will be prescribed and defined in regulations. At the appropriate time those businesses will be set out in regulations. Mr COMBEN: The Minister must have a rough idea at this time of what will be defined, but he is not giving us a clue. Mr Gunn: Do you know what small business is? Mr COMBEN: Yes, but small business can be defined in many different ways. The Leader of the Opposition has said that a small business can be a pub that is going broke or Rip Van Winkle's store at Red Hill that is very prosperous. The Minister has not defined it. 3224 28 November 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)

Mr Gunn: The financial situation has nothing to do with it. A small business is a small business. Mr COMBEN: What type of business? Mr Gunn: It will be prescribed in the regulations. Mr BORBIDGE: The statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Windsor indicate a degree of desperation. Tonight the Govem­ ment is bringing forward major tax reform. Opposition members lack the political courage to oppose it. They have taken ridiculous points of order and indulged in ridiculous nit-picking, which is quite irrelevant to the debate. It is a shame that Opposition members are not commending the Government's initiative that will assist primary producers and small business in Queensland. Time and again Opposition members have criticised the Govemment. They raise artificial points to try to prove that the Govemment is not doing enough, but they are happy in the knowledge that their Federal colleagues are contemplating a whole range of taxation measures that will cripple primary industry and small business. It is a terrible indictment of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Windsor and other Opposition members that they should be making such ridiculous points on this clause, when the legislation was foreshadowed in the Budget. It has been well known that the Govemment was moving in this area. Mr Davis: Rubbish! Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, I emphasise that this legislation was referred to in the Budget. It never ceases to amaze me that Opposition members throw out challenges to the Govemment and then do whatever they can to prevent Govemment members from answering. Whenever a vital BiU is before this Assembly they make ridiculous claims. Fair-minded Opposition members will welcome what the Govemment is doing. I note that Opposition members do not have the courage to oppose it, but they seem intent on engaging in ridiculous nit-picking for the sake of petty political point-scoring that cannot be justified. Mr CASEY: The philosophy behind the Bill is quite simple. It can be put into one simple statement: the Bjelke-Petersen family property in central Queensland, currently valued at about $5m, can be transferted to the Premier's son free of stamp duty, but if I want to transfer my house and quarter-acre block to my son I will have to pay stamp duty on it. Mr INNES: I think the point made by the member for Mackay was far too wide. If nit-picking is asking questions of the type that I might be asked tomorrow, I intend to pick some more nits. The member for Southport said many things with which I agree. One of his comments was that the people are entitled to know before they go to the Federal election what is in the minds of the tax-gatherers who may be in power after the election. In the same way—in fact, more so—we, as members of this Parliament, are entitled before we pass legislation to know who will be affected. That is a very simple statement. Mr Borbidge: Are you opposing the clause or are you supporting it? You are sitting on the fence again. Mr INNES: I think that my words and attitudes speak for themselves. On the Bills that have been put before the Assembly, I have adopted a far more independent attitude than the honourable member for Surfers Paradise has ever shown. Since it has been mmoured that he is close to being promoted to ministerial office, we Liberals on this side of the Chamber have watched his behaviour with some amusement. Stamp Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 28 November 1984 3225

Mr Borbidge: 1 know that you are commenting from the Opposition side of the Chamber. That is appropriate, too. Mr INNES: The Liberal Party now sits on the cross-benches. Mr Borbidge: You just said that you are on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Mr INNES: We physically sit across the aisle. I would think that this is one of the nits that Govemment members objected to our picking. Mr Borbidge: Are you supporting the clause or not? Mr INNES: It would be very easy for me to lie in the bosom of a party system that demands total control. The member for Surfers Paradise never has to apply his mind to making any judgment at all. Mrs Harvey: That's nasty. Mr INNES: Yes, it may be nasty. If Govemment members can hand it out, they can cop it. What I ask is very simple. It is the sort of question that I will be asked tomorrow by the people in my electorate who are intelligent enough to want to know what the laws of this State provide. A pretty vague statement of intention appears in the Minister's second-reading speech. It reads— "In seeking to isolate small businesses, the Govemment will be looking to exclude those businesses usually regarded as being very attractive and easily resaleable capital investments such as hotels and motels Small businessess are not classified. The question that I ask—and I thought that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was reasonable, too—is what are the criteria? What business will appear in the regulations? In my electorate I have only one dairy farm but many small businesses. I want to know which small businesses will be in and which small businesses will be out. Mr GUNN: That will appear in the regulations. As the honourable member for Sherwood knows, the exemption for a business only goes to $500,000 for the child's lifetime. Various types of businesses will be defined in the regulations. Tonight I will not read out a list consisting of pie shops, lolly shops, cake shops or butcher shops. Small business is small business. I do not have to give the honourable member a lesson in what makes up smaU business. A land component is necessary, and that was made clear in my second-reading speech. The shops will be listed in the regulations. I cannot make it any plainer than that. If every business were to be defined in this legislation, it would take up pages. The exemption in small business is up to $500,000 for one child in his lifetime. Mr BURNS: Does that mean that a father or a grandfather can give one of his sons or grandsons up to half a miUion dollars and no more? If he has a business worth over $500,000, I understand that he will not be able to pass it on. Mr GUNN: No, he will pay duty on anything over $500,000. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23—Amendment of First Schedule— Mr GUNN (9.39 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 23, omit all words comprising lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following words— 'value of the property and for the purposes of determining that value the assets (if any) of the company which the Commissioner is satisfied were not 3226 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement BiU

deemed to have no value at the time when that instmment was stamped shall be disregarded;'"; "At page 24, after line 5, insert the following words— 'For the purposes of provision (iv) of this proviso any property that consists of a share or a right in respect of shares in a family company shall be deemed to be prescribed family property only to the extent that assets held by the company comprise prescribed family property.'"; "At page 24, line 6, after the word 'of insert the words— 'provision (iv) of' "; "At page 26, line 38, after the word 'considferation' insert the words— 'made on or after 27 November 1984'." Amendments agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a third time.

BREAKWATER ISLAND CASINO AGREEMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3095) on Mr Gunn's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr BURNS (Lytton) (9.43 p.m.): The Bill was introduced at 10 o'clock last night. During his second-reading speech the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treas­ urer tabled documents about 2-ft thick. In fact I measured them and found that they were 650 mm high. I suggested that everybody in the Parliament should get a copy, but that would necessitate the Govemment Printing Office working overtime for a fortnight. Yet somehow or other, between 10 o'clock last night and almost 10 o'clock tonight, honourable members are supposed to have pemsed them all and found the contents of the Bill agreeable and acceptable to the Parliament of Queensland. That is just not reasonable. Bills should not be mshed in in the dying hours of the session. The documents tabled were the foundation agreement, the memorandum and articles of association of Breakwater Island Limited, the tmst deed,'the administrative assistance agreement, the development agreement, the hotel casino management agreements, the schematic design drawings, the Townsville Harbour Board agreement and the Townsville City Council agreement. As I said, between 10 o'clock last night and a quarter to 10 tonight honourable members were supposed not only to read the documents but also study them in detail. Before I refer to the Bill in general terms, I wish to ask some questions. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that the Bill provides for the establishment cost of $1.8m, borne by Drayton Industries Pty Ltd to 31 December 1983, to be shared by all the founders. I would like to know how that figure was arrived at and on what the $1.8m was spent in TownsvUle. It seems to me that there are two developments. One is the committed development, which is the one to which the casino developers are committed. That consists of the reclamation of the land, the constmction of the hotel-casino complex, all of the necessary breakwaters, retaining walls and revetments. The Minister said that that work should be completed within 100 working weeks of the operative date of the agreement. The other is the permitted development which appears to be something that the developers Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3227 might carry out, but it is something that they do not have to do. It is virtually Stage 2 of the project and consists of additional land reclamation, other extensions to the complex, the constmction of building units and the development of the marina. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "The tmstee may conduct that work when it is commercially viable so to do, but under a later clause (clause 63), the tmstee is nonetheless required to constmct the marina basin and entrance channel, and reclaim land that wiU service the marina within 10 years. It must also complete 150 berths or moorings within 15 years. If the tmstee fails to perform this work, the marina site and related land will be denied to the tmstee and it shall be freed for development by another party." That means that the Govemment is not doing anything under that provision. The developer can develop it if he wants to; if he does not want to, he can tell the Govemment to go and jump in the lake and do it itself I do not see what strength or purpose Mr Gunn: He would be a mug if he didn't develop the marina. Mr BURNS: I should think that he would be. I wonder why he would argue and why the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer would accept that he does not have to do it. He does not have to do it for 10 years. The Government will have to wait for 10 years before it can make a determination that the developer is not going ahead with the project and take back the development and develop it itself, use the land or give it to someone else to develop. It seems to be a long time for that land to be frozen on such a proposal. It is a fact that, after the marina is developed, it and the entrance channel will be vested in the harbour board and leased back to the tmstee or its nominee in terms of the harbour board agreement. That is something that will be developed for the Crown. It is being left in an airy-fairy way. As long as 24 years ago, at a Labor-in-Politics convention at Surfers Paradise, I first proposed the setting up of a casino in Queensland. At that time I was attacked by the National Party and by the member for Barambah for daring to suggest such a thing. He referred to gambling and the way in which the Labor Party was bringing Australia to its knees by the conduct of chook raffles in pubs. He gave me a terrible thrashing for being such a scoundrel to suggest that Queensland should have casinos. Since then he has introduced TABs in hotels and every vehicle of gambling that could possibly be introduced. Now, 24 years later, the Gold Coast casino is well under way. I understand that he was supposed to pour the last floor today, but the building workers were a little incensed about an Act that was recently passed and they would not allow him to do that. Now honourable members have the Townsville casino legislation before them for consideration. To use another headline, "What a sorry saga of preferential treatment" this Townsville casino has been. The only commonality between the proposal before honourable members and the original proposal is that Sir Leslie Thiess is still involved and the casino will still be constmcted on the Townsville foreshore. Mr Smith: Mr Thiess resigned today as chairman. Mr BURNS: I had not heard that. That is something new that I have leamed at this late hour of the night. Despite numerous protests by Sir Llewellyn Edwards that alterations to the original proposals would not be accepted or permitted, honourable members have witnessed numerous changes to the Townsville casino proposals over the last three years. What the Townsville casino saga clearly shows is the total inability of the Queensland Government to deal efficiently and effectively with major development projects in Queensland. 3228 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill

