Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1982

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2376 17 November 1982 Questions Upon Notice

WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1982

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Muller, Fassifern) 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— Land Administration Commission including report of the Brisbane Forest Park Advisory Planning Board for the year ended 30 June 1982 Comptroller-General of Prisons for the year ended 30 June 1982 The following papers were laid on the table:— Order in CouncU under the Counter-Disaster Organization Act 1975-1978 Regulations under— Public Service Act 1922-1978 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Gas Act 1965-1981 Miners' Homestead Leases Act 1913-1982 Mining Act 1968-1982,

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS Appropriation BUl (No, 2) Hon, C, A, WHARTON (Buraett—Leader of the House): I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the receiving of Resolutions from the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means on the same day as they shall have passed in those Committees and the passing of an Appropriation Bill through all its stages in one day." Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows:—

It Government Expenditure for Job Programs Mr Wright asked the Premier— With reference to his recent Press statement in which he stated that the Government has approved expenditure of $58m for job programs, giving the impression that the $58m was additional to expenditure already announced in the Budget— (1) Where has this $58m been spent or where wUl it be spent? (2) Was the expenditure additional to expenditure already announced and allocated in the Budget? Answer:— (1 & 2) In an interview with the Press, I merely referred to the fad that in recent weeks specific approvals had been given for expenditure totaUing some $58m for various programs. These programs wiU obviously assist the employment situation.

2. Qangos Mr Wright asked the Premier— (1) How many statutory authorities, boards, commissions and other qangos, have been established under Queensland laws and are still operative? (2) What are the names of these bodies and under which Government department have they been set up? Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1982 2377

(3) What are the (a) names, (b) dates and terms of appointment and (c) salaries of all persons appointed to these bodies? (4) What has happened to the report of the inquiry into the performance of qangos ordered by State Cabinet in May 1981? (5) Will he table the committee's report in this Parliament?

Answer:— (1 to 5) As advised by the Honourable the Premier on 26 October 1982, the matter of the number of statutory bodies and committees in Queensland and their reporting requirements and procedures is under investigation. Details as to the names, dates and terms of appointment, and salaries of all persons appdnted to these bodies are not readily available and, as considerable research would be necessary to prepare this data, it is not proposed to initiate such action, A complete assessment by Ministers has been made of statutory authorities and commktees following the report of the Co-ordinating and Review Committee, It is not proposed that this report, which was prepared for Cabinet, be made public.

3. Vehicle-crossing Counts, Pioneer River Bridges, Mackay Mr Casey asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and PoUce— (1) What are the latest vehicle counts for traffic crossing the Pioneer River at Mackay by way of (a) the Hospital Bridge (b) the Rockldgh Bridge and (c) the Forgan Bridge? (2) What were the dates on which these counts were taken and what are the annual vehicle-crossing projections, based on these figures? (3) What were the counts and projections for each of the previous three years, where applicable, at each location?

Answer:— (1) The latest traffic counts on the bridges crossing the Pioneer River gave average daily traffic volumes of 2 500 vehicles for the Hospital Bridge, 14 300 vehicles for the Ron Camm Bridge and 22 150 vehicles for the Forgan Bridge. (2) These counts were conducted during March 1981, July 1982 and Febraary 1982, rrapectively, over a period of approximately one month. (3) Prior to opening the Ron Camm Bridge, simUarly conducted counts gave average daily traffic volumes of 4 800 vehicles in 1979 and 5 140 vehicles in 1980 for the Hospkal Bridge and 26 800 vehicles in 1979 and 28 000 vehicles in 1980 for the Forgan Bridge. Since its opening, the average daily traffic volumes on the Ron Camm Bridge were 7 980 vehicles in 1980 and 12 500 vehicles in 1981. The average daUy traffic volume on the Forgan Bridge in 1981 was 21 800 vehicles.

^ Importation of Timber Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Lands and Forestry— (1) What varieties, types and quantities of timber are currently being imported into Queensland? (2) What effects will these imports have on our important timber industry? (3) What timber types and varieties of timber are required and are not being met in fuU or part? (4) How do royalties and labour costs in Queensland compare with those in other States and in New Zealand? (5) What incentives for export are given to New Zealand timber and other timber products and what protection exists for Queensland and Australian timber and timber products against cheap imports? (6) Is the present forestry policy aimed at self-sufficiency some time in the future and, if so, how is this calculated and implemented in both hardwood and pine and what assumptions is it based on? 2378 17 November 1982 Questions Upon Ndice

Answer:— (1) In 1981 timber was imported into Queensland from overseas sources at a rate of some 130 000 cubic metres per annum. This was made up principally of sawn lumber of framing and larger sizes from the foUowing areas— West Coast North America cubic metres Spruce pine fir mix and Douglas fir 60 000 New Zealand Radiata pine and Douglas fir ,, .. .. .; .. 25 000 Asia Meranti/Philippine Mahpgany, etc...... 45 0(X) In addition, large quantities of radiata pine enter Queensland froin New South Wales Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, while mixed hardwoods enter from northern New South Wale^. On an interstate trading basis,, net sawn timber imports to (Jueensland total some 50 000 cubic metres per annum. , (2) Traditionally, Queensland has been partly dependent on imports of tiihber from outside the State, particularly from New South Wales. More recently, depressed conditions in the buUding industry in Australia, intense cornpetition from low-cost timbers, and often subsidised timbers from other sources, both overseas and inte;rstate, have l«l to a number of Queensland sawmills ceasing production cOitipletely and others seterdy curtailing production. These fadors have had particularly adverse! effeds on the cypress pine and plantation-based industries, with the closure of sawmills in many small rural communities causing serious economic repercussions. • - (3) At the present time, there is a serioUJs market over-supply in most grades of timber products. However, the mafket demand for high-grade veneer from natural grown hoop pine cannot be totally satisfied. , (4) A direct comparison of royalties in New Zealand and Australia cannot be readily made since there is Uttle firm and up^to-date information immediately available. As a generalisation on an equivalent log-size and quality basis, howevd, k is the understanding of my departmental officers that New Zealand royalties are about one-third of those in Australia. Any more direct comparison is complicated by variations in the New Zealand/AustraUa, exchange rate. On mainland Australia, royalty levels are broadly comparable, from State to St^te, recognising location of timber supplies relative tP major markets. Royalties on timber in Tasinania are somewhat lower... My ofiicers do not monitor New Zealand labour costs on a regular basis. However, if labour costs in New Zealand are converted to the Australian dPllat equivalent, they are unddslood to be some 40-45 per cent below costs in AustraUa for similar work undertaken. (5) New Zealand timber producers currently enjoy a variety of export-oriented benefits provided by their Government. Full details of these are not immediately'available to me, but coUectivdy such advantages are repcwtedto repwesent an approximate'30 per cent benefit to the New Zealand industry. In the case of square-dressed stradural timber, evidence recently presented to the Australian Customs Bureau under the Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping) Act indicates that export sales to Aiistralia have been conduded at pri& levels which represent apparent dumping margins of up to 49 per tent when coiiipared to domestic price levels, for similar timber in jl^ew Zealand. Presently imports of many New Zealand forest products into AiistraUa are duty free under the New .Zealand Australia Fre^. Trade Agreement, Some exc^ipns do exist, however, including particle board and hardboar4 (15 per cent duty), some flooring material, including plywood (12.5 per cent duty) and certaiin Ibuvered goods ^7.5 per cent duty). These protection levels are currently under review in the light of ptdposiis to. enter;closer economic relations with.New Zealand. In the case of Seribus material injury being inflicted on local industry, there is provision foir application \0 be made via the AustsaUft Customs Bureau under the. Customs. T^Uf (Anti Dumping) Act or for the imposition of prptective or countervailing duty, : • ; (6) The present forestry poUcy in Queendand is aimed at achlevilig nd self- sufficiency in timber, taking account of projeded population trends^ peir capita consump­ tion levels, overaU. estimated . demand; dedining production frorii native forests, anticipated availability in the long term of competitive imports" and the possibility of some Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1982 2379

limited export markets. To meet these objectives, it is estimated that a total softwood plantation estate of about 200 000 ha will be required to supplement the continuing level of prpdildion from the native foresifs. To March 19^2, 137 OOO ha had been established.

5 Fruit and Vegetable Production and Sale Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) What is the annual productipn of (a) fruit and (b) vegetables in Queensland? (2) What is the Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian and overseas consumption of (a) fruit and (b) vegetables from Queensland? (3) What restriction is placed on the rnovement and sale of Queensland fruit and vegetables interstate or overseas? (4) What tariffs, quotas or controls are placed on interstate or overseas fruit and vegetables entering Queensland?

Answer:— (1) Preliminary estimates indicate that fruit and vegetable production in Queensland in 1981-82 was valued at some $243.Im. The value of fruit production amounted to $99.5m, while vegetables amounted to $143.6m. (2) Consumption information for fruit and vegetables by States and for overseas markets is nd collected. However, the value of exports to aU destinations of fresh, chiUed and dried products in 1981-82 was estimated t>y the Bureau of Statistics at $39.7m. Statistical data on interstate movements of fruit and vegetables are believed to be incomplete because of unrecorded- moverhents. (3) Restrictions on the movement and Sale! of Queensland fruit and vegetables interstate and overseas principally entail quarantine restrictions imposed by the State or country of destination. With regard to interstate trade, the major quarantine barrier relates to the movement of a wide range of fresh fruit and vegdables that are potential carriers of fruit fly. There is a requirement that all such fruit and vegetables entering southern New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania be appropriately treated beforehand to minimise the risk of spreading fruit fly to these areas. The quarantine restrictions on exported Queensland produce depend on the quarantine requirements of the country of destination. These will depend on the particular com­ modity and the i>est and disease status of the importing country. (4) There are no quotas on produce entering Queensland. There are, however, quarantine controls and tariffs appUcable to Australia as a whole. Detailed statistics of annual production and trade will be inade available to the honourable member.

6- Training Program for Apprentices, Bundaberg Foundry Co. Ltd Mr Blake asked the Minister for Bmployinent and Labour Relations^ With reference to his advice that the indentures of Bundaberg Foundry Co, Ltd apprentices be not canceUed at this stage, and that the commission expects that Bundaberg Foundry Co. Ltd would introduce an off-the-job training program, either by way of a formalised training program in conjunction with the commission and the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, or by employing a trainer of: their own choosing who would provide experience and training for the apprentices by way of maintenance-type work— (1) What progress to date have commission officers achieved in having a training program for the apprentices instituted by Bundaberg Foundry Co. Ltd, either in con­ junction wkh the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations or by employing a trainer of their own choice? (2) How many of the apprentices in question have been re-employed by Bundaberg Foundry Co. Ltd, or placed in other appropriate positions as a result of efforts by the company or the commission? 2380 17 November 1982 Questions Without Notice

Answer:— (1) It was inkially the expressed intention of the Industry and Commerce Training Commission to establish a training program at these premises, but it was found that— (a) Bundaberg Foundry was not prepared to co-operate; and (b) As there were prospects of placing some apprentices with new employers, it seemed appropriate that my officers should concentrate on seeking alternative employment for the apprentices, (2) Fourteen apprentices were involved and, to date, new positions have been located for eight of these. However, these positions are not in Bundaberg and, because of this, two of the apprentices have dedded not to accept the opportunity of transferring their indentures. These two apprentices, to^etl\er with the remaining six, are still employed by the Bundaberg Foundry. I am sure that the honourable member recognises the difficulties associated with endeavours to locate apprenticeship vacancies for these young men. I can assure him that my officers are continuing to make every effort to assist the apprentices.

7. Mon Repos Turtle Rookery Mr Blake asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— With reference to his recent fact-finding visiit to the Mon Repos turtle rookery, and to Press reports that he discussed wkh the Woongarra Shire Council "once and for aU" what the requirements were to ensure that the turtle rookery was protected— (1) Has he determined with clarity the requirements to ensure that the Mon Repos turtle rookery is protected? (2) Is he now able to assure the many people concerned for the preservation of the turtle rookery that effective measures have been taken by the Government to guarantee the preservation of the Mon Repos rookery? (3) If not, when are effective measures to be taken to ensure the preservation of the Mon Repos turtle rookery? A nswer:— (1) Yes, as far as the present state of our scientific knowledge will allow. (2) Yes. Effective measures are in hand to preserve the rookery and details will be announced shortly. (3) See (1) and (2).

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing Commission Houses Mr WRIGHT: In asking a question of the Minister for Works and Housing, I refer to the Treasurer's repeated statements in the Assembly and publicly that at least 1000 houses have already been approved under the Government's new housing scheme and, moreover, to his continumg statement that by February 1983 that number wUl have increased to 3 COO. I now ask: WiU the Minister confirm that the figures given by the Treasurer are correct, and will he table departmental records showing the number of applications actually approved as at 1 November 1982?

Mr WHARTON: I confirm the figures contained in the Treasurer's statements concerning applications recdved. At the moment, in excess of 1 000 applications have been approved. Mr Wright: Approved?

Mr WHARTON: The honourable member does not seem to understand what is meant by an approval, A person applies for a loan and he gets approval to enter into a contract on a house. That is what is termed "approval" So in excess of 1 000 houses have been approved. Mr Wright: WiU you table the records? Questions Without Notice 17 November 1982 2381

Mr WHARTON: Why should I table the records? Surely the honourable member does nd want me to table in the House a personal application by somebody for a loan. Mr Wright: I just want the numbers. Mr WHARTON: Of course I have the numbers. If the honourable member does not mind, I will answer the question. He has asked a dozen questions now. The honourable member wiU be interested to note that this week the Housing Com­ mission is calling tenders for a total of 43 new housing units, including 25 out at Mayes Estate. Since 1 July this year, the commission has aUocated $14m for rental housing, which has provided a considerable number of houses. However, the honourable member does not appreciate that. Since 1 July, the Works Department has spent $65m. That expenditure helps create employment and helps people to gd into houses. If the honourable member would ease up a little bk and get his facts together, he would find that the Government is doing a great deal not only in relation to rental housing but also in relation to purchase houses. People matter to the Government, The Government is concerned about the housing of people. Instead of creatmg a lot of hot air around the place, the Government is actually building houses for rental and for purchase for the people of the State.

Arrangements for Four-day Week and Taking of Leave Mr McLEAN: I refer the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations to the trend that is developing in the present economic cUmate of employers asking employees to work a four-day week and to take annual leave and long service leave entitlements. I ask the Mmister: Is he in favour of that practice? What are the legal obligations of his department and the Industrial ConcUiation and Arbitration Commission to cater for such arrangements? What safeguards exist or are being implemented to protect the employees? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The principle is a worthy one if it is properly and correctly attended to. Unfortunately, many of the arrangements are not. They collapse because matters were not properly vaUdated and people begin to use the law to recover their entitlements. A few weeks ago I issued a warning about such arrangements. Unless they have the sanction of the commission the people involved run the risk of the arrangements being invalid. I have given public warnings. Some of the arrangements that have already been made have collapsed.

Molasses Storages Mr RANDELL: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Because of the need for molasses as a valuable stock food in times of drought, particularly in the Central Queensland area where there is also a great need for molasses storage tanks, has he made application to the Federal Government for additional funds to erect suitable storages? If so, has he received a reply, and what is the context of it? Mr AHERN: Yes, an approach has been made to the CommonweaUh Government to provide money, out of the sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State relative to drought strategies generally, for the construction of molasses storages along the lines suggested by the honourable member. The Federal Government has approved in principle the scheme that we have proposed, and we are currently working out details of how k might be put into effect. There are difficulties associated wkh the decision, such as the areas where the storages are to be situated, the particular land upon which they are to be skuated, thdr management and maintenance, and so on. Those matters are close to resolution, and I nope to be able to make a recommendation to Cabinet shortly. As soon as a decision IS made, I shall issue a public notice about it.

Amendments to Animals Protection Act MAin'^B UNDERWOOD: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Government, raain Koads and Police, I remind him that in the Pariiament in late 1981 he promised he i()« .'"^r.^"*'"'^"*^ ^° ^^^ Animals Protedion Act eariy in 1982. I now ask: As nrort. rin it^''''^*'^^ year is fast drawing to a close, could he advise us when he will be prooucmg the promised amendments? 2382 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

Mr HINZE: The facts are simply as stated by the honourable member, I promised that I would be introducing amen4ing legislation about animal protection, I have not been able to have those amendments prepared to this stage. I assure the House that 1 wiU do so as quickly as I possibly can. Access to MLC Arcade from Adelaide Street Dr LOCKWOOD: I ask the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police: Can he prevaU upon the Brisbane City Council to provide reasonable access for shoppers to the MLC arcade; from Adelaide Street while it is carrying out essential local government works? Mr HINZE: I have been advised of the problem in Adelaide Street. Mr Burns: What are you reading from, if this is a questipn without notice? Mr SPEAKER: Order! • Mr Burns: He is reading the answer. Mr HINZE: When I was told that I was going to be asked a question wkhout notice, I ensured that I had the answer handy. Mr BURNS; I rise tp a point of order. Questions without notice are supposed to be without notice. He should not be getting these questions and answers handed out. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HINZE: I have been advised of the problem in Adelaide Street that has been caused by a great deal of work being undertaken in what is now commonly referred to as the "hole in the ground". Major buildings are being constructed in the Vicinity. The matter has been referred to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, and his officers inspected the site and recommended that the Brisbane City Council provide a crossing there. It appears to me that that could be the answer to the problem, and I undertake to have discussions with the council to see if that crossing can be provided, > ,, Groundsel Eradication Mr FRAWLEY: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Could he advise the House if the groundsel beetle introduced to Queensland some years ago has been successful and also if his department has any plans to introduce further controls for groundsel? Mr AHERN: I am aware of the situation, but it, is a matter that comes under the purview pf my coUeagup the Minister for Lands and Forestry who has the ministerial responsibility for the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Board, and I would,have to refer the matter to him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time aUotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Proposed Ammonium Nitrate PriU Plant at Toowoomba Mr WARNER (Tpowoomba South) (12 noon): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the concerns of my constituents, and the concern of Toowoomba residents as a whole, about the proposal that an ammonium nitrate prill plant be established 6 km from the city centre and in an area close to hospitals, intensive urban development, recreation areas and schools. Many informed people beUeve that such a plant could be potentially dangerous to a city of some 85 000 people where an explosion could decimate an area of up to 3 mUes, wiping out everything like an atomic bomb and contaminating the environment for miles around with toxics, which could be spewed into the atmosphere. Such aUegations have been described by those who should know better as being uninformed, emotional and irrational. An environmental impact study was to have proved that such things could not happen. Regrettably, although the residents of the area were promised an environmental impact study to disprove their fears, so far nothing has been forthcoming. An impact study was to have been made avaUable in AprU, then July, August and October; yet we still do not Matters of Public Interest 17 November 1982 2383 have one. One can only wonder why it has taken so long, especiaUy if it is considered that there is no danger to the environment in Toowoomba. Citizens have been unable to obtain any answers on how the plant, if built, would overcome the threat posed by massive explosions and severe poUution problems experienced elsewhere in the world. Specific questions on those problems have been asked of Government departments, the Du Pont company and the company conducting the enviromental impact study. The only information that has been forthcoming was received from professional people who are intimately associated with developments, of a similar type. For the benefit of those who believe that ammonium nitrate will not explode, I point out that, since the turn of the century, well over a thousand people have been killed for no reason other than that they have lived too dose to an ammonium nitrate stockpile. Three major explosions have taken place. One was in Germany, and it wiped out an entire village. Another was in Texas, and it killed 600 and injured 4 500 and did not leave a thing standing within a radius of 2 miles. The impact study into that explosion, which took place in 1947,f stated— ' "It might be said most of the investigators of ammonium lutrate prior to the Texas disaster recognised... that this compound may be exploded by impact or powerful detonator, but very few recognised the possibUity of exploding by heat alone. With the knowledge of explosibiUty of ammonium nitrate acquired after the disaster, it is now known that ammonium nitrate and mixes of it with organic materials and even ammonium sulphate can be caused to detonate by heating under conditions of confinement, . , , Its explosibiUty when heated to. over 300° centigrade has been proved by Such .disasters and scientific study," The disaster in Texas was caused by approximately 2 900 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in the area. The reasons why it exploded are now history. It is understood that Du Pont plan to store about 3 000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate only 6 km from the centre of Toowoomba and less than one mUe from factories, hospitals, schobls and expanding residential areas. If a decision is made to build such a plant, the citizens of TPowoomba will have to live with a constant threat of a possible explosion that could devastate a major part of that city when the simple solution is to place the site elsewhere in a non-populated area. On the question of corrosive poUution, the story up to now has been the same—no replies to inquiries. But overseas authorities responsible for policing Du Pout's only other ammonium nitrate plant at Seneca in the United States, wrote, in response to inquiries— "If you have fogs—" which are prevalent in Toowoomba— "the oxides of nitrogen may form acid mists which could be dangerous to public heakh." A related problem may be the local practice of collecting rain-water; from galvanised roofs. The zinc (and perhaps cadium) in the galvanised coating may go into solution and then be ingested. Unfortunately, the director of the ESI study-is reported to have stated to the media recently that he, could find no reference to oxides of: nitrogen forming acid mist when mixed with fog. However, I am informed that this is not, correct and that that information is contained in standard chemistry texts'available to any university library. My,constkuents are concerned that such a statement was made by someone who wiU be partly responsible fpr. a reliable report and that the problems that the Du Pont plant will have to face here, which have,been experienced by the Illinois PoUution Control. Board at Seneca m the United States,.wiU not, or may not, be taken into consideration. Despite daims by Du Pont to the contrary, the Illinois Pollution Control Board 'has provided cdocumentary evidence of the lengths to which it has had to go to control effluent and pollution problems arising from the Du Pont plant in the United States. It has had to use powers that are not avaUable to the departments controlling pollution bere in Queensland, so it would appear that, if the plant is installed here, there would be little Chance of contrdling the same problems here in the way that they have been dintrolled in the United States. > •: 2384 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