The Peter principle is alive and well in the Queensland Govemment. On every occasion it will rise to the level of its own incompetence. What could have gone wrong has gone wrong. If everything had gone to plan, the Townsville casino should now be fully operational. Instead, honourable members now have before them a Bill that is an attempt to get the project off the ground. The cost of this delay in terms of postponed tourist development, infrastmcture, commercial and industrial development in Towns­ ville, business confidence and the people's expectations must be huge. It is a fact of life that honourable members were told that the project was going ahead. As with the shale- oil project at Julia Creek, the Opposition is still waiting for it. The same apphes to the shale-oil project at Rundle. The Opposition keeps hearing about plans for it, I thought that the Government would at least be able to get the TownsvUle casino off the ground before now. Unfortunately, that project did not come to fmition quickly, but the Govemment is getting round to it at last. Townsville was not the only party caught up in the Queensland casino legislation mess. The Treasury was caught up in it. The Treasury set up the Casino Control Division headed by senior public servants. However, it soon found that it had nothing to occupy the time of these highly paid public servants. I understand that the Casino Control Division was given the job of administering the Federal Govemment's employment initiatives under the Community Employment Program. I hope that they will eventually have some casino work to carry out. The Townsville casino mess started when the Queensland Govemment advertised for casino tenders. Instead of setting out the guide-hnes and establishing the parameters of the operation, the Govemment issued an open invitation to all and sundry. The then Treaurer, Sir Llewellyn Edwards, was appointed to chair the casino committee, which also had on it the honourable member for South Coast (Mr Hinze) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Elliott). The member for Cunningham did not last very long on that committee. He was replaced by Mr Sullivan, if I remember correctly. Sir Llewellyn Edwards's favourite statements were that all operations had to be squeaky clean and that the decision in granting the licence would be made on merit. Unfortunately for the committee, a former Minister, Mr Max Hooper, had already announced that Townsville would get the State's first legal casino and the honourable member for South Coast (Mr Hinze) had assured the Gold Coast that it would get the other one. Surprise, surprise—they were both right! I am reminded that Sir Llewellyn Edwards claimed that the member for South Coast (Mr Hinze) had acted irresponsibly. As it tumed out, his claim was tme. Everybody knew that the National Party had its favoured tenderers and that the casino committee chaired by Sir Llewellyn Edwards was just a formality. In the case of Townsville there were four applicants for a casino. They were— (1) Federal Hotels, which was subsequently black-banned, proposed two sites. It was excluded on the excuse that if its application were granted it would have a monopoly on casinos in Australia. This objection was suddenly withdrawn when Genting pulled out of the original Breakwater Island consortium. (2) Motel Corporation of Australia, which proposed an expanded Townsville Travelodge casino complex. (3) Telecasters North Queensland, which proposed a city centre casino. (4) Breakwater Island Resort, owned and controlled by Drayton Investments, a Thiess family company, which proposed a 584-room hotel/casino complex on the harbour costing $64m. The hotel complex would be fully owned by Drayton Investments, and the Malaysian Genting Berhad group, operating as World Resorts, would manage the casino and receive all management fees. It was widely accepted that the Breakwater Island proposal was among the best. Stage I, costing $60m, included a 10-storey hotel and a 300-berth marina. Stage II would Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3229 cost $ 13m and extend the marina to 700 berths and provide other amenities. I read out the tenderers to compare them with the tenderers in the consortium named in the BiU. On the aftemoon of 23 Febmary 1982 Sir Llewellyn Edwards telegrammed Sir Leslie Thiess in Townsville to inform him of his successful tender. Sir Leslie Thiess told Sir Llewellyn Edwards that he had been told unofficially that moming by the National Party, that he had already informed the Townsville mayor and that it was already well known when the chairman of the casino committee made the formal announcement. The National Party and the casino committee were both happy with the result because their tenderers had got up. However, although the people of Townsville beheved that they had finaUy got their casino, nothing could have been further from the tmth. It was just the beginiung of two years of collapse, pull-outs, threats and rescheduling, which goes back to the decision to build the casino in Townsville. There were commercial difficulties associated with the project right from the start. The Opposition was never told that. Whenever Opposition members asked questions about possible problems in building a casino in a city the size of Townsville, or smaller towns for which other people had made applications, they were told that they were being negative and were knockers. The fact is that those predictions came tme. In spite of the generous terms and conditions that were granted to Sir Leslie Thiess, the project did not get off the ground. The conditions were that no casino would be built in Caims for the first five years—and I note that that is still a condition—and none anywhere within a 400-km radius for 15 years. I am sure that the member for Mackay will have something to say about that. It excludes all of the Whitsunday islands. Under the provisions of this agreement, they will not be allowed to be involved in any casino development for 15 years. In those days tax was to be at the lower rate of 15 per cent of the gross turnover rather than the 20 per cent levied on the Gold Coast casino. After receiving the licence. Sir Leslie Thiess made some amazing statements that I will always remember. They are worth while quoting again. He said— "We have a lot of planning to do. We have to see what the Govemment requirements are." Even when he obtained the licence, he did not know what the Govemment wanted. He had not made any plans. No wonder there was no casino for quite some time afterwards! What an incredible statement! Is it any wonder the people of Townsville have been left waiting? I have just been handed a newspaper report of which I was not aware. It is headed, "Thiess gives casino nod, and quits as big boss". That is a surprise to me. I wUl have to read the article to find out why he has given it up. After receiving the licence. Sir Leslie said that he had to find out what the Govemment's requirements were. At that stage, Breakwater Island Resort was still a $2 straw company. Nevertheless, everybody had high hopes. It was to create jobs, a business boom and a tourist boom in Townsville. People were looking forward to the jobs, the tourists and the money that it was to generate. Mr Colin Au, the Australian representative of Genting, announced that the casino and hotel would employ directly 800 to 900 people, with constmction being completed in mid-1984.1 understand that the figure now mentioned is 400—a substantial reduction in the number originally promised. The Townsville District Development Board said that the casino decision would pump about $450m into Townsville's economy in the succeeding four years. That is quite some time ago. That delay has cost the people of Townsville a great deal of money. For the Government coffers, the casino was expected to generate $2m in taxes in its first year of operation. A few years have passed since then. Nothing more was heard of the project until December 1982, when Sir Llewellyn Edwards said that the developers of the Townsville casino would not be permitted to 3230 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill substantiaUy alter their original proposal. I laugh when I say that. We all know that that did not last very long. Nevertheless, Drayton and Genting were actively seeking permission to downgrade the project and defer the promised public works and community recreation projects. I would like the Deputy Premier to spell out very clearly what community benefits there will be. Originally the proposal was that the Townsville community was to receive substantial benefits other that the jobs to be created. What other benefits will Townsville gain from the casino? It was spelt out that community recreation projects and other ventures would be funded by money from the casino. I can remember the newspaper stories and the statements by the then Treasurer. Despite the protests by Sir Llewellyn Edwards, a month later the downgraded proposals were approved by the Govemment. Nine gambling games were to be permitted, but poker machines were still to be barred. Two months later, the consortium collapsed following the withdrawal of Genting, mmoured to be on two grounds— (1) That the refusal of the Govemment to permit poker machines made the casino uneconomic; and (2) That the Queensland legislation was too stringent (the Govemment's preferred explanation). It is difficult to believe that that was so, when the same legislation applied at the Gold Coast and the project there was proceeding. It is fairly obvious that the Queensland legislation was not too stringent. The very clear inference is that Genting said that there was no money in it; that the TownsvUle casino was uneconomic. Faced with that collapse, the Government made an about-face and said that it would allow Federal Hotels, previously barred, to enter into netgotiations with Breakwater Island Resorts. After discussions. Federal Hotels also decided not to proceed. The casino project was then hawked round Australia and the world. Gold Coast hotelier and land developer John Bartlett was approached to rescue the Townsville casino project, but he, too, declined. Quintex Limited, a Melboume investment company, was approached. The Government itself was on the look-out for someone interested in an involvement. That was reasonable. It wanted a casino built and it had to chase a developer. No-one wanted it. In March this year, Sheraton International Hotels emerged as a possible new operator of the casino. Almost three years after the granting of the original casino licence, it is hoped that honourable members have the final consortium arrangement before them. What is the final wash-up? The four final partners are Drayton Investments (Sir Leslie Thiess's private company), Thiess Watkins Limited, Kumaga Gumi of Japan and the Sheraton hotels group. The statements made by Sir Llewellyn Edwards that no change would be allowed to the corporate stmcture after licences were issued was just wasted effort on his behalf Many of the other people who submitted proposals must consider how unlucky they were; that if they had had their names included in the first place, they would have been allowed to change the whole shape of their financial stmcture so that it was completely different from that put forward at the time. The four corporations I have mentioned will put up $14m. Potter Partners and Wilson & Co will underwrite the public float of $14m. Wardley Australia will raise a further $28m. The consortium will be legally committed to only the hotel/casino building itself, plus a marina, which will become Crown property after completion. I hope that the Minister is correct about the constmction of the marina being commenced quickly. In return for the marina development, which the Townsville Harbour Board wiU lease back to the group, the casino operator can receive freehold title to 19 ha of land on the Townsville foreshores. I point out that that is very valuable land, as the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer would know. Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3231

However, only 4 ha of the site will be dedicated to the hotel/casino. The remainder will be available for development, and, in essence, the development will take place at the commercial discretion of the parties involved in the casino project. It seems to me that the Queensland Govemment has been able to get the casino project off the ground by offering 15 ha of land on the foreshores of TownsviUe to be developed at the commercial discretion of the project owners. In summary, what does all this amount to? In order to get the hotel/casino project off the ground, the Govemment has generously reduced its taxation levy from 15 per cent to 10 per cent; it has also made avaUable 19 ha of land that the owners can use at their discretion. If the project continues on schedule, it may be expected that the casino will be completed by mid-1986. During the constmction phase, up to 200 people should be able to obtain employment; after completion, the casino should have a permanent work-force of approximately 400 employees. The Opposition can only hope that, after three years of comedy and fiasco, things wiU progress smoothly from now on. The guide-lines and deadlines that have been set for the casino project have been a farce. The fact that the Malaysian-owned World Resorts had negotiated a 40 per cent equity in the Gold Coast project and a one-third equity in the Townsville casino project was in direct contravention of the guide-lines expressly laid down by the Govemment when it called applications for the two casino licences. That has never been explained, and, of course, the World Resorts group is no longer involved in the proposal. However, I point out that, despite the conditions of the application, that group was allowed to apply for a casino licence. Procrastination and delay in granting permission to radically alter the original proposal effectively sold out the other applicants for a northern casino licence who may otherwise have been in a far stronger position to get the project off and mnning. In fact, if the Govemment had accepted the application of one of the other contenders, the casino might well be operating at this stage. I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer: What has happened to the significant community facilities that were to be funded from the establishment of the Townsville casino project? Will a levy be collected by the Queensland Govemment, and, if so, who will benefit? Will it be community welfare bodies? I suggest to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer that for the past two years the delay in the constmction of the Townsville casino has placed a cloud of uncertainty over the future prospects of Townsville. The delay has hampered developmental opportunities in the north, and it calls into question the ability of the State Govemment to successfully initiate projects. Opposition members welcome the introduction of the Bill and would like to see a casino built in Townsville. The Opposition looks forward to the provision of employment opportunities. I point out that it has been the policy of the Australian Labor Party for 24 years to support the establishment of casinos in Queensland. That policy—and I repeat that it was initiated by the Labor Party 24 years ago—was rejected at that time. The Opposition is pleased that at last, 24 years later, the Govemment has caught up. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (10.2 p.m.): The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Lytton, has indicated that the Opposition supports the Bill. Problems have been associated with the delay in the establishment of the project, and I point out to honourable members that the difficulties that have arisen have been monumental. A Casino Control Bill was introduced in October 1982. After that, the Queensland Goverment indicated that successful tenderers had been chosen for the constmction of 3232 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill two casino projects and that legislation in the form of project management Bills would follow quickly. I point out that the Townsville casino was the subject of the first announcement about a successful application. The expected completion date announced at that time would have meant that the building would virtually be completed by now. As the Opposition spokesman has said, the Opposition welcomes the Bill because the benefits that will accme to the tourist industry are well known. The benefits to Townsville and to north Queensland are obvious. The Austrahan Labor party has a vested interest in the political future of north Queensland, and I point out that this venture will increase the economic viability of the tourist industry in that area and in Queensland generally. It is disappointing to members of the Opposition that, approximately two years after the Casino Control Bill was introduced, the casino that was originally intended to be completed first has still not been constmcted. Honourable members now find themselves in the House discussing a management Bill two years after the announcement of a successful application. A management BiU was introduced in March 1983 to control the constmction of the Gold Coast casino—and I point out that the constmction of the main building was successfully completed today—but it is a sad fact of life that no progress has been achieved in north Queensland that could be regarded as being of benefit to the tourist industry there. In an article published today. Sir Leslie Thiess described the difficulties that he encountered in obtaining an application. I inform honourable members that during the last State election campaign, members of the Opposition had many discussions with Sir Leslie Thiess. I will not ouUine in detail the number of changes that he made to the consortium holdings during the period of discussions to which I referred or the problems faced by the company in determining the viability of this particular project. Everybody— this govemment, the council and even the harbour board—bent over backwards to help them, although of recent days the harbour board has certainly had some harsh words to say because of the advantages and benefits of this project to Queensland. But the question remains: How far does everyone bend over backwards to get the project off the ground? The question that members must ask is whether we have gone too far? Another problem is that, in March 1983, the Government introduced the Casino Control Bill, which related to the Jupiter tmst. The provisions of that Bill relating to the management of the casino bear no resemblance to the management of the complex that is now under constmction. If members read the legislation they will find that Genting still appears on the statute-book. Opposition members were duped by Dr Edwards when he introduced that Bill. The management of the casino on the Gold Coast bear no resemblance to those described in the legislation. Although the Hilton group are good operators, the fact is that they did not appear in the legislation that was passed by this Assembly. WiU this legislation be any different? The management stage has been reached and the Opposition is now asking whether this will be the final legislation. The massive number of documents tabled last night is an insult to the intelligence. I tried to wade through them today, knowing that much of what is contained in them would be similar to the documents associated with the legislation relating to the Gold Coast casino. But, quite frankly, it is not possible to do that without advice. One would usually get advice from the Treasury people involved with the project and from outside lawyers and other experts about technical points, but there has not been time to do that. To have this Assembly operate in that way is a mockery. One just has not been able to seek the necessary advice, although admittedly one could talk to some of the people who were involved in the agreements that were signed. The Townsville City Council has bent over backwards in its agreement with the Breakwater group, because Townsville was desperate for the casino. The political pressure Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3233 was such that the council would have been swept from office if it had been seen to be blocking the casino project. This is a $52m project, yet only $88,000 is being demanded for water and sewerage headworks. That is not the usual practice. Most councils would have demanded much more money for a project of that size. So the council acted under duress and the people of Townsville will have to bear some of the bmnt of the expenditure usually associated with the provision of headworks. Any resident of or visitor to Townsville is aware of its water problems, but a $52m project is making a headworks contribution of only $88,000. The council has also made a tremendous concession in rates. The casino land is rateable at present, but under the legislation rates will not be charged until the casino licence is granted. Rates are not payable until the building is virtually completed and the casino is almost operational. Even then only portions 639, 640, 641 and 643 of the seven relevant portions of land will be considered as being rateable. The council has also bent over backwards as far as roadworks are concemed. The Drayton group has to date committed itself to a contribution of only $30,000. The sum of $15,000 is payable within 12 months. That amount means nothing in the way of road costs in any large development. Mr Burns: You cannot buy a decent block of land for that. Mr D'ARCY: That is so. The other $ 15,000 is not payable until after the casino is operative. Concessions have been given by the council to make sure that the project goes ahead. I respect the council's decision. It came to an arrangement without Government pressure, with the parties involved in this development. When the legislation is passed massive public moneys will be subscribed in the way of share contributions. The Government, too, has made concessions. The Opposition spokesman referred to one figure that was slightly wrong. He said that the operators of the Jupiters casino will be paying 20 per cent for licence fees, not 15 per cent, but that has been reduced to 10 per cent. Mr Burns: The original agreement with the lessees was 15 per cent. Mr D'ARCY: That is right. The Government has made a big concession to get this casino off the ground. We must be assured that it will work. I am worried slightly about the overall agreement. An amount of $175m was involved in the Jupiters agreement. Of that amount, $100m was organised by the partners and the public, with the public subscribing $40m by way of shares. On share market prices, the public are getting a just return, well and tmly above what was subscribed. The other $75m was borrowed. The TownsvUle situation is slightly different. Of the $52m, $23.5m, and up to $28m, is being borrowed, because $4.5m over and above the $23.5m that can be borrowed is being aUowed for. The public are subscribing 50 per cent of the total costs, whereas on the Gold Coast the public virtually subscribed 40 per cent. The public commitment in Townsville will be higher. The return may not be as lucrative, but it has been pointed out that if land prices continue to escalate in TownsvUle a more than equitable return should be availaljle. The Opposition spokesman referred to public betterment. On the Gold Coast, Jupiters had to provide $1.2m, but in Townsville, it is a catch-as-catch-can arrangement. Mr Gunn: It is $500,000 with the yacht club. Mr D'ARCY: I do not know where the Minister got that from. It may be that he got it from his advisers. The Treasurer's statement is tme, but it is still a catch-as-catch- can situation. 3234 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill

The yacht club is on the land. As the Minister realises, it has been transferred from the harbour board to Drayton. Eventually, it will come back to the council. The Treasurer put the figure of $500,000 on it, but it is not the same type of betterment factor as that which is available to the Gold Coast people. Mr Gunn: I will not compare it with the Gold Coast. Mr D'ARCY: I do not intend to compare it, either, but this is another area in Townsville in which a concession has been made. Mr Gunn: We are all keen to get it going. Mr D'ARCY: I realise that; but how far should the Government go? Will these people complete? I have been assured that they probably will. For the sake of the people of north Queensland, I hope they do so. This operator is not as experienced as the southem operator. For both casinos the Government has brought in overseas operators. I could not speak too highly of the Hilton group, because it is a very professional operation. I realise that the Sheraton operation is franchised. I have seen its operation in Seoul and, quite frankly, it is a very poor operation. For one thing, it is dirty. I notice that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer is not agreeing with me. I do not know whether he is familiar with that operation at Seoul. Mr Gunn: I have been to Seoul but I have not seen that operation. Mr D'ARCY: The Seoul operation does leave a little to be desired. The operators are not professional, and people must be protected against that. It is common knowledge that Sir James Killen and Ron Camm have been vetted for the positions of public directors of this operation. Mr Davis: Not more jobs for the boys! Mr D'ARCY: Because Mr Camm is over 70, his term on the Sugar Board is mnning out. He is probably looking forward to retirement on the board of the north Queensland casino. The Opposition is concerned about those features. I think that the Government has gone about as far as it can in granting concessions. My colleague the honourable member for Mackay will refer to the Townsville Harbour Board. Because it has not been in agreement with the proposal, that board has been a thorn in the side of the casino development. The chairman of the harbour board (Mr Field) signed the documents only yesterday, on 27 November 1984. One of the honourable members from Townsville told me that the board moved a motion restraining him from signing the documents. In other words, he was not allowed by his board to sign the documents until certain legal ramifications had been sorted out. It is well known that many problems have arisen over reclaimed land and public land for which the harbour board was responsible. It kept the issue alive in the public interest. The problems have now been solved, but a question mark hangs over whether they have been solved to the satisfaction of Parliament, of the people of Townsville and of those who will eventually occupy residential sites on that land. That was one of the contentious issues. The marina development is part of the public betterment factor. I hope that it wUl not be a long-term project. The harbour board will manage the public area of the marina. Within the private area, land will be sold to the public, either by group title, strata title or Mr Gunn: The marina will be a very lucrative proposition. Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3235

Mr D'ARCY: It should be, but marinas are very specialised and many problems can arise. At present it is intended to sell some of the marina berths off with the strata title or group title land. The profit will eventually be retumed to the share-holders in the development. Because the Townsville City CouncU must rezone some of the land to future urban. Parliament should have had more time to study the complexities of the Bill. I tum now to the plans. I have spoken with Mr Leyshon about two areas of concem. I understand that 49 car-parking spaces will be permitted under the building. A high- rise building with approximately 200 bedrooms should not be permitted to provide only 49 underground car spaces. Much more underground parking than that is needed. Ground-level car-parking has been provided, obviously for day visitors to the casino. The provision of 49 underground car-parking spaces makes a mockery of building regulations. I am not quite sure how that got through. I am concerned that the surveillance and security area is on level four, which also houses the manager's residence and 19 guest suites. I admit that there will be a door between the surveillance section and the guest suites. Although it may be locked, the fact of life is that locks are meant to keep out honest people. That doorway provides access to the catwalk and the surveillance area. In casinos throughout the world, where the level of surveillance is being upgraded, it is usual to have access through a security lift and stairwell. That is often regarded as a type of vacuum area. Any person wanting to enter it is under camera surveillance before being allowed into that section. It seems to me strange that employees coming from the area of the guest suites will not be under surveillance. They will be able to use their own keys to enter that area. In that respect, the plans that have been presented to the House will have to be upgraded. The plan also shows an outlet from the stairwell, lift and internal catwalk area. Mr Hall has confirmed that that will have to be a one-way fire door. That is the only way that the level of security would not be an insult to one's intelligence. I realise that the plans are not fully completed and that the Casino Control Division will continue to upgrade the surveillance area, because it is the one area that must be 100 per cent right—in fact, it has to be 105 per cent right. The first time trouble occurs in either of the State's casinos, it will reflect on the members of this Parliament, who will have approved of this Bill. The two areas that I have mentioned should be considered. In fact, they are not acceptable to me. I realise that perhaps a compromise has to be reached. As I say, in every casino operation throughout the world, the security floor is totally separate from all other floors. To have management accommodation and guest suites on the same floor is wrong. I have mentioned the Townsville Harbour Board agreement, which contains approximately 150 pages. It is a case of "tmst us" The Govemment is asking the House to tmst those who have drawn up the agreement. Obviously the harbour board has not been happy with it. The member for Lytton mentioned the $1.8m spent by Drayton Industries Pty Ltd. The only safeguard that I can see there is that the other founding partners obviously had to vet that to agree to paying the Thiess group that reimbursement. Obviously they would not pay out too much over the odds, but it would have been very difficult to justify in terms of receipts that $1.8m. So there is a question mark as to whether that would have been close to the correct amount of money. Generally the casino will be a good operation and will be of tremendous advantage to Townsville. Queensland is not presently fully aware of the total advantages of casinos. I know that people such as Mr Leyshon, who has studied casinos throughout the world, realise the advantages that they bring to the tourist industry. 3236 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill

One of the reasons why the Labor Party has supported casinos in this State for such a long time is that it is fully aware of the tremendous benefits that are reaped both by the people and by the Government and not only by way of taxation. Casinos provide the catalyst for every facet of the tourist industry. The Labor Party has been an active supporter of casinos. The Casino Control Bill is the overriding Bill. It has hardly been mentioned. Honourable members must still look at strengthening two sections, one of which concems the washing of black money. There is still a loophole in the Queensland casino legislation. I would like to see the legislation amended before casino operations are commenced. Because of the systems that are used in transferring money, under the Bill that will control Queensland's casinos it is still possible to wash black money. As the casinos come on stream, that is one area that must concem everybody in Queensland. One company involved in the constmction of the Townsville casino is a Japanese tunnel-constmction company. It has been involved in the constmction of projects throughout the world. It is also a company that is involved in the Northem Territory casino operation. Although the contract for the constmction of the building will be let to the Thiess Watkins group, I believe that the Japanese company will be tendering in some areas. When the casino was being built on the Gold Coast, it was pointed out to me by my colleague the honourable member for Rockhampton North that many of the materials that were used could have been purchased in Australia. However, they were purchased overseas. The contract for sanitary ware, such as vanity units, selected and intended for use in the Jupiters casino project was let to Villeroy & Boch Manufacturing of West Germany. Australian manufacturing companies, such as Armitage-Shanks, Caroma Industries and Fowlerware, employing more than 1 000 people, were not considered. The prices of the articles used in the Jupiters project show that the Villeroy & Boch group quoted a price that was higher than that quoted by Austrahan firms. The cost of a WC pan type "A" from the German group was $161, whereas it was $149.20 from the Austrahan group. The type "A" vanity basin that was used was $136.50 from the German company and $105 from the Australian firm. The type "E" vanity basin from the German firm was $104.20 compared with $50 from the Australian firm. Had the Australian products been used, Australian people could have been employed. The type "A" hand basin from Villeroy & Boch was $220, compared with $92 from the Australian firms. That is only a small selection, but the German price of every item nominated is higher than that charged by Australian manufacturers. The Australian prices would have been subject to discount and, because of the size of the project, a discount of up to 20 per cent would apply in that area. On the other hand, Villeroy & Boch's price is bottom line and, because the company is a supplier, handling charges would need to be added. They could have been between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. There is also the problem of after-sales service. Surfers Paradise is a long way from West Germany. There are problems involved in the building of the casino. Although they are not directly related to the Bill before the House, provision should be made within the Bill for overcoming them. As I said, the Opposition welcomes the Bill. Problems have arisen with the various bodies that have signed the agreements. Honourable members should have been given more time to consider those problems and to talk to the people involved. I know that the Government has denied that poker machines will be allowed in Queensland casinos, but it seems to be getting round that obstacle by saying that the new electronic devices are not poker machines. Obviously the Govemment will change its policy in relation to the Gold Coast, and I presume it will do the same in respect of TownsviUe. Poker machines will be introduced. In view of the way in which the Townsville casino wiU be built, I presume that provision will be made for the power points, etc., for the electronic equipment that will virtually be simulated poker machines. Breakwater Island Casino Agreement BiU 28 November 1984 3237