I am advised that the deputy director of the Department of Commercial and Industrial Development was asked whether there was any ammonium nitrate plant anywhere in the world that could safely be placed on the proposed site in Toowoomba. His answer was that there were three: in Sweden, in Philadelphia in the United States, and in Oklahoma in the United States. Unfortunately, however, once again the information was incorrect. Swedish Government authorities have confirmed that there is no ammonium nitrate plant in Sweden or in the whole of Scandinavia, and the US authorities have confirmed that no ammonium nitrate plant exists anywhere near where they were stated to be. Although the director has been informed that his information was incorrect and has been asked again to give the address of a clean plant that actually exists, such information has not been received. What we do know is that some of the worst pollution and explosion disasters overseas have been caused by ammonium nitrate plants and the storage of ammonium nitrate. It is important that the Government recognise the risks involved in the building of such a plant in Toowoomba and be conceraed for the health and safety of its citizens, especiaUy as the proposed site is located in a fog-prone valley in Toowoomba, The risks cannot be discounted. Many experts in plant location have said as much.. I do not believe that the proposed plant, which is of some magnitude, needs Toowoomba's infrastructure, especially when it is realised that the ammonium nitrate to be produced at the Toowoomba plant is destined for the Bowen Basin and will have to be trucked hundreds of miles to its destination. It is wrong to suggest that jobs will be lost if it is not sited in this possibly dangerous location. The same number of jobs will be created if it is properly located where there is no risk of pollution or danger to the citizens of Toowoomba. However, there is no doubt in my mind that, if the plant is located on the proposed site, the jobs of many workers in the tourist industry and the building industry, not to mention many other callings, wUl be lost. Toowoomba is certainly not stagnating; on the contrary, it is growing at the rate of Ii to 2 per cent a year. That growth rate is as high as that of any other city in the Commonwealth. Its growth rate is confirmed by the monthly building permits, which reached a new high in Toowoomba this month. Approximately 158 permks for building projects worth almost $7.5m have been granted. I venture to suggest that the figure would have been much higher if it had not been for the disturbing aspect of the Du Pont proposal. There is no doubt that, because of the uncertainty that surrounds the building of such a plant, many citizens who otherwise would have buUt houses or commenced businesses are not going to do so. Every other plant around the world has been sited away from a large population. It is my conclusion—it has been so for some time—^that the location of this plant near such a populated area as Toowoomba is most unwise, especially if there is the slightest chance of danger to the environment from pollution or an explosion.

Parliamentary Reform Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (12.9 p.m.): On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to express concern once again at the way in which this Parliament and the whole parliamentary process in Queensland are deteriorating. I express my concern at what I see as a planned erosion of the Westminster system. At the outset, I highUght the fact that the Government endeavours always to proclaim Queen and country; it tends to hail the flag. However, whenever an Opposition member questions anything that the Goverament does a personal attack is made on him. The Goverament stands condemned for its hypocritical actions. The Government is implementing a policy by design. Its policy is aimed at destroying the role of the individual representative, the private member, in this Chamber. That has been shown by the Government's total opposition to any type of reform. Mr Deputy Speaker, you yourself will be aware that recommendations were brought to this Chamber as to how the Standing Orders of this Assembly might be changed; yet an obstacle has again been placed in the path by the National and Liberal Parties, They are intent on keeping those restrictions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on you in the poskion that you occupy at this moment, and on Mr Speaker himself, to immediately have those recommendations introduced into the Chamber as a matter of urgency. Those restrictions Matters of Public Interest 17 November 1982 2385 are preventmg from bdng active not only Opposition members but also Government members, and surely that is not in keeping.wkh the concept of Westminster democracy, the representa­ tive democracy that we endorse in this State, There is an outdated approach to question-time. The Government repeatedly refuses to debate Opposition urgency motions. If one looks at the Business Paper, one sees that many of the notices of motion go back to 5 August, I refer to the matter brought forward by the member for Mackay about a public accounts committee and the matter brought forward by the shadow Minister for Justice about the need for eledoral redistribution. Those matters have been on the Business Paper for three and three-and-a-half months, but still nothing has been done about them. This Government is determined to place obstacles in the path of members of this Assembly. There is also the refusal to aUow Opposition spokesmen to debate ministerial statements. There is the scandalous waste of time that occurs in this Chamber because of the way in which Ministers answer questions. They emasculate the total concept of question-time. The honourable member for Lytton made the point this morning that a Dorothy Dix question without notice was asked by a Government member; yet the Minister was able to stand up and read from a prepared speech. Surely that is not in keeping with the Westminster system. If we want to change the system, let us broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament, and see what happens. I believe that such a course would sound the death-kneU for the antiquated system and would certainly expose those Government members who are involved in those pradices. The Government must be condemned for the way in which it is running this ParUament. What happens with the presentation of annual reports? When are they presented? Are they presented in time to allow Government and Opposition members to study them? The departmental report is presented to this Chamber on the day on which the Estimates of that uepartment are to be debated. How does one say that that allows time for scrutiny? How does that allow any Opposition back-bencher to see what is going on in the Government of Queensland? That is showing contempt not only for members of this Assembly but also for the people of Queensland. I look quickly at petitions. Under our system, pditions are received and read in this Chamber and then unceremoniously dumped in one of the record rooms in the basement of ParUament House. Surely there should be an obligation on the relevant Ministers to make a statement on those petitions. Surely the thousands of people who sign them, support them and present them should be given some Government opinion on the matter on which they are petitioning the Parliament. As I have said, they are simply cast aside. The Stand­ ing Orders should require a Minister to make a statement on petitions. I come back to the fact that Ministers will not even answer questions. I asked a question about qangos. The Minister knows that there has been an inquiry that goes back to May 1981. He said today that it is too difficult to gather the information. The member for Port Curtis asked a very simple question about the appointment of the Deputy Comnus- sioner for Transport. Again the Minister refused to give the information. FoUovring the presentation of the Auditor-General's report, I asked the acting Deputy Premier and Treasurer a question about the air travel of Ministers outside the normal procedures sd down. The Minister said that the information is not available, although he admits that the number of cases are few. On the one hand, the Minister is saying that the cases are few and far between, and, on the other hand, he is saying that he still has not got the time, staff or money to give that information to the Assembly. That is not good enough. We haye put a test on the Minister for Works and Housing to see whether tomorrow he wiU table detaUs about the number of housing approvals in this State, as he said he will. The parliamentary Labor Party is concerned about what is taking place, and I suggest that every member of the Assembly should express the same type of concern. If we are going to do something about making the Government and Ministers accountable, then we must come back to a public accounts committee. I am not the only one saying that: one Government member after another advocates the same thing, untU he gets into Cabinet. The moment the Whites, the Hewitts and the Aherns get into Cabinet, they forget about the statements and the claims that they have made pubUcly, they cast aside every promise that they have made to their constituents about making the Government open to public scratiny, making k accountable. The people of Queensland can judge for themsdves what is happening here. 2386 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

We cannot judg^ how money is being spent. Instead, there is seledive secrecy in Cabinet. Those honourable members who have a knowledge and understanding d the Westminster system must realise that Cabinet musjt be resppnsible to the Assembly. We know that we are the only State in Australia that does not have a public accounts committee. We are the only State that does not have a public works committee We are the only State that cannot check and monitor the bureaucrats and the Ministers who are alleged to be running the State. There is need for a change; but I suggest that, more importantly, there is a need for a new Government in Queensland. At the next election it will not be the Liberals who are involved. It will be a two-way contest between the National Party and the Australian Labor Party. The Liberals were the pretenders in 1974, 1977 and 1980, but they have abnegated their own responsibUity. They have cast aside every'responsibility. They have become pretenders. They promised a public accounts committee. When the matter was brought before the Parliament, they ducked. They promised to do something about electoral redistribution. When the matter was brought before the Parliament, they ducked it. They promised to do something about jobs for the boys. When the matter was brought before, the Parliament, they ducked it. Again, the same Liberals and Nationals have opted out of their responsibility on reform of the Standing Orders. They say that they want to do something, but the fact of the matter is that they do not do it. ' There must be reform. There must be changes in this place. Every individual member of the ParUament has a right to question and to probe the adivities and decisions of the Government. However, what do we find? When responsible questions are asked by members of the Opposition, Government Ministers refuse to answer. We want access to what the departmental heads are doing. We do not get their reports untU the day the Estimates of the department are debated. We have a ridiculous rule in sthis place that a Minister does not even have to answer our questions, ,

We are not back in the 1890s. We are talking about the 1980s. There is time for change. The Liberal Party has publicly demonstrated over and over again that it is concerned. Minister after Minister, member after member—the Gygars and all of the others —have said publicly that there have tp be some changes. Those changes are talked about in this Assembly; those changes are talked about ih Government meetings; however, nothing is being done, ., , I promise the people of Queensland as the Opposition Leader, and then as the Premier of this State, thait Labor in Government wiU immediately implement an active Standing Orders Committee. We wiU not reduce the right of others to challenge us, We wiU give them that right, because it is a part of proper representative democracy. We wiU not prded the decisions made by bureaucrats, for we will implement a public accounts committee. To ensure that there is an alternative view on the decisions being made,i we wiU establish a public works committee. Something else that the Ministers wiU not like—I promise that we will have a register of pecuniary interests of every member.

Mr Davis: Oh, they won't like that one.

Mr WRIGHT: There is silence over on the Government benches now. They know they don't want it. They have said that there ought to be accountabUity on the part of every Minister who makes a decision in Cabinet, but they refuse, again, to bring about the reforms that would give the people in the State some confidence as to who ownS what and who is making decisions about what. We wiU establish a register of pecuniary interests for every member of the Chamber,

We will also develop the theme of sunset legislation. More importantly, by way of reform, regardless of the opposition we wUl have from the Liberals and the Nationals, we wiU create participation by back-benchers on parliamentary standing committees. Most importantly, this Parliament has the right to debate the need for reform, I reiterate my caU: bring on the recommendations of the Standmg Orders Committee for debate in the Parliament, Let the members decide how the Parliament ought to run. Deterioration is taking place and we have a responsibUity to stop that deterioration. Matters of Public Interest 17 November 1982 2387

Hyprocrisy of Leader of the Opposition; Death of Leonid Brezhnev Mr GYGAR (l^tafford) (12,19 p.m.): I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the word "hypocrisy" in his opening statement, because honourable members certainly have wknessed some hypocrisy in this Chamber today. , The honourable gentleman said that a public accounts committee is needed, that he would support k, and so on. Perhaps he forgets i that just a few months ago, when the honourable ipeinber for Mt Gravj^tt (Mr Scassola) moved an amendment to tjie motion of the Leader of the House relative to the receipt of the recommeridatioi^s of the Standing Orders Committee, which would have had the effect of sending back to that committe a direction to bring before the House a prpppsal for a cpmprehensiye committee system, that motion went to a vote in this Chamber and the Leader of the Oppositipn and every other memberof the Labor Party voted agamst it. , ,, Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Let the record show that the Opposition not only questioned what Government members were doing at that time but also moved ks own amendments. Mr GYGAR: Once again we see the old Kekh Wright wriggle. The honourable gentleman cannot deny that when a Vote to introduce a comprehensive commktee system to this House was taken, the only ones in favour of k were the Liberals and the Premier. The honourable member and the rest of the canting hypocrites over there voted against it. As he dashes out and makes sure that his photogenic face appears on television, I hope he wiU remind the people of Queensland. that wben he was given the chance to put his money where his mouth is, he ducked it. Again, that is nothing new for the honourable, member, because I am sure that all honourable members saw the sycophantic article in this morning's "Courier-MaU" that tried to make him out to be a great saint. However, it could not gloss over his devious ducking and weaving on the abortion issue. I would like to hear him properly explain his attitude and his vote on that issue. Once again, it was two bob each way frOm the Leader of the Opposition, He might be photogenic; he might be glib; but the amount of substance in hini is exactly the same as was in the previous Leader of the Opposition, and his fate will be the same. ' He stands up here and tries to tell the House that Queensland is in bad shape because of the terrible, disgusting Government that it has. In fact, if he had any truth in him, he would recognise what everybody else in Queensland has recognised for so long, that is, that the major faults in the Gpvernment are brought about by the total lack of oppositipn in this State, an Opposition' made up of second-rate party hacks and time-servers who jump to the tune of the Trades HaU. If any proof of that is needed, it is to be found in the Press of recent days when the member for Rockhampton North (Mr Yewdale), at the direction of the parliamentary caucus of the Labor Party, wrote a letter to Peter Beattie, the secrdary of the State Branch of the Australian Labor Party, telling him to keep his nose out of caucus affairs. It must have been a dramatic affair, because Mr Beattie repUed and told the honourable member for Rockhampton North and the rest of them to go an^ jump in the lake, that it was about time they worked out who ran the Labor Party. And it sure as heck isn't the people who sit in this Chamber! i. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should also have said a few words about why the Standing Orders Committee did not achieve better results more quickly. If he cared to make a careful analysis, he would discover that because the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Casey) could not be bothered turning up, the meetings could not proceed for lack of a quorum. If honourable members opposite attempt tp deny that, they will find that It is a matter of public record in this place, Standihig Orders Committee meetings collapsed because the honourable member for Mackay and the ^abor Party representatives did not turn up. Let the glib little Leader of the Opposkion explain that away! When I was a kid in the country, it was often said that if a lay preacher moved in next door k was time to hide the sheep. I think some people would hide something else a little more near and dear to them if the Leader of the Opposition was in the parish; but that will come out as time passes, too. 2388 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

My main purpose in rising to speak in this debate was to agree wkh Senator Chipp. That is a rare occurrence, of which I hope honourable members opposite wUl take note. It is not very often that I say that I agree with anything uttered by Senator Chipp. However, yesterday some pearls of wisdom did actually drop from his lips. I wish to quote wkh approval what Senator Chipp said— "When someone rules with the power-this man had, and brings so much misery and agony to fellow human beings, let it be recorded." And so it should, especiaUy in the case of Mr Leonid Brezhnev, the late unlamented despot of the Soviet Union. Of course. Senator Georges does not agree with Senator Chipp, and the same can be said for all the trendy Lefties in the Labor Party. The fact remains that the world should cheer at the passing of one of the most despicable despots in history. He tried to measure up to his mentor StaUn. Fortunately, he did not run up the same millions of deaths, but, by God, he tried! The record of Brezhnev is soaked in blood, and no reasonable person should lament his passing. That is why Senator Georges did; he has never been a reasonable person. Would Senator Georges, for example, care to explain away the case of Raoul Wallenberg, who has been incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals since the end of the Second World War by Brezhnev and his henchmen for the crime of saving Jews from the Nazis during the Second World War. That is another of Mr Brezhnev's prouder achievements. He has a whole series of achievements to his name. It was he who supervised the crushing of Czechoslovakia by the infamous midnight invasion. He is the man who suppressed Poland; he is the one who is responsible for the continuing deaths in Afghanistan. Mr Davis interjected. Mr GYGAR: Let "Hansard" record the glib and flippant statements of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, who obviously cares Uttle about the people of Poland or the people of Afghanistan. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. I do not know what the honourable member is referring to. AU I said was that, with that little moustache, the member for Stafford now looks a lot like Adolf Hitler, If that is being glib, then let it be recorded in "Hansard" Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! I caU the honourable membra- for Stafford. Mr GYGAR: I am delighted to have that comment placed in "Hansard", because h shows the seriousness with which the honourable member for Brisbane Central regards the suppression of the human rights of over half the people of Europe, the suppression of 4 milUon people in the Soviet Union who are undergoing forced labour right at this very moment, and the 10000 and more political prisoners. They are the legacy of Brezhnev. Why should we mourn bun? We should be out chiding that he has gone and hoping that his fate is met by the rest of the clowns he had with him. What about the suppression of the Jews, that infamous feature of Sovid life under Brezhnev? What about Laos and Cambodia, crashed under the tank treads of his aUies, his creatures from Vietnam? What about the Cuban mercenaries roving Africa? Mr R, J, Gibbs: What about the people you slaughtered in Vietnam? TeU us about them. You're a professional murderer. Mr GYGAR: I take great offence at that statement and ask for an apology from the honourable member. Mr R.J. Gibbs: You're a professional murderer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Wolston under Standing Order I23A, Mr GYGAR: I take offence at those statements, and request that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hPnourable member for Stafford asks that the words be withdrawn. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw them, and say that he was a paid kUler. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! TTie honourable niember vviU withdraw the words. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw the words. Matters of PubHc Interest 17 November 1982 2389

Mr GYGAR: That, too, wiU be recorded in "Hansard", and I wiU be delighted to inform all the members of the Australian Armed Forces of the contempt in which they are held by the Opposition—being called paid kiUers and professional murderers. I advise the honourable member that it will be vrith great delight that I tell everyone. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to wkhdraw from the Chamber, Mr R. J. GIBBS: Just on a point of clarification, I was not named under Standing Order 123A. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Orderi The honourable member was waraed imder Standing Order 123A. Whereupon the honourable member for Wolston withdrew from the Chamber. Mr GYGAR: It is only appropriate that a member of the Opposition, a member of the Australian Labor Party, should be ordered out of this Chamber for seeking to accuse all the members of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth of being paid killers and prdessional murderers. I am sure that the feeling between the Armed Forces and the honourable member wiU be mutual if the newspapers care to report those remarks. However, Brezhnev is now to be replaced by Yuri Andropov, the former head of the KGB Mr PREST: I rise to a point of order. I am a member of the Australian Labor Party in this House, and I do not want to be associated with the remark made by the honourable member that the Australian Labor Party Mr GYGAR: You're dissociating yourself from Gibbs. Mr PREST:—that the Australian Armed Forces are murderers and killers. I want those remarks withdrawn. Mr GYGAR: I am delighted to hear the honourable member dissociate himself from the comments of his coUeague, Mr Gibbs. Mr Prest: I want them withdrawn. , Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Unfortunately, I dM not actuaUy hear what was said. Will the honourable member please tell me what he is objecting to? Mr PREST: I am objecting to the member for Stafford saying that members of the Australian Labor Party in this House—be wishes it rescorded— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the honourable member that although he could take a point of order if the honourable member for Stafford was rrfenring to the Opposition, as a member of a party he has no right to take a point of order because the honourable member for Stafford could have been referring to somebody outside this Chamber. The honourable member cannot take a point of otder. Mr PREST: He said "members of the AustraUan Labor Party", Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to explain to the honourable member that he cannot take a point of order when the honourable member for Stafford referred to a partrcular party. If the honourable member for Stafford had referred to the Opposkion the honourable member for Port Curtis could then have taken a point of order. I call the honourable member for Peak Downs.