The Govemment should not be hypocritical. At every stage the Opposition has said that it would have allowed poker machines and it would have taken some other concessions from the operators. It appears that, in this instance, the Opposition has bent over backwards for the sake of the operators not only in agreeing to concessions from the Govemment, the council and the harbour board, but also in allowing this Bill to be mshed through Parliament. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (10.30 p.m.): I support the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill. It is relevant to relate to the House some of the considerable advantages that the Jupiters Casino and the Conrad Intemational Hotel have brought to the Gold Coast. This evening there has been a degree of criticism about the length of time that the north Queensland casino has taken to reach the stage of being before the Parliament. It is only a little over 12 months ago—in fact it was in August 1983—that work officially began at Broadbeach Island. I am sure that most honourable members would realise that the Gold Coast casino is located in my electorate. As I said, work on the casino began just a little over 12 months ago, yet today the Premier and Treasurer attended the official ceremony to mark the topping-off of that project. The constmction management by Jennings and the working relationship between management and staff, between management and the Govemment and Casino Control Division have been excellent. The project is ahead of schedule. It is expected that in approximately 12 months time it will be open for business. The Gold Coast casino has already brought enormous benefits to the local community in terms of job creation. Already under the terms of the agreement, several hundred thousand dollars have been spent on the Carrara sports complex in Albert shire. I know that negotiations are under way for an extension of those sporting facilities. The honourable member for Woodridge raised the point that the casino has proved to be a catalyst for many other tourism-orientated developments in the region. I am sure that that will happen also in Townsville. The Gold Coast area is entering a new era in the development of the tourist industry. The Gold Coast casino, at a cost of $175m, has the distinction of being the largest privately financed constmction project in Australia today. In fact, in terms of building cost, it is second only to the new Parliament House in Canberra. It will employ approximately 2 300 people. It is important to note that in the case of the Gold Coast— and I assume that it will be the case in north Queensland—basically local consultants have been used. Local people have been employed on the project. That is very important indeed. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Cooroora mentioned the $ 11.6m investment by the Government on the south bank of the Brisbane River in tourism and hospitality training. I know that that has been uppermost in the minds of people from Conrad International and Jupiters. Of course, it will have to be given a great deal of consideration by the operators of the northern casino and, indeed, the sister college to COTAH, which is nearing completion in Townsville. That is important. Honourable members have made mention of the Casino Control BiU, which was passed by the Parliament some time ago. It is worth making the point—time will tell, of course—that it has been generally recognised that the legislation originally introduced by the Govemment will prove to be the equal of any in the world. That, too, is important. There can be no doubt about the Government's commitment to making the casinos work, and work very properly indeed. My contribution to the debate will not be an excessively long one at this hour of the sittings. I rise principally, as the member representing the electorate in which the Gold Coast casino is being built, to support the legislation and to wish the northern 3238 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill

casino well. I am sure that it will bring to Townsville and to north Queensland many of the enormous benefits that are already being associated with the Jupiters Casino. I have earlier referred to the tremendous working environment at Broadbeach Island and the harmonious relationship between workers and management. It is worth making that point because tonight's news referred to a slight industrial disputation today at the time of the topping-off ceremony. A small number of unionists decided to have the day off. For the benefit of honourable members and media outlets which seemed to ignore this fact on tonight's evening news services, I make the point that 10 unions are represented at Broadbeach Island, I understand, eight of whom were on the job today. Today, two-thirds of the work-force was on the job. Mr Casey: What has this got to do with the Townsville casino? Mr BORBIDGE: The point I am trying to make is that there has been a very good relationship indeed between the people building the casino and those making it possible. I hope that that sort of relationship exists in the constmction of the northem casino and that industrial relations on that site are as good as they have been on the Gold Coast. I support the legislation. I wish the northem casino well. As it comes on stream a little over 12 months after the Gold Coast casino is operational, there will be considerable intermingling between the two. Doubtless, guests from the southem casino will travel to the northern casino. In my opinion, that will bring with it the need for the domestic airlines to give consideration to introducing direct air services between Townsville and the Gold Coast. All sorts of infrastmcture arrangements may be required. I wish the Bill well. I say to honourable members who represent Townsville that the initiative made possible by the Govemment will bring enormous benefits to the city. Concem has been expressed that the legislation was not presented to the Parliament earlier. I make the point to members opposite that tonight we are on the road. There may have been difficulties, but they have been overcome. From now on those honourable members will begin to see considerable benefits accming to the area in terms of employment and the other investment attracted to the area as a result of the project made possible by the Bill. Mr McELLIGOTT (Townsville) (10.39 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in the debate, although it is a little late in the proceedings for the Parliament to be debating the contents of such complicated legislation. The Bill results from protracted negotiations over quite a number of years involving a range of authorities. The site of the casino itself has its own problems because of the reclamation that is involved and its close proximity to the port. It is unfortunate, as other members have said, that members have not had the opportunity to study the Bill in detail. After all, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure that legislation meets the requirements of the electors whom we represent. All honourable members, and indeed the people of Townsville, should place tremendous faith in the officers and the elected members of the Townsville City CouncU, as well as the officers and the appointed members of the TownsvUle Harbour Board. They have put the various agreements together, and it is worth while noting that the final agreement between the State Government and the consortium has already been signed. By contrast with the work of the people to whom I have referred, honourable members in this House tonight are only ratifying the agreements that have been reached. The legislation will have a far-reaching effect, and for that reason it behoves aU honourable members to study the provisions of the Bill in detail. Among other things, the Bill provides for the rezoning of various classes of land within the area that is the subject of a lease agreement, notwithstanding the provisions of the Local Government Act. It also provides that the trustee shall be entitled to develop various aspects of the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement BUI 28 November 1984 3239 project without the consent of the councU of the city of Townsville or the TownsvUle Harbour Board. The Bill confers enormous rights upon the developers. Having said that, of course, I would be a very brave man indeed if I offered objections to the development itself. Rightly or wrongly, the people of Townsville regard the establishment of the casino as a catalyst that will lead to major developments within the city. Indeed, the initial announcement that Townsville had been awarded a casino licence had a dramatic effect on the economic activity.of the area. It was also noticeable that when some problems with the project became known, investment and interest in TownsviUe declined. There can be no doubt that the casino project is regarded by the people of TownsvUle as a catalyst for future development. It is therefore welcomed by the Opposition, if for no other reason than the effect that it is likely to have on the economic future of the area. It was a matter of surprise for me to leam that details of the first stage of the project were actually submitted on 30 July 1981. I had not previously realised that it was so long ago. I am sure that honourable members will remember that the original submission contained a magnificent concept. Although is is tme that the current proposal has been cut back from the original proposition, nevertheless, honourable members will be pleased with the committed works when they are completed. However, I am not as certain about the permitted works. I agree with the doubts expressed by the honourable member for Lytton (Mr Bums) about the projects being undertaken. I am concemed about the amenity of Anzac Park and Cleveland Bay that will be spoilt by the marina development. I would have preferred that the casino development had not included the marina. In my opinion, the people of Townsville are not receiving a due retum for the important amenity that they are giving away. The 150 marina berths could have been located elsewhere, and Anzac Park and Cleveland Bay could then have remained as they are. The investment and interest by the Sheraton Hotel in Townsville is welcomed by the Opposition. At this time, Townsville certainly needs further hotel development, and this major development will go part of the way towards meeting that need. Townsville and north Queensland are on the threshold of major development in the tourism industry, and this facility and the Sheraton Hotel's involvement will be of assistance to that development. I must congratulate all of the Govemment officials and the people involved in the casino project on their determination that the project would become a reality. Although Sir Leslie Thiess experienced significant problems over a period of time, he has displayed a determination to establish this project in Townsville. I feel sure that, although his resignation as chairman of the board was announced today, he must be very pleased that the project is to come to fmition. It would be remiss of me if I did not express very sincere congratulations to the TownsvUle City Council, because, when applications were originally called, it went to a tremendous amount of trouble, and some cost, to ensure that Townsville was the successful applicant. Since the decision was made to award the casino to Townsville, the council has been to the forefront in ensuring that nothing has gone wrong. In the final wash-up the council has, in my opinion, been most generous in regard to headworks charges, roadworks, water, sewerage and general rate charges. It believes, as I have already said, that the casino does offer real prospects for development in the city. Although it has been seen at times to be antidevelopment, even by members of this House, its record in regard to the casino development puts the lie to the criticism. The only unsatisfactory or unsavoury incident that occurred during the years of negotiations was a comment by the former Treasurer (Sir Llewellyn Edwards) when he attempted to blame the Townsville City Council and the Townsville Harbour Board for delays in the negotiations. Even he would now regret that statement. There was certainly 3240 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill no indication that the Townsville City Council at any stage held up the negotiations. In fact, as I said, it leant over backwards to ensure that the negotiations reached a satisfactory conclusion. The Townsville Harbour Board was very determined to ensure that its interests were protected, and rightly so. I presume that, as non-elected members, they did not have the same political concerns about making things difficult in some areas but, nevertheless, it has to be understood that the main port in Townsville is in very close proximity to the casino development. I understand that, at the last monthly meeting, the board instmcted the chairman that he was not to sign the agreement until the board had indemnity for the development in regard to the constmction of home units in close proximity to the port. The board considered, quite rightly, that future owners of those units could, for a whole range of reasons, have virtually closed down the port. It is perhaps worth mentioning that, some years ago now, there was a proposal to build a coal-loading facility within the Townsville harbour. At that time the clean air officers recommended that there be a 2 000 metre buffer zone round the coal-loader. The new casino development would certainly come within that buffer zone. So future users of the port, which may or may not be industries, could have the potential to disturb owners of home units in that area. So the board had every right to be very concerned. I understand that the chairman has now signed the agreement, so presumably he is satisfied with the outcome. The other matter about which I want to express concem is the permit to use sections of Anzac Park to provide an access road to the future marina. The legislation provides that the permit will be determined upon constmction of the road. My concem is that the marina may not be developed for something like 15 years, and I have a very real worry that that access road across what is now a public park will be access for the next 15 years to a site that will be used only for the dumping of spill and fill. It is located in a very attractive part of the city in front of the swimming-pool on the Strand. It would be a great shame indeed if that occurred, and I hope that there is some way in which the developer can be made to ensure that no unnecessary interference is caused to the area. Like Mr D'Arcy, I am concerned about the economic viability of the casino without poker machines. I join with him in saying that it will not be very long before poker machines are introduced, at least at the northern casino. Although the Gold Coast casino will have access to the several million people located in that part of Queensland, experience overseas indicates that most people who visit the northem casino will come from the local population. Quite frankly, 1 do not think that north Queenslanders will be quite so enthusiastic about playing some of the more sophisticated gambling games as perhaps they would be about playing poker machines. In my opinion it will not be very long before strong agitation surfaces for the introduction of poker machines in the northern casino. The Labor Party certainly would not object to them. I am concerned about the effect that the casino will have on sporting and community groups in the city. I understand that similar organisations in Darwin found it very difficult to raise funds after the casino was established. That seems reasonable, bearing in mind that most people have only a certain amount of money for gambling. If the casino attracts large crowds, obviously such organisations will feel the pinch. I understand that, in the Northern Territory, the Government had to subsidise them to recompense them for their loss of earnings. In the original discussions, reference was made to a community fund. I am not sure whether that is still included in the legislation. I think it was anticipated that, in the first year, the fund would raise $250,000. I note that I am being assured by the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer that the provision is still in the legislation. The fund should certainly go part of the way to making up the deficiency in earning capacity of the organisations. Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3241