Motor Vehicle Price and Safety Mr LESTER' (Peak Dowhs) (12.29 p.m.): I rise to make another plea to the motor Iiidustry of this country to produce a cheaper motor vehicle that embodies a reasonable degree of safety.' I suggest that the vehicles bdng produce to

I can remember that the only time that T was nearly involved in a collision involved similar drcumstances. I went along the street to a particular job. A large track came along and k just missed me. Recently I heard about a person who did the same thing. He was not so lucky; he is not with Us today. A device of the type to which I have referred could be fitted at Uttle cost. I do not know why a switch cannot be connected to the dimmer swkch so that when the keys of the ignition are operated, the lights are operated. Lights simUar to those on Volvo vehicles would prevent many accidents on dusty roads. Mr Davis interjected. Mr LESTER: I am not trying to push any particular make of motor vehicle. I cannot afford to purchase a Volvo. I do not see why some of the proven safety devices fitted to Volvo motor vehicles cannot be incorporated in the average motor vehicle. The honourable member for Brisbane Central should be interested in saving lives. I hope that he is not involved in an accident of that type. We would certainly miss him if he was. We must take a strongei* line with alcohol. Our record m stopping the^ sale of high alcohol content beer has not been good.

Proposed Wage Freeze for Federal and State Public Servants Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (12.39 p.m.): The Fraser Government's proposal for a wage freeze for all Federal and State public servants as the answer to our worsening unemployment and economic situation sinacks of gimmickry and a panic reaction to a rapidly deteriorating economic position and the collapse of Federal economic policy. This latest Eraser/Anthony Government stunt has in fact' backfired to the undoubted disappointment of its promulgators. The object of the Fraser Government is to shift the blame to trade unions and wage increases for the failure pf its economic policies and administration. Once again, it is the wage earners of Australia who are being asked to pay the penalty and to take the blame for the failure, of the policies of conservative Governments, Certainly, union response was forthcoming, but not before the State Premiers, with the exception of the Tasmanian Liberal leader, had voiced their opposition to the Federal Government proposal, thus very effectively Stymieing the original objective of the Federal Government, But let us look more closely at Queensland, where identified unemployment of 75 700 persons, or 7.1 per cent of the work-force, has never been higher, where employment has been growing only at a third of the rate of unemployment, and where employment growth this year has been only a quarter of what it was last year. If the present trends are allowed to continue, there will be Uttle hope of halting Queensland's unemployment growth, let alone bringing it down to. a more publicly acceptable level. Concerted and positive Federal and State Government action needs to be taken immediately. It is a simple matter to identify those sectors of the Queensland economy that are the hardest hit by the current recession. A comparison taken between February and August this year dramaticaUy iUustrates the rapidly worsening situation in Queensland. In manufacturing, the unemployment rate increased from 5.6 per cent in February to 6.9 per cent in August. In buUding and construction, the barometer of the economy, unemployment increased from 4.7 per cent to 7.6 per cent. In the wholesale and retail trade, an area which reflects consumer confidence, unemployment increased from 4.7 per cent to 5.9 per cent. These figures identify a rapidly worsening situation when, in normal times, we could expect substantial improvement between the months of Febraary and August. The point to make here is that, despite the Queensland Government's propaganda, it IS clear that the private sector is unable in the current circumstances to provide the stimulus the economy needs for recovery to eventuate. In terms of economic growth, the Queensland economy has virtually been standing still for most of this year. Excluding farming, the economy grew by only 0,8 per cent in the three months to the end of June, after zero growth for the first three months of 1982. 2392 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

This Goverament and its Federal counterpart should be stimulating growth and creating more employment, rather than attempting to divert attention froih the shambles of the Federal Government's restrictive economic and monetary policies, which are causing havoc in the community. Queensland's unions cannot be blamed for our State's economic and employment ills. Fortunately, this fact was recognised by the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, Sir William Knox, in his recent reference to trade unions' contributing to economic growth by not pursuing unnecessary wage claims or being involved in unrealistic campaigns. He said that generally, in Queensland, there has been recognition of this by Queensland unions. However, the responsibility must lie somewhere. I recognise that it is the Federal Government which is mainly responsible for today's economic disaster, but even though that is the case, no State Government has the right to sit back complacently and do nothing but cast blame. What is urgently needed is a one-off increase in Commonwealth funding to the States and local government for spending on capital works and job-creation programs of a labour-intensive nature, and the Queensland Government needs to use all the financial resources available to it so that growth and employment can be generated through State Government action, not inaction. As I have said previously, I beUeve the Queensland Government is deliberately under- utilising its financial resources, which could be used for capital works and job creation. The Queensland Goverament prefers to remain one of the largest single investors on the short-term money market in Australia today. The people of Queensland must come to realise that this Government has its priorities totally wrong in that it is allowing its resources to be tied up in speculative activity when it should be using them to put Queenslanders to work and enabling Queensland industries to survive. I dispute emphatically the Government's claims that it is applying itself fully to unemployment and local industry problems. I dispute the acting Premier's statement to the House last week that the Queensland Government is doing everything possible to encourage the public and private sectors to create jobs. I also dispute yesterday's statement by the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations that the Government is actively involved in job-creation programs. The answer that the acting Premier gave this morning to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition bears out my contention. For instance, recent State Government propaganda concerning $58m being approved for capital works did not relate to additional money for additional jobs. The Government simply gave approval for the expenditure announced in the Budgd. What Queensland industry faces tcHlay is lack of work. While that situation prevails, no amount of wage freeze or even wage redudion will convince an employer to employ more workers. I have here a list of 40 (Jueensland firms that applied to the Industry and Commerce Training Commission for reduced working hours, with a correspyonding reduction in pay for 174 apprentices in the engineering and building trades during the months of September, October and November this year. Fifty per cent of the applicants have their business enterprises in Brisbane. In all instances the reason behind the application was lack d work and lack of orders. On past experience, the commission would be well aware that if 40 employers make such applications in accordance with their obligations under the Act, it is a safe bet that at least twice that number have reduced hours and pay without reference to the commission. At the moment, five boat-building apprentices with a BuUmba boat yard are working two weeks in four. That is only an example. Others are working three days and four days in five. A first-year apprentice in that situation would average less in one week than the weekly unemployment payment of $64.40. So much for the unemployment figures that tell only half the story. At the very time that these apprentices are being denied practical trade experience—and I am nd blaming the employers on this occasion—plans are being made to import 31000 persons from overseas with certain skills to fill what are described as gaps in the labour market. If shortages of skills are apparent in particular areas, what is this Government doing about them? Where is the manpower poUcy identifying the shortfalls, and where is the Matters of Public Interest 17 November 1982 2393 training poUcy to satisfy them? What is bdng done to provide practical work for the apprentices to whom I have just referred, and where are the conversion schemes that could put out-of-work tradesmen to work in other skiUed areas? Such schemes are non-existent in this State, yet Ministers tell us that they are applying themselves to the task of creating jobs and of overcoming the unemployment problems. Unfortunately, the Government is doing very little, if anything, to overcome those problems, I repeat that the sooner the Government faces reaUty, the sooner it realises that the private sector is unable to produce the results that the Government expeds—aind is in fad straggling for its very existence—the sooner the Queensland Government may come to accept its very definite responsibUity to take effective measures to fiU the gap. The present Liberal/National Party marriage of convenience has presided over our State during a lengthy period of natural growth. Never in its history has it had to deal vrith a crisis situation such as we face today. My fear is—and it is a very real fear—that it has neither the heart nor the abUity to overcome the problems in the interests of those (Jueenslanders whom it purports to represent. ALP's Economic PoUcies Hon. D. F, LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (12.49 p.m.): The time is long overdue for someone to rise in this Chamber to expose the Opposition's new polides for what they are. Recently, we have seen that the new Leader of the Opposition is, amongst other things, a great television actor. He is going round this city trying to curry favour with private industry and business, and trying to sell the proposition that the members who sit opposke us in this place are members of some sort of quasi private enterprise party, which believes in mixed development and a philosophy that countenances and encourages private enterprise in Queensland, when exactly the opposke is the case. Following the first Labor Party conference held a year or so ago after intervention by the Federal Labor Party into the State Branch of the ALP in Queensland, another conference was held, which brought down some dedsions. Those dedsions are fully binding on members of the Opposition in this State, Those policies are spelt out in print in a booklet that is now available to the public; so those members of the pubUc who wish to know the nature of the Opposkion in this State can read those policies and make a calm and considered judgment at some future dedion as to whether they wish to support the Opposition party. The latest manifestation of that, and it is what prompted me to speak here today, was the appearance of the Leader of the Opposition at a fundion held at the Brothers Leagues Club on 3 November, when he attempted to make his first foray into the business sector. People who attended that dinner were curious about this new man. He is old to us, but he is new publicly. He made his first significant speech to such a gathering. I now have a copy of the fuU text of his speech. Honourable members might be interested in some of what he said. After spending 35 pages of his speech on doom and gloom, saying how bad things are in Queensland, how terrible they are going to get and what disaster the people of Queensland are facing in the future, he spent the last four pages of his speech expanding in a very superficial way how he saw the Labor Party's role in doing something about it. His first comment which I thought was significant was— "Economically it is not important whether growth comes about through an expansion in ekher public or private investment." So in that speech he did not dismiss an expansion of public enterprise in Queensland. Mr Davis: Take it in context. Mr LANE: Yes, I wiU, Half a page later in the speech he said that the trends of downturn that he spoke of were worrying— and if we are to reverse these trends new policies are needed and new directions adopted. Leadership has to be provided by Government and I beUeve leadership is desper­ ately needed if the Queensland economy is to grow and med the aspirations of its citizens. Governments can fund that economic leadership through taxation, they can borrow funds to be repaid by future generations or they can earn those funds through Gov­ ernment enterprise, either separately or in conjunction with private enterprise, 51591-81 2394 17 November 1982 Matters of Public Interest

The role of such institutions needs to be expanded if we are to provide economic and financial leadership to pull Queensland out of its current recession and into a new growth phase." Mr Vaughan: Great stuff! Mr LANE: I am very pleased to have that acknowledged and accepted by members opposfite. What the Leader of the Opposition did not do was elaborate on the stated policies as enunciated by the Labor Party at its last conference. He tended to skate across those. If one goes to that very authoritative booklet "Australian Labor Party Queensland Branch State Policy" authorised and signed by Denis Murphy, State president, and Peter Beattie, State secretary, one reads first of all that the Australian Labor Party determines policies at its State conference. We know that all honourable members opposite, before they were endorsed, signed a pledge that they would carry out those policies; that they would be dictated to by their conference. Therefore, to get a more accurate summation of just where the Labor Party stands, what its intentions are for industry and its solution for economic recovery in this State, one must read some of the passages in the booklet that I referred to. Under the heading "Economic Policy" one finds this under the subheading "Public Sector"— "12,1 A Labor Government in Queensland will take all steps necessary to protect and expand the public sector in this State, recognising that a thriving public sector, including State-owned enterprise, is a practical and responsible method of ensuring that the resources of Queensland are enjoyed equally by all Queenslanders." I wonder whether honourable members opposite advocate the setting up of another State jam factory, which was the last enterprise in which a Labor Party Government in this State engaged. Perhaps they suggest a State-owned butcher shop, which was another enterprise of the last Labor Government of this State. Both of those enterprises turned out to be disasters. I wonder what new enterprises the Labor Party intends to engage in and how they will be controlled. If one looks under the heading "Economic Policy" in the Labor Party's policy document one sees that the objectives are an equitable distribution of income and wealth. The objective is an equitable distribution, not on the basis of what a person earns or how much he is rewarded for the sweat of his labour but across the board. Mr Vaughan: You would not know what the sweat of labour is. Mr LANE: Once again the honourable member for Nudgee is offended by this. Everybody knows that he, with his old-guard faction, which includes the honourable member for Sandgate, have entered into an unholy relationship with the socialist Left, headed by the honourable member for Wolston, to instal the new Leader of the Opposition in this place. For the information of the honourable member for Nudgee, I will find time, before the year is out, to make a tally of the man-hours and days of labour lost as a result of the strikes and other industrial disruption initiated by the honourable members for Nudgee and Sandgate when they were officials of the Electrical Trades Union. At that time, using industrial disruption, they almost brought the State to its knees. Those two men, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nudgee, are the ones who closed down the State's powerhouses and turned off the lights in the homes, the factories and the business enterprises of the State so many times. They alone, as trade union officials, were responsible for trying to close down the State. Now they say in this place that the State is suffering from problems. Queensland is stronger in economic terms than any other State in Australia. In the last few months, more jobs have been created in this State than in any other. The Labor Party's policy document states that another method for the attainment of State-owned enterprises will be by the democratic participation of all sections of the work­ force in the economic decision-making of the organisations in which they are engaged. One does not have to be very sharp to know that what is referred to is worker participation and worker control. If one looks at the so-called industrial democracy section of the policy document, one sees that what is stated by the Labor Party, and quite clearly adhered to by Mr Beattie, Dr Murphy and all members opposite, is that— "An A.L.P. Government will introduce legislation designed to develop the capacity of unions and their members to carry out intervention in all aspects of managerial prerogatives Funeral Benefit Business Bill 17 November 1982 2395

The development of legislation relating to the rights of workers and the com­ munity generally to access to all information appertaining to the running of companies in Australia." Honourable members opposite would advocate the passing of legislation by this Assembly to force a company such as Commonwealth Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd, which turns out rolling-stock and provides jobs for many good Queensland workers, to appoint imion representatives to its board so that the union movement could intervene in all areas of managerial prerogatives. The unions would then run such businesses. (Time expired,) Political Treachery of Member for Stafford Mr HOOPER (Archerfield) (12,59 p,m.): I wish to place on record my disgust at the political treachery displayed by the honourable member for Stafford (Mr Gygar) to his colleagues the honourable members for Windsor and Mansfield in the Liberal Party preselection ballots held on Friday, 12 November. The honourable member for Stafford organised the night of the long knives in the Liberal Party that politically assassinated the honourable members for Windsor and Mansfield. Mr Vaughan: With a bayonet. Mr HOOPER: Yes, it was with a bayonet. This political Judas skulked around the Liberal Party corridors of power and betrayed his parliamentary colleagues so that he could replace them with his personal friends. Mr Hartwig: Minority rule. Mr HOOPER: Yes, of course it is minority rule. That was a dreadful display of political treachery and skulduggery which will not be forgotten in this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 5 August, the time allotted for the debate on matters of public interest has now expired. [Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

FUNERAL BENEFIT BUSINESS BILL Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 14 October (see p. 1385) on Mr Doumany's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time," Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (2,15 p,m,): The Opposition is pleased to be ^"ble to debate this very important Bill because, over a number of years, it has applied pres­ sure to the Government to have legislation of this type introduced. I hope that by the end of the debate honourable members will have recorded in "Hansard" the number of inquiries and complaints that they have received regarding the proposed funeral benefit scheme. Probably one of the highest costs facing anyone in the community today is the cost of burial, A number of interesting statements have been made on the subject. For instance, in February 1974 the Archbishop of Perth, the Very Reverend Geoffrey Sambell, issued a statement on the subject of funerals in which he said— "An alternative arrangement, and one I would encourage, is a private cremation immediately after death. One would hope very few of us want to be remembered as a corpse in a coffin, but rather as living people." I want to follow up that statement by referring to the present high cost of funerals. Over the past 10 or 15 years there have been many examples of straight-out aploit- ation by many funeral directors in their attempts to profit from the misery of the bereaved. I am fairly certain that there has been quite a bit of payola involving nursing homes, with funeral directors being anxious to get corpses into coffins. 2396 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill

A number of television shows have recently inquired into the operations of funeral directors. An advertisement for Simplicity Funerals istated that it could provide a com­ plete funeral for $590. A Mr Keith RusseU said that although a normal coffin cost $88, a jcardboard one cost $15, He .said'also that his firm was able to reduce funeral costs by using a station-wagon mstead of a hearse and dressing the.driver and attendants in blue lounge suits i rather than formal suits. He said that his company had grown enormously since its inception^ and in Adelaide alone it conducts over 2 000 funerals per annum and has a gross turnover of more than $3m annually, which represents an increase of over 5 000 per cent in 2Vz years. He said that his compai^ was looking to acquire 51 per cent of the Australian market. There has been a complete change in the industry. It now advertises, something that was not done years ago, and it, is a rather hard and heavy sdL Later in my speech I shaU haye more to say about Simplicity Funerals, because although the company may conduct low-cost funerals, it sets a bad example by' using non-union labour. That has been brought to my attention on a number pi occasions, and a number of people who have taken the cheap way out by using that company have been rather embarrassed when problems have occurred at the time of burial, or cremation. It seems that the company is reducing its costs by using low-cost non-union labour, A number of church organisations are different from the norm. Following a death, a funeral director is notified. He coUects the body and arranges the funeral service, which is either burial or cremation. One of the big problems is the red tape and the legal requirements in this State, for instance, the necessary authority to proceed with the burial, the medical certificate or the coroner's order and the lodging of the various certificates. On a recent Janine Walker show, an Adelaide woman was interviewed. Her father had died recently. She wanted a personal service, so she did a lot of the work herself. Mr Moore: When your grandchUdren read your speech, they wiU not know who Ja.nine Walker is. You should do better than that for "Hansard" Mr DAVIS: That is probably correct. This happened on the Janine Walker show on 29 October 1982, Mr Moore: Her television show? Mr DAVIS: It was an ABC radio show. Now that I have clarified the matter for "Hansard" and for posterity, I hope that my grandchildren read it. In the interview, the Adelaide woman explained that she collected the body from the morgue. She obtained the necessary documents and inserted notices in the newspapers. Because her father was an agnostic, she considered that it would be more appropriate to hold the service at home rather than in a church. It is a fact of Ufe that changes have occurred in the Christian burial seirvice. Different religions have appeared in this country during the past 20 years. The Government should make it easier for people to bury their own dead, without having to resort to the commercialisation of funeral directors. Death is a horrific subject, , Mr Moore: Very permanent, too. Mr DAVIS: It only happens once, I am told. Funeral costs have got completely out of hand. The cost of a funeral includes the undertaker's fees, vvhich are variable. Disposal costs, which are fixed, include the fees for cremation, at an average of about $140, or burial, depending on the cemetery, at $99 to $244, The Government medical officer's fees .amount to $,19, The funeral notice costs between $35 and $40, Then there is a donatioii to the clergyman, and I imagine that ks size depends on how weU the person arrangiiig the service knows the clergyman. The average fee charged is $15 to $20, On those figures, the cheapest funeral costs about $209. Mr Prest: Where do you get a funeral that cheaply? Mr DAVIS: That figure does not include the cost of burial. Three undertaking firms were contacted in Brisbane. The first one had a basic service fee of $450. Its coffin costs ranged from $125 to $548, with a casket costkig between J573 and $968. That firm's cheapest fee was $575, Its total funeral cost would be about $784. Funeral Benefit Busiriess BUl 17 November 1982 2397

The manager of the second firm contacted was not very co-operative. He would quote only the total cost. He would not supply kemised costs, A funeral using that firm would cost between $650 and $1,500, After further questioning he said that the firm's low, basic price was $465, but that did not include disposal costs, Wkh those, cpsts of $209 added, the cheapest funeral using that firm would cost $674, Both firm 1 and firm 2 offered a $20 discount if the account was settied within 14 days. Obviously, the next of kin would have to settle that account. Firm 3, SimpUdty Funerals, offer three styles of funeral at three different prices. They are: Memorial—people do not attend the service^at a cost of $540; SimpUdty—people attend the servic©--at a cost of $570; and famUy—a church service is provided with cortege—at a cost of $690. As I said before, Simplicity Funerals has some problems because k employs non-union labour. People are now more enlightened about funerals than they were m the past, I know that the subject of coffins is not a particularly' bright one. Later I will refer to an incident in which I was involved. The cold simple fact is that spme funeral directors involve themselves in a money-raking exercise. That introduces the question Of the main cost d a funeral, and that is the coffin, A great deal has besen written about coffins made from cardboard. I seem to be giving Simplicity Funerals a fairly good rap, I can assure honourable members that at the end of this debate I vriU be saying something that might not be so popular. On 2 September, Ken Blanch wrote an article that appeared in "The Gourier-MaU" Referring to Mr Russell from SimpUdty Funerals, he states— "Mr Russell said yesterday that Simplicity had been using cardboard coffins for cremations in Westera AustraUa for some time. They were being tested in South AustraUa They are extremely popular in Western Australia, We have found about 95 percent acceptance TTie Cardboard coffins burn a lot faster than wood, and there is no pollution and no ash. They halve cremation time Mr RusseU said London researchers had found that varnished wooden coffins gave off a cancer-causing substance when they were burned . I recently saw an undertaker charge $375 for a coffin I know cost him $88. People can pay $1 000 for a wooden coffin, and it's gone in minutes once the cremation begins. That's just a stupid waste of money. People wouldn't throw $1 000 on a fire, but that's what they're doing Made of sturdy cardboard reinforced with a timber and chipboard base, it withstood a wdght of 230 kg before one end buckled. In practice, the body is sealed in an airless plastic bag, placed on a rdnforced chipboard base and the cardboard container is fitted over it. The coffin is then dressed with a Cloth valance and polished wooden and recoverable top to give the appearance of a conventional caskd." Mr Burns: He said that it cost $88 and it was sold for $300. Mr DAVIS: That was for a wooden coffin. . The article further states— "His company hires out low-cost artificial flower arrangements." I have made inquiries with the Health Department and the Brisbane City Council regarding the use of cardbo.ard coffins in Brisbane. They indicate that their use is acceptable provided that they are sound and watertight. The only reason why cardboard coffins are not used for cremations in Brisbane is because the crematorium will not allow thdr use. It is now reappraising their use. Presently there is no-one selling cardboard coffins in Brisbane. The manager of SimpUdty Funerals said that he would have to import them from South Australia if he was allowed to use them in Queensland. It was suggested that cardboard coffins would reduce cremation fees because less energy would be required to bum them. It was suggested that there may be several problem areas to overcome in burials.^ The first was how to carry the coffin. They may not be strong enough to aUach handles to them. The second problem concerned the aesthetic appeal, *f* suggested that mourners may be offended to see the deceased in an unattractive cardboard coffin rather than an attractive veneered wooden coffin. Thirdly, there was the problem of exhumation and finally there was the question as to how a cardboard coffin would withstand rain during a funeral service. 2398 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill

I make these remarks purely and simply on the basis that people in Queensland should have freedom of choice. Quite a number of bereaved persons who have lost their next of kin have been "touched" by funeral directors. As to funeral funds—^in 1980 the present Minister for Health, Mr Austin, claimed that some funeral companies and semi-Government authorities were using money paid on funeral contracts. He said that many contracts with funeral parlours had been taken out years ago and that money was being used by some funeral companies for investment with semi- Government bodies. Quite a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles have referred to the high cost of dying. A debate on this Bill gives members an opportunity to highlight some of the problems associated with the funeral industry. It would be a great idea for Parliament to appoint an all-party committee to inquire into certain social aspects of life in Queensland, Such committees have inquired into punishment for crimes of violence and into education, A committee could be appointed to examine the situation that prevails in funeral funds in New South Wales. Mr McKechnie: You tell me not to talk about New South Wales. Mr DAVIS: If the honourable member for Carnarvon listens he may learn what a progressive State such as New South Wales does in trying to help the consumers on the more vital issues. The New South Wales Government is making sure that the people of that State are not being exploited, as some people in Queensland are. At the time of the investigation in New South Wales, many schemes that could be described as funeral funds were operating in that State, Those schemes were classified either as those offering a cash benefit or those offering a non-cash benefit. The latter type were further divided into those schemes that operated on a contributory basis and those that charged a pre-determined sum of money, whether payable in one sum or in instalments. Apart from the registered funds that were operated in Queensland by Metropolitan Funerals and Alex Gow, quite a number of companies, unions and friendly societies had some form of funeral benefits scheme. They were not funds, but the contributors to the schemes received some assistance by way of funeral benefits. In New South Wales, cash benefits were available from friendly socities, pensioner funds, union and staff mortality funds, registered clubs, HCF and MBF miscellaneous benefit funds, life insurance funeral schemes and savings bank-book funds. The complaints about th6se funds were similar to the complaints that I suppose every member has received over the years. Some of the complaints were that subscriptions must continue to be paid until date of death; cessation of or arrears in payments usually lead to a partial or total loss of the amounts already paid; most funds have upper age limits for membership, which works against older people and pensioners, and sometimes prevents readniission of contributors who have fallen into arrears; and many fund contributors think that they are covered for all funeral costs and, in some cases, burial costs. People contribute to those funds over the years, but when the time comes to claim on them, it is found that the people are not covered. Another complaint is the lottery attitude of funds, where, if people keep paying, they win, but if they do not keep paying, they lose; and if they live beyond the normal live expectancy they often pay more than is paid out on their death. There was also a complaint about the unilateral nature of the contract whereby funds could change both the benefit and the rates of contribution. There was the erosion of benefits by inflation, which is an important point. An examination of the financial aspects of many of the non-cash benefits revealed the following problem areas: very few of the funds provide any protection for the amount subscribed by contributors, and most of the funds freely employ contributors' subscriptions in the operation of their associated funeral or burial businesses. On the same basis, many people have complained that benefits received from such sources as the unregistered pensioner funds, registered clubs, union funds and the like have been far below their expectations, I ask the Minister, when he replies, to say how those organisations stand under this Bill. I will now deal with Metropolitan Funerals Pty Ltd, with which I have had some dealings, I suppose that this highlights the need for the legislation that the Government has introduced. Over the years, Metropolitan Funerals Pty Ltd has conducted a funeral Funeral Benefit Business BUI 17 November 1982 2399 benefit fund, with fairly low subscriptions, A relation of mine was getting on in age and he was very concerned about paying his subscription of one shilling a week to Metropolitan Funerals. As a matter of fact, he was so keen about paying the subscription of four shillings a month for both himself and his wife that he used to hire a taxi to take him to Metropolitan Funerals to pay the subscription each month. When his wife died, the next-of-kin made the funeral arrangements. The first thing that Metropolitan Funerals offered the next-of-kin was a coffin made of plywood with a bit of varnish over it. One of the relatives said that he would not put a dog in it to bury it. Metropolitan Funerals said that that was part of the deal. That is what they got for £25. If they wanted something else, there was the big con trick. They were taken to the casket room, where a number of coffins were displayed in various timbers of different colours. Naturally, bereaved people, particularly mothers and fathers, are not going to argue about money. That is the con trick used by those firms. Subsequently, after the burial, people might say, "We were touched," The family I am referring to was caught with a bill for an extra £200, The contributor to the fund said to them, "The one good thing about Metropolitan Funerals is that you didn't have to pay anything extra." They said, "No. It was all covered." The family was not going to admit to the father that, although he had been paying into the fund for years and years, a substantial amount had to be paid for the funeral. This has gone on for years and years, I have some other points to make about Metropolitan Funerals, of which the Minister should be aware. I am told that, where payments commenced prior to October 1965, the current value of benefit for Metropolitan Funerals is $86, That is made up of $50 and $36 interest. If contributions commenced after October 1965, the benefit is $65, which is $50 plus $15 interest. If a funeral service is carried out by a funeral director whose place of business is more than 64 km from the Brisbane GPO, the benefit payable is as I have said—$86 and $65, However, if the funeral service is effected by a funeral director whose place of business is within 64 km of the Brisbane GPO, no benefit is payable unless specifically agreed to by the company prior to funeral arrangements being paid. However, circumstances are considered in such cases and usually the surrender value is paid. Surrender value is approximately 50 per cent of the benefit payable, which would be $43 and $32 respectively. The original contribution to the fund was $25 per member. The contract guaranteed the funeral at an amount not exceeding that sum. The contract was subsequently amended to provide a maximum allowance of $50, plus interest accrued. My information is that there were over 42 000 contributors to the Metropolitan Funerals Fund. The cost of a funeral has increased considerably since the fund was commenced. Many contributors realise that the benefits do not cover the costs of a funeral. Many of them now desire the privilege of selecting another funeral director but are being penalised—and I would like the Minister to take note of this—^by a loss of benefits. That causes unnecessary distress to families who do not understand the binding contract.

I am pleased that the Government is now looking at the funeral funds and the prepayment of funeral expenses. I would like to know how far the Minister is prepared to go. Will people who are in the Metropolitan Funerals Benefit Fund be able to use the money in that fund as payment to another funeral director? It appears that a subscriber to that fund is bound by a contract which is not transferable and is therefore being denied the present-day consumer's right to freedom of choice. A growing number of contributors to the fund are unhappy with the position, which suggests that the Government should amend the contract to allow any subscriber the freedom to select an alternative funeral director without being penalised. It is all very well for people to pay money into a fund to cater for their funeral arrange­ ments. Most of the organisations with these schemes supply a casket, a car to carry the casket, a mourning car and insert a notice in the newspaper. One of the big questioiK is whether people who contribute to these funds will be completely insured. The great bulk of the 42000 people who contribute to Metropolitan Funerals Pty Ltd think that they are completely covered so that in the event of their demise the next-of-kin can make the arrangements and the funeral parlour will pick up the tab. However, inflation has greatly escalated the cost of such things as interment fees—not only for the ground itself but also for the digging of the hole^—and cremations. 2400 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill

In conclusion I wish to refer to something that deals not exactly wkh funeral benefits but with organ donors. Simplicity Funeral Pty Ltd has started a company called Telophase 2000, I now wish to quote the objects of that body, which is a national register of organ donors— "1, To encourage people, during Ufe, to make avaUable for transplantation, their body, tissues and organs, after death. 2, To provide a 24-hour, 7-day service in aU Capital Cities in Australia, tO enable transplant units at major hospitals to have instant access to properly executed legal documentation upon which they may ad immediately to remove organs for transplantation, 3, The mechanical facilities fpr such an operation already exist in 4 capital cities, within the SimpUdty Funerals' Organisation, and a facility wUl have been established in Melbourne before launch date, 4, The Legal and Medical aspects of the Telophase 2000 have been examined by experts in both fields, and the concept conforms within State Legislation all over AustraUa, and with the A,C,T, Ordinance, which is expected to be adopted by all States within the next five years, 5, Promotion-—It is basic to the Concept that free publicity and promotion will be used to maximum effect, and that paid advertising would be used only to get the project rolling, and to maintain its' momentum. AU such paid advertising would be handled by the co-sponsor's Advertising Agency." I now quote from a letter that Simplicity Funerals Pty Ltd sent to accounts managers of funeral directors— "Dear Sir, If you have never heard of Keith Russell SimpUdty Funerals, it is probably not worth youT whUe reading the rest of this letter. If you have, you must have come across us on the Mike Walsh Show, Nationwide, or Channels 7, 9 and 10 in Current Affairs programmes, or read Australasian Post, People Magazine, or Playboy (Feb. 1982). It has been estimated by people from your industry that we have received over $500,000 of free pubUcity—and it is still going on. Within the next three months, a new project is being launched, which I believe will create even more media interest than the Simplicity Funerals' Concept, It is a community project which is applicable to every adult AustraUan, and which we know, from market surveys, has an approval rating of 62% of the community. The project is named Telophase 200D, and it is a non-profit organisation. We are committing some $250,000 per year to support it, and we believe that it wiU be a sound investment, from an advertising point of view. We feel that there is an opportunity here, for a special class of client, to share in the sponsorship of Telophase 2000, and the purpose of this letter is to acquaint you with the publicity potential of Telophase 2000 so that you might evaluate its' possible association with one of your accounts. If, having read the attached precis, you are of the opinion that you have a client who would fit in as a co-sponsor, please contact me by telephone initially for further discussion, I would like to emphasise that only one co-sponsor is contemplated and any money paid for co-sponsorship would be aUocated through the co-sponsor's Advertising Agent Mrs Kyburz: Who is making the money? Mr DAVIS: I do not know. My main reason for reading the letter was that k was supplied to me by a funeral dkector. It is supposed to be a non-profit organisation, and 1 want to know whether the Minister knows anything about it, Mrs Kyburz: Is that after the directors have taken their profit? Mr DAVIS: That is right, I have never heard of a national register of organ donors. I wUl give the Minister a copy of the letter, and I wiU table it for the benefit of the honour­ able member, Mrs Kyburz: Don't you think k is a good idea? Funeral Benefit Business BiU 17 November 1982 2401

Mr DAVIS: I am not opposed to the idea of a register, but I believe that anything of that type should be organised by the State, I would not like to leave k up to a private funeral dkector to organise such a register. Mrs Kyburz: They are dealing with your body; they have to know which parts are to go where, Mr DAVIS: Yes, but I would prefer the State to run such a register, I mentioned it purely and simply for investigative purposes. In conclusion, I think that the BiU is timely, I am very pleased with the enlargement of the definition of funeral benefit business referred to by the Minister in his second-reading speech to include— "(i) the attendance of a funeral services consultant to assist with arrangements for burial or cremation and the preparation of associated documents; (ii) the transportation of the body of the deceased by a funeral director; (iii) mortuary facilities and the service of a funeral director and his staff; (iv) a casket supplied by a funeral director; (v) arrangements for burial or cremation including arrangements for the purchase of an interment site or interment rights or an inurnment site or inurnment rights; (vi) a mobile graveside chapel; (vii) a caskd lowering device " I want to make sure that people who contribute to funeral benefit funds get what they pay for. One thing must be highlighted, I have received many complaints about these funds, and I imagine that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, representing an inner-city electorate, would also have received simUar complaints. Our electorates both have a large aged population, Pebple have contributed to funeral benefit funds over the years; but when it comes to the crunch k is the next of kin who suffer because, although they thought that their parents had paid for funeral services, the sum is insufficient to pay for the service for wl^ich their parents thought they had paid. That is a shame, and if the BUl can remedy that problem it wUl be worthy of support. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to.

Mr HOOPER (Archerfield) (2,54 p.m.): I am pleased to see this legislation before the House. In my Opinion, the industry has gone unregulated for far too long. It is a cold, hard faCt of life that it costs much more to leave this world than to enter it. All honourable members who go to pensioners' functions wiU agree that one of the topics of conversation one hears when one moves around such a meeting is funerals, Mr Frawley: If they charge by weight, you and the member for Murrumba are in trouble, Mr HOOPER: When the honourable member for Caboolture dies, probably he will be buried face down. When he tries to dig himself out, he wiU dig himself further in, Mrs Kyburz: You wiU have to buy two plots, Mr HOOPER: I am gping to be charitable to the honourable member for Salisbury; one cannot knock motherhood, Mr McKechnie: I am told that you want to be cremated so that you are ready for the next stage. Mr HOOPER: I would not care if I was buried in a chaff bag. Elderly people live in fear that they will be buried as paupers. That fear probably springs from the days of the Great Depression and the plight of their parents. Many of them have taken out funeral benefits with one of the funeral directors, as my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Brisbane Central just related. The problem is mat the amount of the policy in no way covers the cost of the funeral. A benefit of $150 loday goes nowhere near the cost of a funeral, Mr Frawley: It wouldn't pay for the handles on the coffin, Mr HOOPER: That is so. 2402 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill

What is needed is a benefit that is indexed for inflation. So far no-one has been able to come up with a satisfactory scheme, and one is long overdue, I will be interested to hear the Minister's remarks in his summation, I take this opportunity to make some comments on the funeral industry ip gener^. I can speak with some authority because, before entering Parliament, I was an organiser for the Miscellaneous Workers Union, which covers the undertaking industry, I point out for the benefit of honourable members, including the attradive honourable member for Salisbury, who is sometimes a Uttle thick between the ears, that the undertaking industry is virtually a closed shop. For a long time, only six undertakers operated in Brisbane, They were: K, M. Smkh, Cannon and Cripps Pty Ltd, MetropoUtan Funeral Services Pty Ltd, Alex Gow Pty Ltd, Brisbane Undertakers Pty Ltd, and John Hislop & Sons Pty Ltd, Cannon and Cripps and Hislop have since been taken over by O'ReiUy Funerals of Lismore. A couple of new undertakers have appeared on the scene in recent years. They are SimpUdty Funerals and Funerals of Distinction Queensland, It is possible that I have missed a couple but they would be very smaU firms. That is certainly not a large number of undertakers for a dty the size of Brisbane, which has a population of almost 1 000 000 people. The industry certainly provides a lucrative Uving for the eight master undertakers in this city. It is weU known that there is a tacit agreement among undertakers, K, M, Smkh was widely regarded as the Catholic funeral director, although that firm buried persons of dher denominations. Cannon and Cripps handled the majority of AngUcan and Masonic funerals. Alex Gow handled funerals for the Non-conformist Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Uniting Church, the Baptists and what have you. John Hislop handled Jewish funerals. The others were a matter of choice for the individual. Mrs Kyburz: How did you find all that out?

Mr HOOPER: I am prepared to coach the honourable member for SaUsbury, In her own quiet way, she is not a bad bucket tipper or, if I may use the more genteel and euphemistic term, an expose merchant. She has a tendency to gd a Uttle excited sometimes, and when she tips the bucket she tends to get splashed, I walked past her in the corridor one day after she had made one of her very well acted exposes in this Chamber and distindly heard her small shoes squelch, I am under the impression that K, M, Smith is tied in with the administration of the Nudgee Garden Cemetery, If that is so, there is clearly a conflid of interest and the matter should be investigated by the Minister and his officers, Mr Blake: It is obvious that you have dug deeply into this subject and unearthed some relevance, Mr HOOPER: The honourable member is not wrong, I have dug into this subject and I have certainly put a lot of research into my speech. The term "Nudgee Garden Cemetery" is a complete misnomer when compared with the lawn cemeteries at Aspley, Hemmant and Pinaroo, The relevant authorities should look into the matter, Mr Davis: The Nudgee cemetery is administered by the Roman CathoUc Church. Mr HOOPER: That makes no, difference. I would not care if it was admmistered by the Jewish Synagogue, That does not preclude the church from looking after the cemetery in a proper manner. The Nudgee Garden Cemetery leaves a lot to be desired. An Honourable Member interjected, Mr HOOPER: I am not worried about class, creed or colour. The undertaking business in this State must be very lucrative, I have never heard of an undertaker going bankrupt, even in the most difficult times, Mrs Kyburz: There is always business, Mr HOOPER: It is quite obvious to honourable members that the honourable member for Salisbury is not just a pretty face. Funeral Benefit Busmess BUl 17 November 1982 2403

All undertakers employ a funeral arranger. To put that in layman's terms, he is trained to assess what the traffic wUl bear. I would also point out that he is dealing with people during their most tragic moment of grief. Most people do not want to be seen as skinflints in the burial of their loved ones. There is no question that the people to whom I have spoken, had they had the benefit of hindsight, would have made quite different funeral arrangements. The charges made by some funeral directors in this State are quite exorbitant and leave much to be desired. Lower cost funerals are in the $850 range, medium cost funerals are in the $1,250 range, and the higher range is evidently unUmited. SimpUdty Funerals and Funerals of Distinction have entered the field and seem to be injecting some sanity and reason into the price stracture. It is interesting to note that a constituent of mine recently had a bereavement in the family and approached a local clergyman to conduct the service. Upon hearing that she had not chosen an undertaker, he told her in no uncertain terms what he thought of the major undertakers and recommended one of the newcomers. That reverend gentleman has gone up 1000 per cent in my estimation. Another anachronism in this modern day and age of famUies with one or two cars is the mouraing coach. It is a very expensive trapping and could be eliminated. There is not much need for mourning coaches to be used at funerals. Many undertakers take advantage of people in grief and suggest that nothing is too good for one's husband, wife or child. They take advantage and suggest one or two mouraing coaches, which considerably adds to the cost of a funeral. One innovation I would like to see implemented is that after the church service the mourners be informed of a time for the graveside service. In these days of heavy traffic and thousands of traffic Ughts, it is just not possible for the mourners to follow the hearse in procession, as was the custom previously. How many times have honourable members seen mourners several traffic lights behind the hearse trying to catch up, thus creating traffic hazards and ranning the risk of a serious accident? Many people are unaware that a funeral procession is in progress and cut in among the cars. One practical idea has been advanced to me—off the record, of course—by people in the industry and by the police, Mr Davis: They wiU print that,