I welcome the casino development to Townsville in the belief that it will be the catalyst for future development. I congratulate the casino unit on the work that it did, and the Townsville City Council and the harbour board on concluding very difficult and lengthy negotiations. Mr SMITH (Townsville West) (10.52 p.m.): I am the first to concede that as the fifth speaker, with very little opportunity to study the Bill, I cannot add much to the debate. I confirm the comments made by the member for Southport about the element of relief in the community in the knowledge that the project is finally getting under way. It was the viability of the consortium to get the project under way not the legislation that caused the most concern. I endorse the remarks of my colleagues that it is strange that this and similar legislation seems to be debated late at night, in the closing stages of the parliamentary session. The Casino Control Act, which contains some of the more important provisions relating to casinos, was debated late in November 1982, in the closing stages of the Parliament, and the Jupiters Casino Agreement Act was debated late in the night of 23 March and early in the morning of 24 March. As the honourable member for Woodridge said, because the Breakwater Island casino agreement runs into thousands of pages, it would be dishonest for anyone to say that he had a good understanding of all its provisions. The council's position has been somewhat tenuous. If it had not acquiesced to the demands of the developer a great deal of pressure would have been applied to it, and it would have been seen as antidevelopment. I place on record my concern that the people of Townsville may ultimately pay too high a price for the agreement. I hope that will not happen, but I must mention my fears at this stage. Obviously the Government has played a role. The harbour board has been more rigid in its demands than the council, mainly because it has been able to look at the project purely as a commercial operation, in that it has not been confronted, as both the councU and Government have been, with the political consequences of whether or not the project will get under way. Labor Party policy has always been pro casino and, naturally, the Oppositon is pleased that the northem casino is getting under way. I was interested to note when looking through the 1983 debate on the Jupiters Casino Agreement Bill that Sir Llewellyn Edwards was aghast at the possibility of State ownership of casinos. It is worth noting that the Northem Territory Govemment has virtually assumed that role, if only for a short time. That is evidence that a Govemment does have a major role to play in this type of development. Many people hope that the casino will have only positive effects; but, regrettably, evidence exists of the negative effects that can be brought about. When the proposal was announced, property prices became over-inflated and people invested with confidence and paid a lot of money for properties. Later, owing to delays that occurred, values diminished, with the result that a lessening of confidence has been brought about in the whole area. I only hope that confidence will be restored by the passing of this legislation. However, I must say that many people have done their money. I know that the connection between Sir Leslie Thiess and the Govemment has already been discussed this evening. Obviously, the Thiess organisation received Government patronage. Although I admit that Sir Leslie Thiess has a difficult project, with which I wish him well, I must say that, if one of the local organisations had put up some fairly good concepts and had been given the nod earlier, the development might be far more advanced than it is at present. It is hard to break new ground, but massive changes have occurred in the concept of the casino. If some of the local developers realised that what is being allowed now was all that was required in the first instance, they could have put forward proposals that would have been less costly and