Mr HOOPER: I do not care whether they print it or not. What I say in this House is the truth, I do not think that anything I have said in this House has ever been refuted, Mr Davis interjected, Mr HOOPER: My friend and coUeague the member for Brisbane Central is a great mate of mine, but sometimes his interjections border on the inane. He becomes a little enthusiastic when I am on my feet. If the deceased has no parish church, and the relatives are agreed, the sensible course is for the service to be conducted in a church within reasonable distance of the chosen cemetery or crematorium, I have been surprised by the number of ministers of religion who themselves suggest graveside or crematorium services, I know that Catholic burials are usually preceded by a requiem mass. After the mass, the casket could be transported to either the crematorium or the cemetery and the mourners could foUow by car. It is a very sensible innovation and should be given consideration by the various funeral directors in this city. As I said at the start of my speech, I am pleased that the BUl has been introduced, k is certainly a long overdue step in the right direction, I hope that it is only the first of a number of BUls that wUl regulate the very lucrative undertaking industry that has operated with virtuaUy no ministerial direction for decades. Finally, I would like to make some mention of the Government undertaker, Recentiy I had reason to criticise the Government undertaker in the media, A body was kept in the whatch-house at the Wynnum Police Station, Most honourable members would agree that that is not an ideal situation. I was quke critical of the Government undertaker. Brisbane is far too large a cky to have only one Government undertaker. Dr Scott-Young: Don't they call k imvate business? 2404 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill

Mr HOOPER: I am,trying to find out from the Minister whether tenders are called. I find the Government undertaker, Jim O'Brien, quite a pleasilit fellow. However I believe that he has a very lucrative contract and is guarding it zealously. He visited me and showed me his books. He wanted to convince me that he was quite capable of performing all the police work and Goverament work in Brisbane. With the utmost respect to him, I do not think he is. There is room for the appointmeiit of another Government undertaker in Brisbane, I: pose this question to the Minister in the hope that he answers me in his reply: If tenders are called for the appointment of the Goverament undertaker, what is the procedure involved in the caUing of tenders and when was the last occasion on which tenders were called? Again I say that I agree whole-heartedly to the introduction of the BUl, I hope that it is the foreranner of things to come, Mrs KYBURZ (Salisbury) (3,7 p.m.): I am very pleased to see the introduction of the BiU, because I know that many members have complained about funeral benefits. Although honourable members might treat the subject somewhat flippantly in this House, it is fairly obvious that many people take it seriously—so seriously that they consider paying off a funeral long before the time when ordinarily, they expect to die. Usually they start paying off a funeral when they are approximately 40 years of age. Without going through a litany on why people pay into a funeral benefit fund, I suggest that probably it is a responsible action for people to consider, I am pleased to see that the Bill is titled "Funeral Benefit Business Bill", On page 2 of the Minister's speech he alluded to the "industry". That term is badly used. An industry is an enterprise that creates something, I do not believe that the funeral business can be described as an industry. The title of the BUl is very apt and shows that the funeral benefit business is in fact a business, I note that the Government has had to step in to protect people who have been paying into funeral benefit funds, I hope that the legislation will go some way towards regulating the business, I do not know whether there are many unscrupulous funeral parlours, but the instances that have been brought to my notice of people paying into a fund and receiving benefits to the value of only $50 on their death indicate an unscrapulous practice. As to funerals generally, the aspect that I find most detestable is that cemeteries are divided into sections according to religion, I have spoken about this aspect before. It is detestable that such a thing occurs in Australia, Mr FitzGerald: A lot of new ones aren't, Mrs KYBURZ: Lawn cemeteries are not. In this day and age and in a country as forward thinking as Australia is supposed to be, that type of discrimination even to the end of our days is beyond the pale. The previous speaker referred to the length of funeral corteges. In the area in which I travel, along the South East Freeway towards the Mt Gravatt Cemetery, a serious problem is created by funerals, I do not say that it is anybody's fauk. It is fairly obvious that the freeway is the easiest and quickest way to get to the Mt Gravatt Cemetery, However, I wonder whether a little card could be displayed* on the back of the last car in the cortege bearing the words "Funeral in progress" People travel at a fast speed on the freeway, and they get irritable when they get held up and do not know that the cause of the hold-up is a funeral. Although the corteges keep to the left-hand lane, which the majority of slow drivers do not do, they cause enormous disruption, particularly in the afternoon. Often, funerals are held as late as 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when people are starting to leave the city in the rush hour. People who use the freeway beUeve that at that hour of the afternoon corteges should use Ipswich Road or Logan Road, I am also pleased to note from the Minister's speech that an obligation has been placed on the corporation of the benefit fund to make all books avaUable to the State Actuary, Does that mean that the books of aU benefit funds wiU be checked regularly? Funeral Benefit Business BiU 17-November •1982 2405

One would hope so. IJpvvever, I am concerned about the tune that that, wUl take. I am really very pleased tp note that provision because it wiU mean that, benefit .funds \tf'M not be able to siphon off money when they are making too much profit out of the sho^t-term money market, which seems to be what many pf them do. That would be all right if the mdiey was being used to reduce the cost of funerals. However, if the money is being used only to increase the profit of the funeral parlour, then I find that quite inexcusable. The preyious meiriber also referred to the unionisation of funeral parlours. That is regrettable. I do not' see the funeral business as one in 5vhich people ought to be unionised perfunctorily. I think that funeral parlours that do not use union labour must be providing cheaper funerals. Previously in this Chamber I have raised with the Minister the matter of do-it- yourself funerals. His answer was most interesting. It seems that very few constraints are placed upon people who wish to organise the funerals of relatives or friends, Hovyever, it seems fairly obvious that although that is a considerably cheaper way of organising a funeral, it is not gaining in popularity, I received a telephone call from a man outside Toowoomba, who said that he had set up that sort of a business to provide extremely low-cost funerals for elderly people wbo are members of service clubs. That type of funeral has not gained in popularity simply because the majority of people want the pomp and ceremony associated with a big funeral. Of course, that is one of the few forms of ceremony that modern life allows. In some countries funerals are huge splash-up affairs. The family of the deceased has a big get-together and spends an enormous amount of money. In some parts of Italy three grades of funerals are avaUable, and people know exactly what they are getting from the beginning. I wonder whether we are not reaching that position in Australia. Pieople should be able to go to a funeral parlour, get a list and say, "Right, I want a C-grade funeral." Mr Davis: With Metropolitan you get a Z grade funeral for 25 bucks. Mrs KYBURZ: I do not know if that is the case; I have only the word of the angelic member. I think it is time that people were given a Ust which shows exactly the type of funeral that their relatives or friends are getting. It is an enormously expensive business, par­ ticularly the accoutrement that go wkh funerals. For example, the flowers on top of the coffin could cost anything from $80 to $250. That is an enormous amount of money for flowers, which one presumes simply go into the grave and are wasted. I was very pleased to read in the Minister's speech that a funeral benefit fund may opt to lodge an insurance policy or bank bond as security. That is very important. It has to be proven, one would think, to the State Actuary that these funeral benefit funds are capable of being run in a correct and businesslike manner. Such security should ensure that they perform in the market-place as they are supposed to, I really wonder, though, if it might not be that someone, whether in the Goverament or outside, is saying, "Beware, consumers. Some funeral benefit funds have been extremely shonky. Don't go into one until you see that the funeral parlour you are signing up with is capable of giving you exactly what k promises," Akhough it might be responsible for people to prepay their funerals, I really wonder if a person would not be better off to simply buy an insurance policy or bank $5 a week, thus allowing the family to make a decision, based on a free choice, at the time of that person's death. What I do not like about funeral benefit funds is that people are locked in to a particular funeral parlour. If the costs of that parlour are rising rapidly, the relatives do not have a chance to change. It does not aUow them freedom pf choice. My advice to people would be to think very carefully about putting money into this type of fund. It would probably be better off in an investment account, in a bank or in a financial institution of their choice. If people were to dkect their savings in a manner such as I have suggested, they would be far better off than by tying themselves to a funeral benefit fund, Mr HANSEN (Maryborough) (3,17 p.m.): I have a couple of questions I would like answered. My understanding is that a number of fuiieral funds are operated by friendly societies, trade unions and, in some instances, by sickness and accident funds in various workshops; but, in the main, they pay a fixed sum, most of the value of which mflation has 2406 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill dimmished anyhow. However, I understand that the benefit avaUable from those sources is not the type envisaged in this legislation. Rather is this BiU aimed at what might be termed insurance. Nothing is more certain in life than death. Most people as they get older begin to think of how they wUl provide for their funeral. They have been encouraged to invest money in funds. A number of undertakers have told me at various times that people have asked if they could leave a certain amount of money with thein, not wanting to be a burden on their famUies or to involve them in the funeral arrangements. Unless that action was taken recently, inflation has consumed most of the value of those payments. I am told that none of the funds would cover the total cost of a funeral; rather would there be a smaU sum of money to go towards that cost. In the absence of their family, some people make an arrange­ ment with an undertaker-^premature though it may be—^to pay in advance for their funeral. Is it ojrred that those types of funds will have to be registered? I know that the money has to he held in a trast fund, but wUl it have to be accounted for under the same system used by the benefit funds already registered under the Friendly Socidies Ad? If I am correct in saying that the money has to be held in a trast fund, that leads to the question of the investment of those funds. I note that the Bill provides that a fund may invest, lodge a bond, take out an insurance policy or use some other mdhod of investment of the amount of money that has been lodged with it. In these days of inflation, with high interest rates and high property values, I understand that some of the metropolitan funeral benefit funds have invested money in real estate and have accumulated sufficient money to keep pace with rising costs. However, the BiU appears to regulate how money can be invested. Is thexe a requirement on funeral benefit funds to lodge a similar amount of money in some form of security? Althpugh I cannot see that in the Bill, that suggestion has been made to me. If the Minister cannot answer those matters in his reply, he might be able to do k at the Committee stage, I would like an assurance that the funeral benefit funds that accept lump sums of $50 or $100, which would not cover the cost of a funeral, are not required to be registered under this legislation,

Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (3,22 p.m.): I am very pleased to be able to jdn the debate. The Opposition was very fortunate in having the honourable member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis) here to lead the debate on behalf of the AustraUan Labor Party, I wish to comment on one or two matters that have been raised in the debate. One member mentioned that the high cost of burials has been caused by the employment d union labour, I believe the opposite to be the case in that some funeral parlours seem to take advantage of the grid of the family and levy a heavy charge for a burial. At the time the arrangements are made for the funeral, there are no arguments. Normally the diredors say, "Leave it to us. We wUl arrange a very nice funeral" So the grieving relatives leave it in the hands of the company. Unfortunately, when the account arrives it is far beyond what the people have expected and in many cases far beyond their capacity to pay. It is too late then because the funeral director has been allowed to arrange the funeral. He had promised to give a service of quality, but not to go to any extremes. However, in many cases the services do go to the extreme. When people receive the account a day or two after the funeral they then reaUse how they have been ripped off. The diredors may say to the relatives that they should not worry because the charge is tax dedudible. That might have been the case many years ago when the cost of funerals was a more realistic figure, but today the tax deductible amount is peanuts compared with the charge of $1,000 to $1,400 for a funeral. If a cUent says that he wiU go to his union a lot of funeral directors will go to water and say that if the client is a member of a union affiUated with the Trades and Labor Council a different price wiU be charged. That is an indication to the contrary of what we have heard here today about funeral parlours employing union labour and therefore charging high prices. This legislation dealing with funeral benefit funds should be updated from time to time. If a person took out a policy in 1950, with the way costs have beien escalating there is no doubt that when the time comes the person who is arranging the funeral will find that the cover the deceased had taken out is insufficient because the amount was not updated to a more reaUstic figure, I hope that this BiU wUl take care of that problem. Funeral Benefit Business BiU 17 November 1982 2407

As the ! member for Maryborough said, if a person invested a fixed amount the directors of the fund should be hol(Ung that money in trast, and with today's high interest rates the money that has been invested to pay for a burial should have accraed sufficient interest to cover the burial costs. Unfortunately, that is never the case, I hope that the proposed amendments will go a long way towards rectifying the problem, A death in the family always brings grief, and it is one of those times when one does not want to argue about money. The legislation should be sufficiently tight to protect those people who are pradent enough to provide for their last journey. Unfortunately, when people pass on they obviously cannot argue about how much money they have paid, and relatives virtually have to depend on the word of a funeral director unless they can find what is usually a smaU document that specifies the amount that has been invested. I sincerely hope that the BiU wiU rectify the situation, Hon, S, S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (3.28 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members on both sides for their support of the ition and the comments they have made. The member for Brisbane Central placed a fair amount of emphasis on the problem of funeral costs and the aggravation of the problem by marketing pressure. In a sense, some of those considerations are really outside the scope of this BUl, but necessarily they have had to be taken into account because the BiU is an attempt to tidy up one end of the business which relates to the efforts that people make to provide for these costs and some of the difficulties their bereaved relatives are confronted with subsequently when the arrange­ ments are put to the test. Relatives often find that there has been an inflation of costs, which obviously is exacerbated if funeral arrangements have been made more elaborate because of high-pressure seUing, flearly, local authorities and health authorities have an interest in do-it-yourself funeral arrangements. Obviously there is no bar to simpUfication of procedures or to people attempting to make their own funeral arrangements, provided health authorities and local authorities fit in and are prepared to set up criteria that can be met by ordinary individuals. That is the limiting factor. It is a subject that is under consideration. One sees more and more reference to it. No doubt it is bdng considered by other departments, such as the Health Department, and by local authorities. The honourable member for Brisbane Central mentioned transferabiUty, There wiU be transferability. It is provided for in both the Act and the BiU, Under the Act, the beneflts are transferable even if the funeral is carried out by a different director, and clause 41 (6) of the BiU preserves transferability. AU friendly societies that may provide funeral benefits are covered by the Friendly Societies Aot and not necessarUy by the Funeral Benefit Business BiU. Each society sets its own monetary benefit. Up to 1974, the quantum was Umited to $50. A matter raised by the honourable member for Brisbane Central and other honourable members was the protection that wUl be afforded to the consumer. Each contract wUl be subniitted by the operator for vetting and examination by the department before k can be registered. If it does not measure up, and particularly if the specific operator does not have the backing in terms of actuarial assessment, the contract wiU not be registered. So there is an inbuUt protection, and each transaction must culminate in a registered contract. Before it does so, it wiU be vetted and assessed and a decision wiU be made on whether k is a viable contract. As well as that, the contract wiU have to give a clear statement of the entitlements that are built into it. Because not everybody reads contracts, I propose to augment that provision by producing a brochure for general distribution. It wUl guide people through the maze and give them a Uttle more insight into how to interpret a contract and teU them of the protection that is bdng offered, /^? honourable member for Archerfield, in his inimkable fashion, outlined some of the things that happen in the industry. He was conceraed particularly about the mdexation of the benefits and about the effects of inflation. Apart from the fact that each year there wiU be an audit of each of the schemes, there will be an actuarial assessment done at five-year intervals. That actuarial assessment may resuk in the potential for augmentation of the sums that have been contracted for in the 2408 17 November 1982 Funeral Benefit Business Bill future when, they are realised. For instance, if the sum that has been contracted for is $600 it may be that, because of the build-up of the trust fund, with accumulations, ks deployment and the accraal of income to k, k will ultimately be possible to lift that figure to $800 or $900, It may not be a total form of indexation, but at least it wiU buffer people against the effects of inflation, Mr Hooper: It wiU tend to insulate them, Mr DOUMANY: It wiU tend to insulate them. If at the same time there is rationalisation of the p^ocediires, the operations and Uie requisites that attach to the business about which everybody has been talking, that is some­ thing that ultimately wiU occur. There will be some rationalisation of costs atid of, the level of elaborateness. That wUl also provide a buffer against escalation of costs. At a time of bereavement of someone dose to them, all honourable members would feel that there is a very deUcate and sensitive question as to how a persbn can simplify the accoutrements, the procedures, the rituals and other matters associated with a funeral, Although each one of us may be able to speak in a detached fashipn this afternoon in a debate such as this, it is not so easy when one is confrontea with the reaUty within a family situation. It might not be quite so easy to get a great number of people to, accept a simplification of the procedures of a funeral. That is something that wiU temper the rate of change, I do not have at my fingertips the mode of appointment of the Government undertaker and the terms and conditions that were raised by the honourable member for Archerfield. I do not have mformation about how he is appointed, how tenders are dealt with, and so on. Mr Hooper: I do not want to make any personal criticism of Mr O'Brien, the Government undertaker. I feel that Brisbane is too large for one Government undertaker. In my opinion, there should be two Government undertakers, Mr DOUMANY: I wUl have that matter examined, I am not certain whether k is entirely relevant to my portfolio or whether there is some overlap with another portfolio. I wiU have the matter investigated, and I wiU write to the honourable member for Archer­ field on it. The honourable member for Salisbury showed a great deal of interest in rationalising and simplifying the funeral procedure. She referred also to tne classification of cemeteries into categories by religion. That is a more traditional procedure. As we have aU seen in more contemporary arrangements, there does not seem to be that sort of distinction to which she referred. The question of do-it-yourself funerals is very much in the hands of local authorities and health authorities. It is obviously a matter that wUl have to be addressed in the immediate future, Mr Davis: There are many regulations^that go with it, Mr DOUMANY: We are looking for conformity with the requirements of local authorities and health authorities. If a funeral is conducted in conformity with those requirements, the regulations wUl not be a limiting factor. Provided adequate certification of death has been given, the Government wUl not stand in the way of simplification of burial procedures or funerals. Mr Davis: If a person wants to be buried in the backyard, the Government has no objection? Mr DOUMANY: Not at all—^provided the local authority concerned does not stand in the way, provided its by-laws allow it and provided also that the health authorities concerned allow it, I inform the honourable member for Salisbury that each contrad wUl be vetted. I think she asked about the protection given to individuals who are contracting under these arrangements for future benefits. Each contract wiU be vetted and registered pnly after it is approved. The BUl contains an inbuilt mechanism to proted each person from the outset. Next, annual checks will be made of the books and accounts of the various firms and the schemes operated by them, and actuarial assessments wiU take place at periodic intervals. These wUl lead to verification of the viability of the scheme or fund Funeral Benefit Busmess Bill 17 November 1982 2409

and ultimately we may get from the use of the funds that have been amassed in trast augmentation of the sums that have been contraded for when they are ultimately paid. So we might get an escalation of 20 or 30 per cent, depending on how much income has accrued to the fund, Mrs Kyburz interjeded, Mr DOUMANY: Obviously, we wUl have to be pretty rigorous in applying the criteria that are set out, I am sure that the actuary also will be rigorous in the manner in which he assesses the viabiUty of the funds relative to the liabUities that have to be met. I presume that, even though the legislation is not retrospective in the sense of picking up all previous contracts, it wiU have to pick up past liabUities, A particular firm wiU have to be able to meet past liabiUties as wdl as future liabUities atfter the enadment of the legislation. In the sense of liabUities, it wiU be retrospective. The actuary cannot do his job unless he takes aU those matters into account. The honourable member for Maryborough also raised the problem of inflation. I think I have covered it reasonably adequately by referring to the scheme of actuarial assessment and possible augmentation of the sums contracted for. I advise the honourable member that moneys have to be put aside, or property in lieu thered, for future benefits or services paid in advance. I refer him to clause 31. For existing policies either money held for that purpose or property becomes part of a trast fund to secure the meeting of future obUgations, In lieu of the above, either an insurance poUcy or a bank bond is required. As to the operators of the Brisbane Crematorium^—those people are taking out a bank bond to secure past contracts. They are able to do that because of their strong financial position. The BiU is certainly not an exciting one; nor is it a glamorous one. Nevertheless, the Government feels that it is a very practical measure. It will put the funeral benefit business on a sound footing in Queensland and wiU also give the individual dtizen who enters into arrangements under the Bill a fair measure of protection. The Goverament wiU be watching its operation very carefully over the next 12 months or so. It may contain some bugs that we have not foreseen. However, I doubt that, because of the nature of the safeguards built into it. If any difficulties do arise, the Government wiU not hesitate to amend the legislation, I commend the Bill to the House, Motion (Mr Doumany) agreed to.

Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Miller, Ithaca) in the chair; Hon, S. S. Doumany (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 71, as read, agreed to. Clause 72—False and misleading statements— Mr DAVIS (3.46 p.m.): I have a query about this clause which I would Uke the Minister to answer. We certainly hope that this section of the Act will be poUced. I do not want to rehash my previous arguments about some funeral diredors. I wish to know whether the clause wUl apply to television advertisements. It reads— "A person shaU not, for the purpose of inducing another person to enter into a contract or an arrangement with a registered corporation, make a statement that he knows to be false in a material particular or that is misleading, in relation to— (a) the conditions of entering into a contract or an arrangement with the registered corporation;" I ask that question in all seriousness. Years ago there were no television advertisements atJout funeral services or other senskive issues. If false advertising appears on television, will that clause cover it? Mr DOUMANY: I believe that the clause would apply to those circumstances, provided there was a clear linkage between the inducement of somebody to enter into a contract and the content of the advertisement. If the content of the advertisement was somewhat tangential, k might not be an easy task to associate it wkh the actual contract 2410 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

The advertisement would also have to be vetted under clause 70, which deals with advertising. No doubt the vetting of advertising under that clause would include possible misleading information given in television advertisements.

Mr DAVIS: Perhaps I could give an example, A funeral firm might promise in a television advertisement to provide the cheapest funeral in the dty, but vvhen the niext-of-kin looks at the contract that person might find that that was not the case, Mr DOUMANY: That siort of misleading advertising would also be covered by the Federal trade practices legislation. That woiild be a clear breach of that legislation. Clause 72, as read, agreed to. Clauses 73 to 81, and schedule, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment.

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

QUEENSLAND BOUNDARIES DECLARATORY BILL Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 10 November (see p. 2146) on Mr Doumany's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (3.52 p.m.): The introdudory statement made by the Attorney-General in the absence of the Premier is the most important point of his total speech— "The purpose of this BUl is to clarify for the purposes of State law, references to the land boundaries of the State in any document made under State law, and in Imperial Letters Patent, where those boundaries are described in astronomical terms, that is, by reference to a paraUel of latitude or a meridian of longitude," I concur with the point made by the Attorney-General and I acknowledge on behalf of the Opposition the need for clarity and certainty on,-State boundaries. The Opposition would support any legislative measure that would clearly and legaUy define State boundaries. However, I question the haste, I questjen why it is that this matter, although it was to be brought before the Chamber by the'4*remier, was introduced by the Attorney- General, Why, when the Premier is to return next week, has it not been allowed to lie on the table until the Premier returns? Wliy the haste? After all, it is the Premier's legislation. Why now do we have this push ahead by the Government? Mr Moore: We have an acting Premier. Mr WRIGHT: He did not introduce it, Mr Moore: That doesn't matter, Mr WRIGHT: I question why, I ask: Why was the BUl not left untU the return of the Premier from overseas? It is quke extraordinary that the Attorney-General has failed to make any refer­ ence in the contribution he made in the House to any discussions with the Northern Territory on this matter. After all, it is a matter of vkal concern to both Governments, I refer honourable members to an item in "The Courier-MaU" on 29 August 1981, the heading of which is "Summit to settle Queensland border 'war'"— "Queensland and the Northern Territory will hold a summit meeting at AUce Springs on Tuesday in a bid to settle the undeclared border 'war' bdween the two States, The 'war' was sparked earlier this year by mining companies prospecting in far western Queensland. (Jueensland Boundaries Declaratory BUl 17 November 1982 2411

The border discrepancy was revealed in May when aerial surveys of the area were made by Queensland's Mapping and Surveying Department." This is the pomt at emphasis— "At stake are mining and royalty rights over an area of about 500 sq km, in dispute because of a 'moving' border between the two states." I question whether or not behind the legislation today we have a motive, which is to out-manoeuvre the Northern Territory. Queenslanders believe—^and I think that I espouse the comments of the people of this State—that we must protect our own borders. We must protect our mineral rights and, as the Minister said, we need to legislate to legally define what is ours. But I ask the Government and the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Hewitt), who seems to be in charge of the Bill Mr Moore: It is the mark on the ground; that is what we are really taUting about, Mr WRIGHT: But there is some confusion. Before the member interfered, he should have checked. He would have found that there are discrepancies of something like 600 metres at the northera end and 200 metres at the southern end, I do not say there is a matter in dispute or that there is a border war; the Government has admitted that discrepancy. There has certainly been no refutation of it, because mining royalties and money is at stake. Perhaps the Minister ought to explain exactly what is happening in relation to the Bill, Have there been ongoing discussions? I question that because this afteraoon my office was iadvised by a very senior person linked wkh the Government of the Northera Territory— not a member of the Opposition—that he did not even know about the BUl, that he had never read the Minister's speech and that he did not know the intent of this Government, Why is that? I thought that Queensland was a State of co-operation and consultation, I thought that the ultimate objective of Queensland was to ensure that it maintained its friendship with those who live in other States and with Governments of other States, It is also rather strange that although the Goverament of the Northern Territory is of the same political colour as this Government, my officers were told by a high-level legal officer m the Northern Territory only this afternoon that he had not heard about the BUl and he requested that the Opposition send him a copy of it. One wonders why the Government kept it a secret, Mr Moore: Because you are a trouble-maker. That is the real reason, if you want to know, Mr WRIGHT: I suggest to the honourable member for Windsor that he be quiet, because it seems that he does not have the support of people in this place or the support of those in other areas. If he wants to vent his spleen on someone, he should vent it on the honourable member for Stafford, because I believe that he played a very major part in the honourable member's demise, Mr Moore: That would be dead right, Mr GYGAR: I rise to a point of order, I deny that aUegation and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it, I find it offensive, Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask for a withdrawal, Mr WRIGHT: That places me in some difficulty, I have just had an affirmation from the member for Windsor that what I said was correct, Mr GYGAR: I find k offensive and I ask that k be withdrawn, Mr WRIGHT: I will withdraw it, because it seems that again there are two rules in this place, Mr HOOPER: I rise to a point of order. As my leader has said, the honourable member for Windsor has confirmed that the honourable member for Stafford stabbed him in the back. So I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that there is no point of order, Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The matter has been clarified. 2412 17 November 1982 Queensland! Bpundaries Declaratory Bill

Mr WRIGHT: It seems strange that the member for Stafford, whp a ;fe^ hours ago stood in his place in this Chamber and cast filth and dirt on other meml^rs, should be so quickly on his feet when someone makes a reference to him. When it comes to pecuniary interests and money that he has earned in other areas, I assure the Chambef that he will be dealt with at a later date, ,,i' I question the motive of the Government, I question why this matter has been rushed through, I question why the Northern Territory Government has not been advised. Is this legislation not in Une with the joint submission or the joint proposal of the Northern Territory and Queensland? Is it. a fact that the Bill does something to which the Northern Territory would be opposed? One thing that is for sure is that the Bill is retrospective legislation. That was admitted in the Minister's second-reading speech, IfAr Hewitt: Nonsense! Mr WRIGHT: The Minister does not agree, I wUl come back to tliat matter, because I hate to make remarks that are untrae in any way, I refer the House to a report in the Press dated 24 August 1982, which states that four State Government surveyors have set out to survey the Queensland-South Australian border for the first time since the 1880s, My advice is that it was Queensland and South Australia that never legally identified and sanctioned their common border; so in fact k is retrospective legislation. One hundred years ago all of the other States saw fit to introduce legislatipn that stipulated the borders and provided a legal basis for the boundaries between States, Queensland did not do that. So, 100 years later, the Government has introduced retrospective legislation to legalise borders that were marked out by posts 100 years ago or more. That is strange in view of the Government's oppositioii to retrospective legislation when it is designed to ferret out the tax cheats and tax avoiders in the State, In his introductory remarks, the Minister said— "The BiU does not endeavour to claim any territory which is not and has not been any part of Queensland for more than 100 years." That is true. I want to know whether it is giving away anything. I would like an answer in the Minister's reply, I want to know whether it refers in any way to the Torres Strait/New Guinea/Queensland border issue. A Government Member: No. Mr WRIGHT: The honourable member can say that, but I am surprised that he has not questioned it, because we learned a long time ago with justice legislation and other types of legislation that it is very difficult to trust certain pieces of legislation that are rushed through this House. And that is what has happened in this instance. We have legislation suddenly being pushed through the House when the Premier is away. The Minister says that it does not involve that issue. I want to hear that not by way of interjection but clearly stated in bis reply, that is if the Minister for Enivronment, Valuation and Administrative Services is going to reply. After aU, it is the Premier's legislation. The Attorney-General introduced it and now we have another Minister involved. As I said, the Northern Territory Government has not seen the BiU or read the Minister's speech, I question whether it was consulted. The Minister for Administrative Services was mentioned in dispatches because I believe that his department was involved- he was not the Minister at the time—in the resurveying of this area. I do not know whether he has had any consultation with the Northern Territory Government. The Opposition is aware of the changes that have taken place ki surveying techniques. We are appreciative of the fact that the existing boundary could not be precisely the same as that perceived by surveyors back in the 1860s, We have been advised that the original peg lines are slightly west of the 138th meridian. That is the point that I make to the member for Windsor, that the difference in land terms may not be great but the difference in legal terms certainly could be significant, I hark back to the point that there could be mining royalties or income for the State at stake here. We of the Opposkion question whether there are other things at stake. It has been suggested that the southern part of Queensland is out of kiker by some 200 metres and the northern part by 600 metres. What else is at stake? What are the other variations? I believe that the Pariiament of Queensland has a right to know. Queensland Bbundaries Declaratory Bill .17 ;Npve,mber 1982 ,2413

I also want to raise a point about the agreement with the Northern Territory, because there are some quarters that bdieve that, because of the way that Queensland has gone about this and introduced this legislation which no doubt will be carried because of numbers, it could wdl face a'chaUenge in the High Court of AustraUa, possibly from the Northern Territory Government, I do not mean to pre-empt Paul Everingham or aihy of his Ministers, but k has been sugges^d;.by legal advice that the legislation could well be challenged. One would think because of the cominents already that there has been a war, a border dispute, and that a challenge could be forthcoming. We in the Opposkion are acutely conscious of the points raised by the Attorney- General when he introduced the legislation about the need for certainty, and this comes back to clarifying and giving some certainty to the legislative competence of, the adjoining political entities. We ought to clarify the powers of' this ParUament in geographical as well as legal or statute terms. We have to define the rights, duties and UabUities of residents of the respective entities. We also come back to the rights of the people of Queensland in commercial terms, and surely that is what the reference was in the Press release to which I referred. The Minister referred to the application of criminal law. Surely we ought to refer to the application of any law in this disputed area, be it 600 metres or 600 miles. There are the limits of grants of rights to land. Again we come back to the granting of land and the restrictions on the decision of the Legislature, because this can be referred to in geo­ graphical or land terms. The other reference the Minister made was to electoral or boundary terms, I do not deny the desirability of getting the certainty and the clarification. It is desirable that we ensure that we act lawfully in terms of all the areas of Queensland, and k is obviously important that this is clearly defined because it was not done 100 years ago. But I suggest that it could be extremely costly if this legislation is challenged. It will be costly in dollar terms, human resource terms and human terms, so there is a built-m danger, and I believe this Assembly needs to have some explanation. We need to bear in mind that if there is a dispute this gives the House of Representatives the right to invoke section 123 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which relates to the alteration of the limits of the States as far as their boundaries are concerned. Section 123 of the Commonwealth Constitution states— "The Parliament of the Commonwealth niay, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected," What I am suggesting is that the Government could be opening the gate for some smart constitutional lawyer to start diminishing the boundaries of Queensland to Canberra's benefit, I do not want to see that. The Opposition in Queensland is pro-Queensland, It supports the proposition outlined in theory by the Minister, I rekerate that the Minister has faUed to give adequate information. He has failed to explain exactly the relationship with the Northern Territory, The members of the Opposition have a responsibility to probe what the Government is doing. We are probing its attitude on this matter because of other attitudes that it has expressed. I refer finally to the other attitude of the Government when it comes to land-ownership. It seems that the Government is prepared to rush legislation through and that it is prepared to be involved in some sort of unilateral action that does not involve the State or the Terrkory that wiU be affected, but when k comes to the foreign ownership of land in Queensland, k is not interested. It has procrastinated; in fact it has opposed the setting up of a register of foreign ownership of land. I was interested to read today that this was promised not only during the past year when the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services and also the leader of the Liberal Party promised that something would be done by way of a computer, but also 10 years ago, A Press cutting from "The Courier-Mail" dated 7 uecember 1972 is headed, "Control plan on fordgn land buys". The people of Queensland 2414 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

must be wondering when some action wUl be taken, when there will be performance of the promises that they have heard constantly from the Government. Ten years ago the Mmister for Lands, Sir Wallace Rae, said— ". the present extent of foreign ownership of land was of relatively minor importance." I accept that, but what is the position today? I hark back to the comments of the honourable member for Maryborough the other day. Let me record them m "Hansard" agam, let me rekerate them, let me spotlight them again, let me emphasise them again, untU someone wakes up to what is going on. It was of minor importance 10 years ago. In 1980-81, 89 000 ha of Queensland land at a value about $350,000 was purchased by foreigners. Last financial year the area had increased to 542 000 ha. That is what has been monitored. There is no control, through the FIRB, over purchases valued at less than $350,000. People wonder why members of the Opposition question the activities and motives of the Government, The Government said 10 years ago th^t it would take action. Today k has still not acted. Is k any wonder that we question the real motive behind this legislation? I seek answers. I seek clarification, I now seek certainty becajise that is what the Attorney-General promised when he introduced the BiU, Mr HOOPER (Archerfield) (4,8 p,m,): After starting to peruse the BiU my first thought was that the Premier was embarking on the annexation of parts of adjoining States, as the late Mr Hitier did in the 1930s, My next thought was that this might be the prelude to the succession of Queensland from the CommonweaUh of Australia, which has been suggested by the Premier on many occasions, when BiU Hayden and the Labor Party come to power next year. Having read the Bill and the Minister's speech notes I am left wondering whether it is in fact a unilateral declaration of boundaries. The Minister may care to tell us whether there was, as my leader said, consultation with the Labor Governments of New South Wales and South Australia and the Government of the Northern Terrkory, If so, are the other States and the Northern Territory happy with the legislation? My leader said that he had been in contact with a leading member of the Northern Territory Government who denied any knowledge of the Bill, Like my leader, I am wondering whether the Government has something to hide in relation to this legislation, I admit, from reading the BiU, that it seems quite innocuous. Knowing the track record of the Government I must beware of the smile on the face of the tiger. Has the Government agreed to pass complementary legislation or is it merely saying, 'This is what we intend to do. You can like it or lump it"? I certainly do not claim expertise in the law relating to land boundaries, I do not claim expertise on the law relatmg to suburban aUotments, let alone that relating to States or nations. It is a very complex business with many legal and surveying tedmical subleties. As I understand it, the cardinal question that the courts seek to have answered conclusively is: What was the precise intention of the makers of the boundary? In this case that must mean: What was the intention of the British Government at the time of separation of the Colony pf Queensland in 1859? I am told that in the usual boundary case the legal instrament—caU it deed or whatever—^is drafted after the surveyor, guided by a rough sketch or design provided to him, has made his measurements and placed his survey marks. In the olden days the survey marks were wooden pegs and marked trees. Some 40 years ago, in an attempt to achieve permanency, the pegs and trees were supplemented with buried iron spikes. In the early 1950s, the then Labor Goverament enacted the Survey Co-ordinaiion Act, which provided for high-quaUty concrete blocks with set in brass plaques, which had been prescribed for permanent marking. The deed is drafted in the terms of measurement, which the surveyor says he has made and the marb which he says he has placed. The Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services is nodding his head in agreement, so I know that I am on the right track, Mr Hewitt: I never moved my head; I would not be game, Mr HOOPER: The Minister is very wise. He does not know what he will get in retum. Queensland Boundaries. Declaratory BiU 17 November 1982 2415

I understand that m typical cases the survey marks, sijpposmg that they can be recovered and shown to be undisturbed, are taken as strong, but not necessarily conclusive, evidence of the mtended boundary, even if the measurements between the marks are found to disagree with those claimed by the original surveyor. As a humble layman, it seems to me that the State boundaries case Mr Hewkt: A layman, yes, but humble, no, Mr HOOPER: I always consider myself humble, I am a humble back-bencher. As a humble layman, it seems to me that the State boundaries case is somdhing of an exception to the rule in that the Imperial Letters Patent, which express the intent that the boundaries be along certain lines of latitude and longitude, are the deed. They were not merely a rough guide for surveyors. As I understand it, no new deed was raised in terms of the surveyors measurements and marks. It may weU be that the latitudes and longitudes mentioned in the letters patent have far more weight than the BiU or the Minister's remarks give them. We wUl just have to wak and see. The letters patent created the present legal boundaries, Mr Davis: It is good stuff. Mr HOOPER: If my good friend and coUeague the member for Brisbane Central listens very intently, no doubt it wiU be to his benefit. Mr Hewitt: It is a wonder that he can understand it, Mr HOOPER: As a matter of fact, he is one of the more erudite members of the Opposition, I know that what I am saying wUl certainly sink in. The Surveyor-General of the then Colony of New South Wales was then instruded to have measurements made in accordance with the deed and to have boundary markers placed to implement the legal boundaries. He dispatched a number of surveyors into the wilderness to do that. Over the years, they made certain angle measurements to the stars—there are quite a number of potential stars in this House—and certain measurements on the ground, and installed survey markers purporting to show the boundaries along their 2 500 km length, I wonder whether aU those surveyors did their marking and took their measure­ ments properly. There has always been a percentage of bad surveyors and, being stuck out there in the never-never, it would have been tempting for them to say, "Near enough is good enough." Dr Lockwood: That is not a fair comment, Mr HOOPER: It is a fair comment, Dr Lockwood: Just detail ito the House the measurements they took in the olden days to determine where they were. Mr HOOPER: I appreciate the interjection of the honourable member for Toowoomba North, He is a Uttle bit patent, I intend to name a certain surveyor whom I consider to be one of the most incompetent surveyors in this State, If the honourable member for Toowoomba North is a little patient, I wiU come to that, Mr Clasey: It is aU very weU for the member for Toowoomba North; he buries his mistakes, Mr HOOPER: Of course he buries or cremates his mistakes. As most honourable members would be aware, the Liberal Party's recent appointee to the ^position of Surveyor-General, Mr Kevin "Seven-foot" Davies is a classical example of an incompetent, book-cooking surveyor. He is a joke in the surveying profession. Does that answer the inane interjection by the honourable member for Toowoomba North? Dr Lockwood: No, How many measurements did they take in the olden days to determine where they were? Mr HOOPER: If the honourable member is patient, I wiU deal with that. 2416 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Dedaratory Bill

I have heard it said that, owing to the Umitations of known technolc^y at the time, an incompetent surveyor placed marks disagredng with the lines of longitude and latitude by more than the greatest error that could be expected and that it is uhlikdy that the courts would regard such marks as implementing the boundary intention. Then there is the question of the recovery of the survey marks, which are now more than 100 years old. The Bill contains the words "permaneiitly fixed by marking k upon the surface of the earth before 1900", I pose this question to the Minister: Were iron spikes buried as the markers, or were concrde blocks used in the marking? I do not know. If the markers were in wood, the whke ants would have had a field day by now. One thing I do know is that the permanent survey marks' supposedly placed by Kevin "Seven-foot" Davies all over Western Queensland could not be recovered by the surveyors of Geophysical Service Ind>rporated workiiig on oU exploration for Esso over the past several years. That was only 10 years after Mr Davies had certified that they had been placed according to speci'ficatiQn, Many were never placed at all, and most of the rest crumbled. As far back as March 1981, I tabled documentary evidence of Mr Davies's decek on that job. What did the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services do? After my expose, Mr Hewitt gave Mr Davies an increase in salary, Ta add insult to injury, about a month ago he officially confirmed him in the position of Surveyor-General. That is blatant political nepotism at its worst. So much for the integrity of the Liberal Party! It is learning fast under its National Party tutors, Mr Hewitt: Just as a nicety—I did not; Cabinet did, Mr HOOPER: It was on the Minister's recommendation. The Miiuster is only playing on words. Certainly Cabinet agreed to the appointment of Mr Kevin "Seven-foot" Davies as Surveyor-General, but that was done on the recommendation of Mr Hewitt, Let him deny that, Mr Hewitt: They share the responsibility, Mr HOOPER: Cabinet Ministers also shared a fishing trip that has become quite famous. The Minister is in the twilight of his poUtical career. It is only a matter rf 12 months or so before he is to leave Parliament, so why doesn't he guard his tongue a little bit, relax, and not lead with his chin? I rather Uke the Minister personally and, being a kindly person, I do not want to take out my spite on him, Mr Hewitt: I would hate to be advised by you, Mr HOOPER: I am giving the Minister good advice. No doubt my remarks wiU sink in. I am told that where a surveyor's marks are no longer extant—as the Minister is rather a pedantic person, I thought he would have asked me what "extant" means; it means "present"—^the location of the very first fence may be given considerable weight if it does not conflid with other evidence of intention. However, if a long delay of perhaps decades occurred between surveying and fencing, the fendng contradors may have had difficulty in finding survey marks. In some instances, they may not have tried very hard. After all, they were out to make a quid and, if possible, follow the easy going. The attitude may weU have been, "If we get over into the left, the soil wiU be easier and better for the dray. What does a few feet or even a mile matter in this wilderness?" They might have been like Kevin "Seven-foot" Davies, Mrs Kyburz: You don't like that man. Mr HOOPER: It is not that I do not like him; I think he is extremely incompdent, dishonest, and an empire builder who is out to incorporate the Tkles Office mto the Department of Mapping and Surveying. If I were acting Premier, I would certainly be keeping an eye on that man's attkudes and depredations in Cabinet, because I believe he is out to do certain members of the Cabinet a mischief, Mr Davis: Apart from that, he is a Liberal, Mr HOOPER: That brings me to the point; of course he is a Liberal. As a matter of fact, he was the chairman of the area councU on the southside of Brisbane. After the 1977 redistribution, at the time when the late Kdth Hooper was member for (Jreenslopes (Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill 17 November 1982 2417

and the present Minister, Mr Hewitt, as member for Chatsworth, had indicated his intention to seek endorsement for the safe Liberal seat of Greeiislopes, Mr Davies rendered Mr Hewitt considerable assistance. So it is quite possible that in the case of Mr Davies it is a quid pro quo, Mr Sullivan: Would you make those accusations outside this Chamber? Mr HOOPER: Would the Minister repeat some of tb-* inane and dishonest statements that he made about the fishing trip? Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the last few minutes the discussion has got right away from the legislation before the House, I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill, Mr HOOPER: Thank you, Mr Speaker; but I have been sorely provoked. The attkude Of the surveyors of that day may well have been, "If we get over into the left the soil wiU be easier and bdter for the dray. What does a few feet, or even a mile, matter in this wilderness?" But today, a few fed, let alone 1 km, are of big concern to the Premier's multinational exploiter friends. The Bill is small in length of text and superficially simple, but, as I hope members will by now have come to realise, what k attempts to do has legal and surveying ramifications that are by no means smaU and simple, and I think that my leader mentioned that in his speech, TTiere is certainly a need to clear up once and for all the uncertainties about the State's boundaries, I understand that in some instances those uncertainties are so large that, for practical purposes and in the light of modern surveying technology, they cannot be ignored, Mr Hewkt: You roll those two words "my leader" around your mouth as though you were savoring a fine wine, Mr HOOPER: It is true, I always give loyalty to the leader of my party, I have heard that on parts of the Queensland/Northern Territory border the uncertainty may be as great as 1 km. For legal people to be able to make a ddermination with any degree of confidence, they would need to be provided with evidence collected by competent, reliable surveyors—certainly not surveyors of the calibre of Kevin "Seven-foot" Davies, Has the Government given its legal advisers the benefit of such evidence? Mr Davis: I have to ask you: Where does "Seven-foot" come from? Mr HOOPER: That is how far he was out in some of his surveying. That is a surveying terminology that would not be over the head of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, but it would be over the head of most other members in this Chamber, Perhaps if the Minister asked the Department of Mapping and Survey to provide the evidence, k might be able to come up with it; I do not know, I know one thing, though, and that is I would regard with the utmost suspidon any work done by the Liberal Party surveyors' gang in the last few years. That Liberal Party surveying mafia should be routed out in the interests of the surveying profession as a whole. The Government will not do it; but I promise honourable members that the next Labor Government certainly will. Mrs KYBURZ (SaUsbury) (4.23 p.m.): I find this BiU fascinating. The matter of changing the State boundaries has fascinated me for a long time. In reply to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to refer to the report on the land data bank project, and, in particular, to the methods of surveying used in the Northern Territory. Obviously the Leader of the Opposkion is unaware of the land intormMion systems bdng used in the various States and Territories in Australia. I now read into Hansard" for his benefit the following extrad from the report on the land data bank projed— "Northern Territory 3.1 Through the use of private consultants, the Northern Territory has imple­ mented an on-line computer system that embraces such fundions as land registration, valuation, planning and building authorization. It is understood that computer- f^Ai^'^ Certificates of Title are imminent and computer processing of survey data leading to automatic mapping is under investigation." 2418 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaraibifif Bill

It would seem to me that the Northern Territory is far and ahead in that regafd.' The report continues^ "3.2 The Northern Territory Land Information System is the most comprehfensive of such systems in production, its apparent success being partly due to the small number of land parcels and the close functional links between Government bodies in the Territory." The Northern Territory having such a smaU population, one would exped that the mem­ bers of the Public Service would have time to do precisely that. I think that puts paid to the accusations that the Leader of the Opposition made about fhe Government of the Northern Territory and its failures to survey its ovm land. The rest of the report indicates that Queensland is up with the other States, in the coUeetioii of information of that type. It is fairly obviou^—'and I am referring once ag^n to the reasons for the legislation— that Queensland is lucky to have such a comprehensive computerised land information system in its Departpient of Mapping and Surveying, That is something that many people forget when they are talking about a register of foreign landholders. Mind you, I support such a register. The Queensland system references all land in the State, both freehold and leasehold, with the exception of roads, railways and so oh, I reaUy wonder vvhether part of the reason for the legislation might not be that other information is requested by local authorities, in particular, or for purposes such as land tax. In his speech, the Minister stipulated— , "The precise location of a boundary is important in resped of the following matters:—" And then said that the list that followed was not exhaustive. The references Jo "limits of grants of rights to land" could, of course, include demands made by Aborigiiial groups for rights over particular pieces of land as weU as claims by companies for compensation. I am somewhat mystified by the last clause in the BiU, which says that the Crown is not liable "to pay damages or to make o.iher remedy on account of loss or injury claimed by any person" That would seem to me to be a perfunctory dause to be found in many pieces of legislation. However, there may be a particular reason for its inclusion in this legislation. Does it indicate that the State is under the risk of being sued by a compajiy that has taken mineral rights over an area of land that has since been found not to be within Queensland? I am sure that the Minister wUl give an honest answer to that question. It seems to me, on the basis of the report that I have read, that Queensland now has a very accurate and comprehensive system of surveying and that the Department d Mapping and Surveying must be fully aware of precisely where Queensland's boundaries are, I am sure that the; Suryeyor-General would be able to state the precise points of reference for the Jjorders pf Queensland. That ha^ not been kiiown historically, because it is fairly obvious that in 1862 there was no Landsat satelUte, It has been possible to modernise and update information on the land data bank to such an extent that the legislation has become necessary for the historical reason that simple faults were made 100 years ago. That is very understandable, Mr Jones: Does what you are saying about Aboriginal land have anything, to do with Doomadgee and the Northern Territory border? Do you know anything specific about that?

Mrs KYBURZ: I do not know anything specific. If I did, I would say so. My mterest in this legislation is that I have often wondered about the contraoftial responsibiUty between the Commonwealth and the States on the matter of changing boundaries under section 123 of the Constitution, The power of the States to alter their own boundaries is a difficult point that is not really clarified in the Constitution, 1 wonder wheth^,, this Bill indicates that e^ch State Legislature in fact has the power to alter its own borders in the future, I do not accept the claim by the Leader of the Opposition that this is rdrospedive legislation. However, it has often occurred to me when Usiening to the news about the present economic climate that perhaps the question should be asked publicly whdher or (Jueensland Boundaries Declaratory BiU 17 November 1982 2419

not the Federation of Australia has too many States, After aU, if two States are very nearly bankrapt—^I am, of couse, referring to New South Wales and Tasmania—one must ask why the States were estabUshed as they now are. Obviously, the answer is primarily historical. With 10 per cent of the Tasmanian work-force unemployed and with its smaU concentratkm of industries, I ask whether Tasmania is now too smaU to be viable. The same question could be asked about South AustraUa, Because it has so few industries and such a small economic base, is it now a non-viable State? Mr Prentice: New South Wales.

Mrs KYBURZ: I have mentioned New South Wales. I am also forced to ask what would be the savings to the public purse from a rationalisation of States, which is m fact a euphemism for getting rid of a few. If the boundaries of States were changed by referendum, there would be very loud screams. The first to scream—^that has been seen here today—would be the Parliaments, The Leader of the Opposition made that quite clear when he said: we are pro-Queensland, What a lovely little bit of parochialism that was! It lacked only the sign of the cross and a thump on the top of the desk. If a Parliament were to lose its power, fairly obviously that would also irk the poUtical organisations in the State, They would be the second ones to scream. Probably they would scream even more loudly, because the political party in power m each State likes to think that it can run every nook and cranny of that State to perfection, which, of course, is nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the Northern Territory border, I hope that I put paid to his ideas on that, because the report from which I read earlier makes k fairly obvious that the Northern Territory, through its facUities for survey and mapping, must be weU aware of the precise location of its borders and boundaries. One would hope that that State has made a corresponding review of the legislation and ensured that the boundaries of the Northern Territory are precisely What that State's Legislature believes them to be, I hope that the Minister wUl clarify the question relative to mining and pastoral leases, because I am concerned that it is behind this Bill, If a mistake made in the past now has some effect on mining leases, I hope that the public purse wiU not in any way be Uable to pay compensation to mining companies that feel they may have been disadvantaged financially,

Mr INNES (Sherwood) (4,33 p,m,): The Bill before the House is brief and fairiy simple. In the style that is perhaps typical of the present Leader of the Opposition, in contradistinction to that of the member for Mackay, the House witnessed the use of a word, the makmg of a sentence and the building of a sermon that had more to do with imagination than reality.

Apparently the simple fact is that a mistake was made over 100 years ago on which everybody has acted since that time. So long as k is unresolved, the matter has some real consequences. If the mistake is projected over the full length of the north/south border between Queensland and the Northern Territory, the question might arise whether a significant tract of land belongs to one State or to the other. In human' terms, that might be a factor that is worthy of great consideration. Earlier this year I visked the Northern Territory. I discovered that the majority of right-thinking Northern Territorians found k difficuU to come to grips with the fact that they have five Labor members of Parliament in their Legislative Assembly. To suggest that that might be increased by 500 per cent to 25 and that it might include persons such as the members for Archerfidd and Rockhampton is too much for those people. Even the Buffaloes would be stamping thdr hooves and the brolgas flapping their wmgs if that

The reality is that nothing that Queensland does unilaterally can ultimately decide ne matter. Nobody pretends that that is the case; k can stiU go to the High Court. But in so lar as the legislation can seek to reinforce the boundaries that have been acted upon for over a century, this Pariiament is declaring its wUl. 2420 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

Now, it is cheap' politics and paranoid fantasy to suggest, that there is anything, sinister behind'thiis, anything further than an attempt to rdnforcethe way that Queenslanders have thought things tP be for over 100 years. Pastoral leases, muiing leases, all of those things that deal with a boundary, even the border between i the Northern Territory and Queensland, have'been acted on on the basis that the original survey Une on the ground was the border. Nothing more is sought than to reinforce what. Queenslanders'have always thought to be Queensland and ensure that it is stiU part of Queensland, i Everybody accepts that there is a difference. The basis of: the mistake has been explained to members. How can it be suggested that something snide, underhand or covert is being tried? It is there for the world to see. The old pegjfeoundarips, the way we have always regarded the border, are on the Northern Territory side of the disputed ground, and modern technology—photogrammatic techniques and other things—^suggest that it should be some distance into the area which we have always considered to be Queensland, 1 have said, and it is perfectly clear, that in the end result the matter could be disputed, and the place, in which it would be disputed is the High Court of AuStraUa,

Mr Casey: Do you think they are really worried about it .in Camooweal and Urandangie? Mr INNES: If I lived in one of those places I would be worried about it, I can teU the honourable member that if I happened to be a Queenslander with property on that western boundary I would be damned concerned to make sure that the place I always thought I owned remained according to the boundaries I always thought existed. A property owner, whether he had a smaU allotment or a .gra?ipg lease, would be very concerned , Mr Casey: You would still have owiieirship of the land in the Northern Territory,

Mr INNES: That is a little facile, surely? A lease or mining authority granted by the Government of Queensland surely could riot be over Northern Territory land. This really is the problem in dealing with Opposition members. It is ABC stuff and Opposition members have not learned the ABC, There is nothing sinister. There is an area of dispute, and the Government is seeking tO give the strongest case to the Queens­ landers who have always acted on the assumption that the old, marked boundary was the boundary between the State and the Territory, Mr Wright: Why weren't there discussions with the Northern Territory on this?

Mr INNES: There were discussions with. the Northern Territory Government, as 1 understand it, Mr Wright: There weren't,

Mr INNES: There were discussions, Mr Wright: When?

Mr INNES: Unless I am in error the present Minister for Administrative Services had discussions in Alice Springs, i Mr Hewitt: 1 September 1981,

Mr INNES: Exactly, I' know there were, because I met the Minister in Darwin after he had met this Chief Minister of the Northern Territory,^ In the result, there has con­ tinued an area of dispute, and Queensland is seeking Mr Wright: And k could end up in the High Court of Australia,

Mr INNES: Of course k could; nobody denies that. But Queensland is seeking to back up ks claim to the strongest extent possible. It is that simple, Mr Wright: But this could be a very costly exercise. Queensland Boundaries Dedaratory Bill 17 November 1982 2421

Mr INNES: One does not lightly abdicate from the rights of property which Queens­ landers have al*ays considered they ovvned—for the money that was paid out on the basis of rights of property. In the end result the High Coiirt may adjudicate, but as I understand the precedents in the legal cases that have involved disputes of this type—technical disputes between old marked boundaries and boundaries re-established, shaU we say, by later methods—such as those which occiirred between the United States and Canada and between Victoria and South Australia, quite rightly, I would have thought, in terms of simple etiuky and justice the decision went in favour of the marked boundaries.

If a grazier on the Northern Terrkory side of the boundary has always grazed up to a certain mark or has used a certain area of his grazing lease on the assumption that the old boundary was the true boundary, and the grazier on the Queensland side has always done the same, surely it is reasonable to allow the reality to continue consistently wkh what is now perceived to be a mistake. The whole reason for marked boundaries is that they are certain to the people, who Uve or operate and exercise property rights on each side of them. The legislation is very simple. The Queensland Government is attempting to back up a reasonable claim, and to the extent possible a rightful claim, on behalf of both the Government which has sought to give out leases on the assumption that that was the boundary and, very importantly, on behalf of Queenslanders who believe that they own land up to the boundary. To suggest anything more, to engage in these flights of fantasy, does nothing to further the issue. As I understand it frpm my legal knowledge, if there continues to be a dispute, it can be arbitrated on in the High court of Australia, and precedent suggests that that court would confirm the practice and action of the Queensland Government. The issue is simple. Let us not beat it up. Let us not try to mislead the public or ourselves. Let us leave it on the simple statement of the Minister.

Dr LOCXWOOD (Toowoomba North) (4.42 p.m.): I have always believed that accurate surveys save people money and that they can give to the people who use land the confidence to use it up to the full extent of their boundaries. That bdng so, the legislation is necessary so that the people who are using the land to the full can use it with that confidence. It is no use denying that, if a person flies over the border that is presently marked, he cannot see it from the air. It may be visible from 15 000 or 30 000 ft because of the completely different stresses put on the land by graziers. On one side of the boundary the land may be overgrazed and quite bare whereas, on the other side, it may be reasonably well grassed. The graziers on each side of the border may have put their areas to different land use. There is no doubt that what has prompted the legislation is the oU and gas exploration in those regions. I offer the best of luck to those engaged in that exploration but I do not believe that any big discoveries will be inade on the border land that is in dispute. The honourable member for Archerfield referred to bad surveying. He was talking about surveying in the early 1800s when cadastral surveying was the traditional method adopted. The accuracy of surveyors was limited. I am reminded of one of my friends^— he is now a doctor in Toowoomba—^who spent a fortnight on a coral island during World War II. He was put ashore from his naval ship. He and his smaU party shot stars at night and made mathematical calculations during the day. After a fprtnight they had some idea where they were. They went back to thdr calculations and cast out the figures that did not agree closely with their observations and they calculated again. They were able to arrive at latitudes and longitudes which sd their position on the earth within 5 or 10 metres in any direction, ' > • That type of accuracy is not required for .ordinary day-to-day .and night-to-night navigation along the coast, but a person who is preparing maps, particiilarly marine charts, requires that degree of accuracy. That party had to do, it and it took the party a fortnight to determine its location on the earth's surface within 5 or 10 metres in any diredion, I can weU imagine a survey party in the 1800s spending a fortnight to determine the position of each peg, so the honourable member for Archerfield would have less cause to complain about the accuracy of their work, which he sums up as bad surveying! 2422 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

There was simply no way in the work! that surveyors could have existed in that country for so long, spending a fortnight over each peg as they pegged a border. Certainly, they had to do what they believed they could do. That would have invdved carrying their own provisions, including, a great deal of water. They would have had to care for their animals and would have had to have made very copious and laborious observations to determine where they were. One could well imagine that in doing that within the time constraints to cross parts of the very barren desert parts of the border, they could not spend a fortnight on each peg. Indeed, if they could obtain a reasonably precise fix every fortnight or so, they would be doing very well. I do not doubt that they relied very heavily on their compasses' and that the compasses that they had in those days were powhere near as accurate as the compasses that are manufactured today. Measurements would have been taken by the link-chain in between the places that were determined by shooting the stars. Of course, they would be subjeded to the compounding errors Of the compass and the errors of the chain. There is simply no waiy in the world that, given those constraints of distance, heat and water, they could have produced the kind of survey that would be as accurate as the survey conducted by my friend in the Pacific in World War II. Therefore, we must accept that the border is inaccurate. The Bill authorises the Government to make an extremely accurate survey of that border. Let us look at the persons who will be affected. For a start, I would be very surprised if we were to find a hpuse, shed or any major implement of farm machinery on the wrong side of the border because Pf the resurvey. The area is very sparcely populated, I would doubt that one person would have to shift house because of k. If the Labor Party Government of the day was interested in rectifying what the member for Archerfield termed bad surveying, it could have set about providing a much more accurate survey with the resources that were available to it up until the time that it lost Government in 1956, Of course, from the date of the original survey to the present time there have been more pressing things for surveyors to do in this State, One thing that had a great bearing on safety and on the economy of this State was an accurate survey of the Torres Strait, Bulk-ore carriers and oU tankers travellmg through the Torres Strait relied on charts prepared by Captain Cook, The reefs on those charts were a good 4 mUes from the stated position on a grid map. The needs of the people have had to be met. The owners of industrial, commercial or residential land know that they can use the land that has been surveyed and pegged for them. We all know the heartbreak suffered by those people who have built outside or too close to their boundary because of an inaccurate survey. There has been a need in this State to provide accurate surveys for its development. Now that the potential gas and oil fields are to be developed, accurate surveys must be provided for them. To claim, as the Leader of the Opposition has claimed, that there has been no consukation with the other States, is sheer nonsense. He stretches his credibility be?yond the elastic limit. His credibUity must snap because it is quite a well-known fact that during August 1981 the Minister announced that he was going to AUce Springs ifor a tripartite conference on exactly the same subject, namely, the resurvey .and relocation of the borders using the accuracy available to today's surveyors. It has not been done in secrecy or wkh a lack of consultation, I support the Bill, ^ ^

Hon, W, D, HEWITT (Greenslopes-Minister for Environment, Valuation and Admin­ istrative Services) (4.49 p,m,): The acting Premier has asked me to participate in this debate. He has made that request of me because I have been heavily involved ui discussions on this matter for well over 12 months and because I am au fait vrith most of the issues that have been brought forward today. The Leader of the Opposition used a great number of emotive terms. He suggested that the action that the Government is taking today would precipitate a High Court action. 1 assure the House that whatever we do here today vriU neither precii»tate nor delay. If uUimately the issue must Be resolved before the High Court, so be k. The attitude that we take today merely declares Queensland's attitude. Queensland says that the borders of the State are represented by marks on the ground that were put there some 100 years ago. Queensland Boundaries Declaratory BUl 17 November 1982 2423