66530—110 3242 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement BiU may have been more viable. I am sure that some of the consortiums that were put together would have held together. With the casino, tourism initiatives will develop. The Townsville community has considered the development of its airport in the same way as the Surfers Paradise community has considered the development of the Coolangatta airport. One honourable member mentioned the hospitality college. Those initiatives will result from this development. However, it has been a very stmng-out development. It was promised that a start would be made in November 1982, but it is only getting under way now, two years later. Even the fairest commentator would have to apportion a considerable part of the blame to the Govemment. It is impossible to talk about casinos without mentioning poker machines. Mr Davis: We should have one on every comer. Mr SMITH: The member for Brisbane Central said that there should be one on every comer; but I do not agree completely with that. Although poker machines may not be permitted anywhere else, it is inevitable that they will eventually be permitted in casinos. Unless poker machines are added, I question the viability of the northern casino with its smaller number of potential patrons. When development occurs, everyone pays a price. It has not been mentioned tonight that Townsville has a large fishing community. Almost 2 000 signatures appear on a petition in circulation from fishermen who have been denied access to the popular area of the breakwater. I do not know how much longer than two years that ban wiU be in force. Although some people might treat it lightly, that is the recreational pursuit of a large number of people of limited income, and they are being denied that activity. I hope that the Deputy Premier is listening. Something ought to be done to give the Townsville Harbour Board some relief so that it can modify its regulations to allow access to that area. I am getting the message, so I wUl finish by saying that I hope that the Deputy Premier heard my final comment about the problem of the fishermen and will give it consideration. Mr CASEY (Mackay) (11 p.m.): I wish to make two points on the BiU. The first relates to section 46 of the schedule. Because of parliamentary practices and procedures, schedules to Bills cannot be amended, and that is the case with this agreement between the Government and the companies concemed. I am concemed about the exclusions contained in that section. Under the definitions contained in the early part of the schedule, quite clearly only one part of the State is being penalised by these exclusions— the Mackay/Whitsunday area, which falls within the declared 400-km radius. I am prepared to go along with a five-year exclusion for all casinos north of the Tropic of Capricorn, which will allow the Townsville casino to get itself firmlyestablished . However, after five years an application for a casino licence in the Carins area will be considered. All honourable members would know that that was the second prize when tenders were called and considered by the Government. Honourable members also know the recipient of that second prize. Not only will that prize be given after five years, but all other parts of Queensland north of the Tropic of Capricom, such as Mount Isa, Cape York, Cooktown, Kammba and any other area can apply for a casino licence. The third most likely place in north Queensland for a casino is either Mackay or the Whitsunday area, especially the Whitsunday Islands. I ask the House to consider the type of development that has been occurring in the Whitsunday area in recent years. It is of international standard. A major resort has been built on Hamilton Island, with Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill 28 November 1984 3243 the investment of $ 100m. Commercial jet aircraft can now fly direct to that island. The owners of Hayman Island have approximately $60m in the investment pipeline. Approx­ imately $20m is to be spent on South Molle Island. Now that the SGIO has fully purchased Lindeman Island from the P & O group, I understand that it has major plans for the development of that island. There is no question about it; tourists accept that, for offshore areas, there is no place in Australia like the Whitsunday Passage. In fact, there is no place like it anywhere else in the world. One hundred miles north and south of Mackay there are more offshore islands than there are off any other part of the mainland. If offshore casinos are to be constmcted in Australia, the Whitsunday area will be the first to have one. But what has happened under this legislation? That area has been excluded for the next 15 years! With development, an awful lot can happen in 15 years. Until 15 years ago only one coal mine was operating in the new Bowen basin in central Queensland. Now that area is exporting approximately 40 million tonnes per annum. Was some sort of clause put into the legislation covering the Goonyella mine restricting the amount of devel­ opment that could be undertaken in the area? Certainly not! But that is what this Bill is doing. It prevents for 15 years the constmction of a casino in the best tourist spot in north Queensland. Mr Menzel: That is socialism. Mr CASEY: The honourable member for Mulgrave can say what he likes about that. If he put a bag over his head we would not have to look at him, much less listen to him. One of these days he will learn that he should speak only of things about which he knows something. The area also has potential for development at Airlie Beach and Cannon Vale. There is also the proposed development of The Beak in the Shute Harbour area. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation is endeavouring to establish major developments at the mouth of the Pioneer River. Those are the sort of things that naturally attract persons who are interested in casino operations. Anyone who wants to invest in them in the next few months will have to be told, "If you want a casino operation or any other type of operation with the type of games that are played in the casino in Townsville, you have to go away from here because you cannot be allowed to invest in this area for 15 years." That is the restriction. It is a discriminatory restriction, a disgraceful restriction that is being placed on that most beautiful area of Queensland. The member for Whitsunday and Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, and the member of Mirani— both Govemment members who come from the Mackay district—and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, whose electorate borders on the Mackay district, ought to hang their heads in shame for allowing their Government to accept such restrictions in the casino documents that they have already signed and accepted. When the section is properly examined, the matter becomes even worse. The section clearly sets out that no other provisions of any other Act from time to time that comes into force in this State will have any effect on this Bill. That means that a Bill cannot be introduced to repeal this Bill. An amending Bill cannot be introduced to alter that schedule in this BiU at any time during the period of 15 years. It is restricted by law once the Bill is passed by this Parliament. Those exclusions are dangerous for the Mackay area. Development of the type that I believe will come and should come to the Mackay/ Whitsunday area within the next 15 years—indeed, after the five-year period—will not be allowed. I tum now to the Townsville Harbour Board agreement. At the outset, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly set out the voluminous documents that were received. The member for Woodridge also referred to them. He said that members had to pemse them in a short period. I know that, in the original agreement with the Townsville Harbour Board, the casino-owners sought to restrict harbour board operations. That is virtually what it did. As far as I am concerned, part of that agreement is still not good. 3244 28 November 1984 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Bill

Section 29 of the agreement between the casino-operators and the TownsviUe Harbour Board relates to the harbour board users and lessees. Amongst the users of the port of Townsville is the mighty MIM Holdings, Queensland's largest company. It is one of Queensland's greatest export-earners and one of Queensland's greatest employers. It is the only Queensland company that is listed in the top five Australian companies. It is the life-blood of Townsville and most areas of north Queensland that receive a spin-off from the operations of MIM. The agreement with the TownsvUle Harbour Board still contains a restriction on the extension of immunity in port operations. The company tried to stand over the Townsville Harbour Board, and the Government was prepared initially to support it. Because the Townsville Harbour Board stood out against the Govemment and was prepared to walk away from signing the agreement and would not be involved in the agreement, the Govemment had to come to terms and do something positive to protect the users of the harbour. It could mean that, if any one of the purchasers of those 300 units that will be built on the site does not like the smell of zinc concentrates or dust coming from the harbour use or any future harbour use, an objection could be lodged and he would not get any immunity at all. The port of Townsville was there long before there was any proposal to build a casino. The casino/hotel is only a matter of 750 metres from a major oil tanker berth. The use of the area has to tie in with the port use. I do not believe that Parliament can be happy with the provisions of that agreement. It cannot be happy with the protection that has been afforded to the board, MIM Holdings or future port-operators in Townsville, and the operations that they will carry out there. Problems will be encountered in that area during the currency of the agreement. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (11.9 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I think that all honourable members are pleased that this project is off the ground at last. Putting the corporate stmcture together has been a massive job, I pay a tribute to Drayton Industries Pty Ltd. It has stayed with the project since its commencement. There is no earthly doubt that, if it had not stayed with the project, it would not have got off the ground. It has done a massive job, for which I pay it a particular tribute. The honourable member for Lytton mentioned economic spin-offs. When Townsville gets the yacht club, the extensions to Anzac Park, its marina, etc., there is no doubt that tourism will be a big industry there. It is ready to rocket. On Friday I am going to Townsville to turn the first sod on a $10m development—a brickworks, I think it is. Whenever I go to Cairns I am told that the only mistake that has been made is that the casino is not going there. The trouble is that everybody wants a casino in his town. I believe that the casino should be built in Townsville, and I think that it will be a great success. The Government is delighted that the project has got off the ground. The Government had to give ground and the council had to give ground. The Govemment had to give every encouragement. It has done that, and it is hoped that the casino will be a success. I have been in many casinos round the world. However, I have not been to the one in Seoul that the member for Woodridge mentioned, Mr Davis: What are the other two that you have been to? Mr GUNN: I have been in quite a few of them. I have been all over America with Baron Hilton visiting his casinos. He will be in Australia within the next fortnight. Hiltons, of course, will manage the Jupiters casino, and their casinos are well-managed. Mr Mackenroth: Did you win any money? Mr GUNN: I did at one casino, but I will not skite about that. Mr Mackenroth: He is a gambler. The Premier did not know that. Valedictory 28 November 1984 3245

Mr GUNN: I will have a go. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr GUNN: The Govemment will get something out of the casino. However, there is not as much money in casinos for Governments as Opposition members think. A great deal of money can be made from tourism, and the spin-offs go to the public. There is no doubt about that. Jupiters, of course, is a great success story. A comparison was made between the Townsville casino and Jupiters casino. There is no comparison at all, because Jupiters is a much bigger project. Nevertheless, the Townsville project is of great importance. The honourable member for Lytton mentioned also the car-parks—about 49, if I recall correctly. The council is very happy with the provision of car-parking. Most of the car-parking in this project is outside. The Alice Springs casino, because it is a flat building, has all of its car-parking outside. Nevertheless, it is a very attractive building. The Casino Control Division will supervise the project to its completion. I consider that Sheraton is a good operator. I have been in many Sheraton and Hilton hotels, and there is no doubt that they are good operators. Queensland is very fortunate to have those two operators and particularly to have the Sheraton in Townsville. The Townsville project was very difficult to handle. As could be expected, the member for Mackay spoke about casinos in his area, particularly on the Whitsunday Islands. That is a beautiful area, but casinos cannot be everywhere. Many people do not visit an area simply because it has a casino. Casinos do attract a certain class of person, but not all holiday-makers go to casinos. The Government is delighted that at last this Bill is getting off the ground. It is also delighted with the co-operation that it has received, and I pay a tribute to the Townsville City Council and, of course, the Casino Control Division which worked so very hard. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Gunn) agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 8, and schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a third time.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until 11 o'clock a.m. on a date to be fixed by Mr Speaker in consultation with the Govemment of this State. Mr Speaker shall, not less than seven days prior to the meeting date so fixed, give notification of such meeting date to each member of the House." Mr Mackenroth: Up you jump, Joh. You know how to do this. You've been doing this for a long time.