I make some freference to the wnotive terms that the Leader of the Opposition used. He used such words as "retrospective", "war" and "border dispute". There is nothing of a retrospective nature in the BiU. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition can place such an interpretation upon it. The borders of Queensland were spelt out in letters patent' at the time when the State of Queensland was recognised by the Imperial ParUament. In consistency with the definitions of the borders then proclaimed, surveyors from South Australia went out, acting in good faith and using the best of technology then at their disposal, to mark put the border. They did that with the best of intent without any mtention to commit error. At that time no error was acknowledged or recognised. The fact is that over the ensuing years technology overwhelmed their techniques. Technology of today says that the 138th meridian east is not consistent with what was then laid out. It is as simple as that. The issue has been under discussion and the subject of disputaticm ioi a number of years. The very distinguished member for Ashgrove, who I believe wiU participate in the debate, was involved in those discussions. Consultation has taken place. The Leader of the Opposition is completely in error when he says that it has not occurred, Mr Wright: One year ago, Mr HEWITT: What is wrong with that? It took place, Mr Wright: Was this BiU presented to the Northern Territory Government? Mr HEWITT: Let us get one thing out of the way at a time. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that consultation did not take place, I am telling him that I went to Central Australia with the Queensland Surveyor-General of the day (Mr Serisier) and with the Queensland Solicitor-General (Mr GaUigan),; and we had discussions with the Northern Territory Chief Minister, That was on 1 September 1981,

Mr Wright: Was it resolved? Mr HEWITT: Obviously it was not resolved. If it was, this BiU would not be debated today. The Leader of the Opposition is remarkably innocent. The Northern Territory Chief Minister asked whether we would place at his disposal all of the documentation that we had. We said, "You are welcome to access to every last piece of documentation." The Northern Territory Surveyor-General came to Queens­ land, inspected the lettds patent and the very extensive exchange of correspondence that took place between the Queensland Surveyor-General of the day and the South Australian; Surveyor-General of the day, and took notes of the agreements and observations that were exchanged between themi I should interpolate and say that in those days it was South Australia because the Northern Territory had no identity. As I say, all of that documentation was placed at the disposal of the Northern Territory Chief Minister or his officers. We argued forcefully that Queensland and the Northern Terrkory should agree that the marks on the ground should represent the border between the Northern Territory and Queensland, We argued in that fashion because marks on the ground are the only things that are constant, Mr Moore: The next time a survey is made there is somdhing different,

Mr HEWITT: The honourable member for Windsor, as ever, is quite correct. The next time measurements are made with greater technology at one's disposal they are different. For the moment, the 138th meridian east is recognised as being a point east of the marks on the ground. Therefore, if we accepted arguments that we should recognise that lact, we would for the time being cede some territory to the Northern Terrkory, However, IS agreed that within the next few years the world geodetic centre wiU change and, 2424 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

in those circumstances, the meridian wiU move west agam. What a nonsense situation we could be in. The meridian is here today and there tomorrow. We retum constantly to the simple proposkion that the only things that are constant are the marks on the ground. The Chief Minister in the Northern Territory has indicated: that he wants to pursue further discussions, ! Mr Hooper interjected,

Mr HEWITT: The honourable member should npt think for a moment that I have neglected him. Patience is not one of his greater virtues. The Chief Minister has not been prepared, in the short term, to accept our argument. Because the Northern Territory does not enjoy statehood, we made a submission to the Commonwealth Government, We placed the same documentation at ks disposal. We suggested to the CommonweaUh Attorney-General that it might be propitious for him to resolve the issues. Time flows on, and more problems arise. It is the judgment of the Queensland Government that we should state here what we beUeve are our borders. That is the position of strength in which we place ourselves. If others want to challenge it, they are entitled to do so. The Queensland Government's view—^we hold it strongly—is that the borders of Queensland are represented by marks on the ground. The Premier has indicated to the other States whajt our attitude is and has suggested that if there is any deficiency in their laws, they should put it right by likewise passing legislation, stating that marks on the ground represent the borders, If every State does that, the problem is out of the way; it is finished, forgotten and does not have to be regurgitated every 10 or 20 years.

Mr Moore: For ever,

Mr HEWITT: It is finished for ever. That is the only commonsense approach, and we have suggested that to every other State. If our argument falls apart, there could well be a domino effect across the whole of the continent, and every border between every State could be in dispute. Good sense dictates that we agree on marks on the ground. The member for Sherwood rightly pointed to precedents. Whenever issues such as this have been disputed in the courts, the courts have ruled in favour of marks on the ground. There is nothing insidious or sinister about this Bill, It is a simple intention to tell the world what the Queensland Government beUeves are its boundaries. The honourable member for Archerfield suggested that it is some sinister move to expand the boundaries. He worries too much. Perhaps he looks under the bed at the end of the day wondering who, is there. He is possibly living in hope. If that is his expectation, he is doomed to disappointment. He added little to the debate, but there is nothing unusual about that, I interjeded and said that when he speaks about his leader he savours it like fine wine. What I really meant was that he probably savours it like vintage vinegar. That would be closer to the truth. The honourable member for Archerfield, the poor man's WiUie HamUton, chose to come out once again from the back bench, lick his wounds and regurgitate his hymn of hate against the recently appointed Surveyor-General,

Mr Hooper: Your appointee, Mr HEWITT: My appointee; the gentleman I nommated and who Cabinet decided would be the new Surveyor-General, It is sufficient to say that every last argument that the member for Archerfield brought forward has been answered before. It is weH chronicled in "Hansard", If h* (Jueensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill 17 November 1982 2425 wants to waste the precious time of this ParUament by regurgkating time and time again hackneyed arguments that have been weU answered, I am not prepared to respond. The honourable member for SaUsbury referred to the land data bank. Honourable members will know that recently Cabinet decided that a land data bank should be estab­ lished in Queensland, Mr Yewdale: Not a foreign register, though,

Mr HEWITT: Wkh a land data bank, k would be very easy Mr Yewdale: That's rubbish. You say it will take two years, but Joh doesn't want k. Mr Wright interjected,

Mr HEWITT: One of the most tedious things in this place is for a member to ask a question and then not give someone the time to answer. Do the two members from Rockhampton want an answer, or don't they? I have referred to the land data bank. The member for Rockhampton North interjected "not a foreign land register". If he would wait a moment, I would answer him by saymg that when a land data bank is established it will be very easy to then interpose upon it a foreign land register, I make no secret of that at all. However, its intent is to bring together aU of the data in the various offices. If one was searching for data on land at the moment, one might conceivably have to go to the Titles Office, the Lands Dejpartment, the Mines Department, the Department of Mapping and Surveying and the Brisbane City Council to get information about the one block of land. With the land data bank, one could go to any of those offices and get all of the data one wanted. In the fullness of time it would be extended so that provincial cities would have terminals. Further down the Une, major real estate companies could, at a fee, have a terminal if they wanted it- Land infonnation would then be available in their offices without their sending staff out to do searches. It would aU be there. I am grateful to the member for Salisbury for recognising the great significance of the land data bank. She did make some reference to whether or not there are too many States. I haye always thought that the argument was rather along the lines that there are not enough. AU the agitation I have recognised in recent years is that there should be more. I am grateful for the support of the honourable member for Sherwood, I would correct him on one minor point. He made reference to a mistal^e having been made when the survey was done in 1886. We do not acknowledge that a mistake was made. We airgue that the work was done properly and well and to the best of their ability with the technology then at their disposal. The work they have done has been overwhelmed by technology of later times. I am grateful also to the member for Toowoomba North. I would correct him on one point. He used the term on a few occasions "resurvey". A resurvey is not under contemplation. We are arguing for recognition of marks that are already on the ground. If any work was to be done, we would be in the business of re-establishing monuments^— re-establishment, not resurvey. I am sure the honourable member would take that point aboard. If I may revert to the argument pf the honourable member for Salisbury—she quite properly made reference to clause 5, "Act not; to found Uabilky." The sirnple explanation of that clause is that, if any person thinks^ that he is wronged by this declaration, the Crown pleads immunity from its provisions, , I am pleased to support the BiU on behalf of the acting Premier, who will make his own contribution. Because of my own participation in these discussions, I felt that I owed these observations to the House,

Hon. J. W. GREENWOOD (Ashgrove) (5,3 p.m.): The question is a fairly simple one: What is meant by the expression "138th meridian east longkude" in the letters patent? Might I say at the outsd that one has to read that phrase in the Ught of the techniques 51591-82 2426 17 November 1982 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill

and surveying skills available at the time when the letters patent were written. At that time it was not possible to fix a meridian of longitude without a probable error of about two miles; so that has to be borne in inind first of aU, What was the objective? The objective of the letters patent was to create a line on the ground as a colonial boundary. On our side of it, Queenslanders were to be entkled to their own laws. Are we to say that, when the letters patent defined the 138th meridian, those same letters contemplated that from time to time that line could be refixed and therefore changed, chopped about and go backwards and forwards by up to two miles? That is a sUly interpretation to give it and is quite contrary to the whole purpose of the letters patent, A little later I wUl make good my proposkion that potentially there was a 2-mile error involved. But in the Government's submission the matter is quite clear: that there must be a line on the ground at which people can say, "On this side we are subject to the civil and criminal laws and the authorities of Queensland; on that side we are subject to the authorities of another j^olitical entity altpgether." If that is so then there is implicit in the letters patent the proposition that, in order to accomplish the drawing of this line it is necessary that there should be some executive act defining and representing the enacted boundary. Seeing that such an executive act was and must have been known to be essential to render the provisions in the letters patent a boundary such as was needful for the purposes of the Act, there is no doubt that on well-known principles of the interpretation of statutes the letters patent must have been taken to imply and authorise the delineation and determination of an effective boundary by such an executive act. (See Soiith Australia v. Victoria (1914) 18 CLR, 115 at 140), That, in my submission, is the law. Many years ago, surveyors went out there and put monuments on the ground. It does not matter that those monuments might not now be regaMed as being on that meridian of longitude, because what they were doing was what was contemplated by the letters patent: they were performing the necessary executive act to translate the authority in the letters patent into a line on the ground. That is why what this Parliament is doing today is simply declaratory of the law. Although I have no doubt that some people may quarrel with it, in the Government's submission there is no doubt that what is being done is declaratory of the law, and that by reinstating those existinjg monuments fhe Government in fact is liot changing the boundary, not expanding the area of the State, but identifying the boundaries. ' That whole proposition depends upon the statement that I made at the beginning, that when the letters patent were drawn they had tb contemplate an unacceptably wide margin of error and, because they cahnot be regarded as contemplating resurveys with such a margin of error, they niust be regarded as implying an authority by executive act to settle the boundary once and for all. ' So I will remind honourable members of the methods that would have been used at that time in order to settle a meridian of longkude. In the first place lunar observation could be used. That method uses a comparison of the position of the moon as observed locally vvith a computed position of the moon as recorded in the "Nautical Almanack" That gives a means of ascertaining the difference between local time and Greenwich time and, therefore, of determining the longkude of the place. That method contains errors of observation as well as errors in the computation of the moon's future position as contained in the almanac, which at that early date, were not inconsiderable. Another method was chronometrical observations. A considerable number of chrono­ meters of known rate were compared with the focal time at a place whose longkude was known and then brought to some place of observation near to the poskion of the meridian and compared wkh the local time there. In this way the difference of the local time at the place of observation and the place selected as a basis pf comparison was ascertained and the difference of their longitudes arrived at. That method, of course, was also liable to errors. The longitude of the starting point might not have been correctiy ascertained, and any error in such longitude would necessarily appear in the final result. The third method was by direct triangulatioh, that is to say, by making a complete survey starting from some point of departure whose longkude was sup­ posed to be known, and reaching to and including a place of observation near the desired Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Bill 17 November 1982 2427 meridian. That, pf course, was liable to error owing to the inaccuracy in the determination of the longitude as a point of departure in exactly the same way and to the same extent as the preceding method. So there are all sorts of inbuUt potential for error in the three methods which were then available for the fixing of a meridian, and that is why I say that at the time when the letters patent were drafted it was impracticable to determine the position of the meridian within a probable error of, say, two miles. So once that conclusion was arrived at about the known state of the art of surveying at the time when the letters patent were drafted, as a matter of law, the interpretation of those Idters patent necessarily follows. That is why what we are doing today is not novel. It is simply a declaratory BUl which, in my submission, states the law as k is and as it would, in any event, be held to be by the High Court,

Hon. V, B. SULLIVAN (Condamine—Minister for Commerce and Industry) (5,11 p,m,), in reply: This has been a very interesting debate and, as acting Premier, it has been very interesting for me to be involved in it, I thank honourable members for their contributions, I am most grateful to my colleague, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Adminis­ trative Services, He has been very much involved, as the Premier himself would say if he were here, in the development of this legislation. As one who has not been so involved,, I am most appreciative of his co-operation in entering the debate to outline the background of why this legislation is before the House today. The purpose of the BUl to to make it abundantly clear that the land boundaries of Queensland, except where they are defined by reference to physical features such as rivers and mountain ranges, are the boundaries which are marked upon the ground. Fkstly, the BUl declares the land boundaries of the State to be those boundaries that have been marked upon the ground as a result of survey. Secondly, the Bill declares that any reference in an Ad of Parliament, subordinate legislation or other legal document to a parallel of latitude or meridian of longitude or parts thereof as a land bpundary of the State means the boundary marked upon the-ground. This Bill does no more than put in clear terms what is and what will be held to be the law should k becode necessary for the High Court of Australia to make a definite determination. In declaring the land boundaries of the State to be those boundaries that have been surveyed and marked upon the ground, it will be made abundantly clear what the boundaries of the State are to enable all those who have any rights, duties and responsibilities under the Bill, insofar as they are affected by descriptions of State boundaries, to be deflriite on where those boundaries are in fact located. It has already been stated in the second reading that there are many documents in existence such as pastoral leases, deeds of grant, mining leases, etc., in which varying refer­ ences are made to boundary lines. There are also varying references to the boundaries of local authorities and court districts, as well as eledoral boundaries. The intention of the Bill is simply to make it quite clear that the boundaries as marked on the ground are the legal boundaries in all of those cases, irrespective of the terms used, such as the State boundary, the South Australia/Queensland border, the particular paralld of latitude or the particular meridian of longitude, Queensland is not attempting to extend or diminish its Umits and, indeed, under the Constkution of the Commonwealth, could not do so without appropriate referendums in the States affeded. The Bill was introduced so that the land boundaries of the State wiU be clearly identified. Any dispute regarding the location of the border bdween Queensland and the Northern Territory is another matter. If the Northern Territory desires to claim that the border is located in another place, the BiU wiU not prevent that claim from proceeding in the courts, A copy of the Bill has been forwarded to the Chief Minister of the Northern Y'^*"^ ^ *hat the administration of the Northern Territory wiU be aware of the intentions Ol Queensland, The Bill does not relate in any way to the border between Queensland and fapua New Guinea, Both of those matters were raised by the Leader of the Opposition and I am clearing them up. It was an exercise of the legislative competence of the Queensland ParUament to declare the boundaries of Queensland. The BiU does not extend or reduce thp Umits of the State of Queensland. It merely dedares the boundaries as 2428 17 November 1982 Private Employment'Agencies Bill surveyed. The Bill does no more than declare in statutc«-y form the boundaries as they are marked upon the ground. The Leader of the Opposition referred to section 123 of the Constkution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Any action taken under the Constitution requires referendums to be held, and it is not intended or contemplated that any such action is necessary. The Bill, as I have said, merely declares the boundaries of Queensland as being the marked boundaries and nothing moire. The honourable member for Archerfield raised a question regarding agreement with New South Wales on the proposed legislation. The Premiers of both New South Wales and South AustraUa have been advised of the introduction of the Bill and have been supplied wkh a copy of the Bill and speech notes. That is a fact of Ufe. The Premiers were requested to consider whether they were prepared to agree to acceptance of the boundaries as marked upon the ground under the provisions of the Australian'Colonies Act, 1861, which is an Imperial Act, Under an arrangement between the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, the survey of the southern boundaries of Queensland was carried out by surveyors from New South Wales and Queensland. By arrangement between Queensland and South AustraUa, the survey of the western boundary was carried out by South Australian surveyors. Each survey was carried out during the latter part of the last century. It is not intended by the Bill that the boundaries of Queensland will be resurveyed. The honourable member for Salisbury asked why clause 5 is included in the BUl. It is merely a declaratory exercise of power to provide that if any person is disaffected by the declaration of Queensland's boundaries to be those boundaries marked upon the ground, he does not have a legal right of action. It is not related to any person's considering that he has suffered by the location of any land boundary. Over the years, the High Court of AustraUa has on two occasions confirmed the view that the surveyed boundaries of a State are the boundaries. There has never been an intention that the Bill should correct any mistakes in the surveys of the boundaries. The States of Queensland, New South Wales ahd South AustraUa have always accepted the surveys. It is not considered now, neither was it considered at any time in the past, that the surveys were not carried out in accordance with the best technology of the day. . . The BiU, which determines the boundaries of our State, is an interesting piece of legislation and it provoked an interesting discussion, I reiterate that I am grateful to the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services for his participation in the debate and for the part that he has played. He provided a great deal of assistance to me as acting Premier, I commend the BUl to the House, Motion (Mr Doumany) agreed to. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Miller, Ithaca) in the chair Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr SuUivan, by leave, read a third time,

PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES BILL Hon, C, A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House), by leave, wkhout notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to provide for the Ucensing and conduct of private employment agencies, to repeal certain provisions of the Labour and Industry Act 1946-1974 and for related purposes," Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Wharton, read a first time. Private Employment Agendes Bill 17 November 1982 2429

Second Reading Hon. C, A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House) (5.26 p.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time," The regulation of private employment agencies operating m Queensland is currently conduded in terms of the Labour and Industry Act 1946-74, The intent of the proposed Private Employment Agencies Act 1982 is to repeal the remaining sections of the Labour and Industry Aot and to enact appropriate legislation to govern private employment agencies. It is proposed that the new legislation wiU be administered by the Industry and Commerce Training Commission of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and that the Ucensing officer for private employment agencies wiU be the Commissioner for Training, Under existing arrangements, when a Ucence for a private employment agency faUs due for renewal, action is set in train for an investigation as to the fitness and repute of the licensee. This procedure is considered to be cumbersome. It is proposed that in future an investigation of this nature wiU be conducted only with respect to an initial application for a licence—unless the licensing officer is of the opinion that the Ucence should not be renewed, A licence to operate a private employment agency will be issued only to a natural person either in his or her own capacity or as a nominee of a partnership or a body corporate. The legislation provides for the issuing of three types of licences: general licence, a probationary Ucence and a temporary licence. A general licence, which is simUar to the present Ucence, wiU be renewed annually, A probationary Ucence will be issued for a period not exceeding 12 months for people not meding the requirement of six months residency in Queensland, A temporary licence ds, proposed to be issued as a substitute for a general or probationary licence only when the licence-holder has died, is out of Queensland, or for any dher reason cannot continue in business as an employment agent. Apdicants for a Ucence will be required to advertise their intention in a newspaper with Statewide circulation and, if considered desirable by the licensing officer, a district newspaper wkhin 14 days of an appUcation being made. The Bill provides for procedures to be followed by persons who object to the issuing of a licence and by Ucensees who wish to object to the decision by the licensing officer not to renew a licence. Licences wiU aU be renewed at a common date, namely, 1 June each year. Under the present legislation, both the employer and the employee may be charged a fee. With the passage of time, these fees, however, have become unrealistically out of date and inappropriate to the industry conceraed. It is now intended that only the client be charged a fee. The BUl further provides that this fee must be negotiated, agreed to and confirmed in writing. TTie legislation also requires private employment agencies to keep certain statistical data in registers. This information includes details of the business transacted involving applicant employees and client employers, _ There is also provision that the Ucensing officer may from time to time require the subm^ion of certain reports of information of private employment agencies. This data will be of CMisiderable benefit in relation to manpower planning. The legislation is designed to more effectively assist reputable private employment agencies to conduct their business. Indeed, k is my intention that the BiU should be widely circulded and pubUc comment invited. I commend ithe BUl to the House. Mr Burns: How long will it be before the BiU is brought on for debate? Mr WHARTON: It wiU be more than seven days. Debate, on motion of Mr Burns, adjourned, ( The House adjourned at 5,29 p,m.