VALEDICTORY Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.16 p.m.): Yes, I do know how to do this, Mr Speaker. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members when I say that 1984 has been a very demanding year for us all. I am told that this year the House has sat for 50 days over 17 sitting weeks. 3246 28 November 1984 Valedictory

Now that the Parliament is about to rise for the Christmas recess, I say a special thank you to a number of people. First, to all of my Cabinet colleagues and members of the Government party, I express my deep appreciation for the part they have played. I thank also members of the parties opposite. I wish all members a very happy Christmas. In your first year of office, Mr Speaker, on many occasions you have had very difficult decisions to make. You have carried out your duties very well and with great dignity. The Chairman of Committees, Mr Ted Row, has similarly had a great deal of work to do and has carried out his tasks in his usual effective manner. I especially thank the Leader of the House, Claude Wharton, who never seems to mn out of energy. Recently I read in the newspapers that he is getting on in years, but very few outsiders would be aware of the work that Claude does in organising the business of the House. I myself did it for many years and I know exactly what is involved. I am sure that all honourable members have a deep appreciation of what Claude has done as Leader of the House. His task this year has been very demanding, and I thank him very sincerely for his efforts. The Government Whips, Don Neal and Bill Kaus, and the Opposition Whip— firstly, Tom Bums, and, after Tom's recent promotion, Brian Davis—have done a very good job. Mr Davis interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Particulariy Mr Bums. Honourable Members interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Davis still has to prove himself I thank the Clerk of the Parliament, Alan Woodward, for all of his help and assistance during 1984. We always look to the Clerk to provide us with advice on all kinds of matters that arise from time to time during the parliamentary session. Alan is always there when we want him. Our thanks go also to the Deputy Clerk of the Parliament, Robert Doyle, the Sergeant-at-Arms, Doug Randle, Ian Thompson, Peter Byrnes and the other table staff. As well, we thank the Chief Reporter, Bevan Battersby, and his staff, the Chief Executive Officer, Len Smyth, and the accountant. Bob Fick, and their staffs, all of whom have given tremendous help to members during 1984. The thanks of the Government go also to Mr Nick Bannenberg and the staff of the parliamentary library. They have never failed to provide Govemment members with the service for which the library has become famous over the years. I say a special word of thanks to Mrs Brenda Milton and the staff of the refreshment rooms, who are always there to help. They have done a wonderful job and I am sure that their efforts are appreciated very much by all honourable members. I thank the secretarial staff and all of the attendants, especially the chief parliamentary attendant, Mr Jack Montgomery, as well as Mr Des Richards, our colleague who works very hard for Ministers in the adjoining room, and Mr John Vote. They all deserve our thanks for their considerable help during 1984. I thank also the Government Services Co-ordinator, Mr Don Duncanson. He has done a tremendous job, and I am sure that all honourable members appreciate the quiet and effective way in which he goes about his work. I have said it before, and I will say it again today, that the gardeners are to be congratulated on their work. The parliamentary gardens are an outstanding example of their dedication and effort. I thank the Pariiamentary Counsel, Mr Leo Murray, and members of his staff. They have had a very demanding year. The Govemment introduced a heavy legislative program, which involved the drafting of many Bills. Valedictory 28 November 1984 3247

Our thanks go out to the electorate secretaries. When the House is in session, the electorate secretaries are out in the electorates, handling all the inquiries during our absence. I thank them for their help. I express my thanks to the permanent heads of the Premier's Department, Mr Syd Schubert, Mr Leo Hielscher and Dr Col Brennan. They have given me considerable help and assistance throughout the year, and I wish them to know that the work performed by them and members of their staff is very much appreciated by myself and others. I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to my personal staff, who work very long hours. My secretaries, Mr John Walsh, Mr Peter Anemaat and Mr Ken Crooke are very dedicated. I thank also the Govemment pilot. Miss Beryl Young, who is in charge of the Govemment Air Wing, for another year of safe flying, and Athol Dory, the helicopter pilot. He has performed many outstanding feats of flying and has been instmmental in rescues and the saving of life. I thank also my former research assistant. Miss Wendy Armstrong. Indeed, I thank aU the girls who work in my office for their dedication, and also the girls who work in the various Ministers' offices, the offices of the Leader of the Opposition and the other Opposition members. As I said, they all work very long hours, and I again thank them for their help during the year. I offer sincere thanks to one and all. Although at times honourable members disagree and have differences of opinion, by and large all of us strive to do the job as we see it, within the parliamentary system of Govemment that operates in Queensland. I am sure that the worth and importance of the Parliament is acknowledged by all honourable members. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (11.22 p.m.): On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition, I extend thanks to all of the staff and all of the other people who have worked so hard on our behalf during the recent parliamentary session. It is tme that all of the people who work in this House render tremendous service. They have to keep late hours in the library, in Hansard, in the press gallery and at the centre table. Those people work many extra hours but do not receive the kind of salary that honourable members receive. Their tremendous loyalty and service is appreciated. On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to pass on best wishes for the festive season to the Premier and Treasurer and his Ministers, and to honourable members on the Govemment side. I offer my best wishes to members of the Opposition and my thanks for their support during the session. Very rarely does a new session of Parliament begin without a motion being moved expressing sympathy to the families of honourable members whom we have known and who have passed away. I hope that our retum to this Chamber next year will be different. As honourable members are aware, during 1984 we lost Kevin Hooper and Dr Denis Murphy. I express the hope that all honourable members will return here in good health in 1985. If the Parliament is to lose members, it is desirable that they be lost at elections— especially members on the Govemment side! To Alan Woodward and his colleagues at the centre table, the members of the Hansard staff, the staff of the library, the staff of the dining room, the staff of the correspondence room, the staff of the accounts office, Don Duncanson and his staff, switchboard operators, electorate secretaries, attendants, security officers, gardeners, cleaners and everyone else associated with ParUament House, the Opposition offers its best wishes for the festive season. The Premier has done a marvellous job in naming all those people, and I join with him in wishing them the season's greetings. I say a very personal thank you to my own staff; to Deirdre, who has been with me since the day members were first allotted electorate secretaries, and my personal 3248 28 November 1984 Valedictory staff, Monica and Gary, who help me so much. I thank them all very much. I wish everyone the very best for the festive season. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (11.25 p.m.): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I join with the Premier and Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in wishing all honourable members a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year, and we trust that those greetings will be extended to all their families. We tmst that peace and happiness will continue throughout the festive season, and also during 1985. It was a marvellous effort on the part of the Premier and Treasurer to recount all the staff in Parliament House. I made a few notes, and I hope I will not miss anyone. We certainly pay a tribute to you, Mr Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees and the panel of Temporary Chairmen for their tolerance during the session. The going has not been the easiest, and we tmst that better times are ahead. To the Clerk of the Parliament, Mr Woodward; the Deputy Clerk, Mr Doyle; and the officers at the table, we say thank you all for your assistance during the session, and we tmst that you will all enjoy a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year. To Nick Bannenberg, the Parliamentary Librarian, and his staff, Bevan Battersby and the Hansard staff, Len Smyth and the administrative staff, Joan Turner and the typing pool, Mrs Milton and her people who look after us so well, the attendants, the security staff and the gardeners who make the operation of Parliament so pleasant and so apparently easy, we say thank you very much and wish them well. We tmst that the institution of Parliament will continue to serve the people of Queensland and to serve them well. We hope that 1985 will be a happy, prosperous and bright year for each and every one of you. Mr SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I want to thank the Premier and Treasurer for the kind remarks he has made and to reciprocate his good wishes for Christmas and the new year to me and the staff of Parliament House. It has been a very busy year, especially this last session. I have high praise for the staff, especially Alan Woodward, the Clerk of the Parliament, Robert Doyle, his able deputy, and Doug, Peter and Ian (my table staff) for their total support over the past year. No-one knows better than I do the work they have put in and the dedication they have shown in guiding this House in what I can only describe as a difficult year. My special thanks to you, Alan. To my secretary, Joan Smerdon, I offer my sincere thanks for a job well done. To Tom, my aide, Damien Glancy, my driver. Jack Montgomery and all the attendants, I say thank you also for your help and dedication to your jobs; and that goes for Don Duncanson and his maintenance and security staff. Mrs Milton and her entire staff have excelled themselves over the past year, and I would like to pass on to her, the chefs and every one of the staff involved the appreciation, not only of all honourable members of this House, but also of every organisation that has held a function here. I say a special thank you also to Bevan Battersby, our Chief Hansard Reporter, his deputy. Bob Gustavson, and every member of the Hansard team for the consistently excellent standard they have maintained during the long hours worked in this place. I praise them for their efforts. The Parliament can be proud of the quality and high standard that our library staff, under the capable guidance of Nick Bannenberg, has attained. I greatly appreciate the co-operation I have received. To Len Smyth, chief executive officer. Bob Fick and the capable accounts staff, I say thank you for your efforts throughout the year and for a job well done. Valedictory 28 November 1984 3249

To Joan Turner and her team of stenographers, thank you for the efficient and cheerful manner in which you have performed your duties. Those remarks also apply to Margaret Hughes and the ladies on the switchboard. Their services are appreciated, along with those of the committee clerks and staff. I am sure all honourable members will endorse my vote of thanks to Nola Smith and her capable staff who keep both Houses spic and span. I also say thank you to the gardening staff under the guidance of the head gardener, John Pullman. Last, but not least, I also say special thanks to Ted Row, Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Temporary Chairmen. I also thank the Leader of the House, who has done a trememdous job. Honourable members, along with my good wishes for Christmas and the new year, I invite you to join me in a rather late drink and a bite to eat. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.