Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statement 7 April 1987 1293

TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 1987

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifern) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report— Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service for the year ended 30 June 1986. The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamations under— Universities and Colleges (Higher Education Administration Charges) Act 1987 Adoption of Children Acts and Another Act Amendment Act 1986 Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1983-1986 Orders in Council under— Local Government Act 1936-1985 and the Libraries Act 1943-1979 Acquisition of Land Act 1967-1977 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Regulations under— Public Service Act 1922-1978 Adoption of Children Act 1964-1986 Rules under the Lotto Act 1981-1984 Report— Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cameron Inquiry into Road-funding Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a recent action by the Federal Government which has critical implications for the future of road- funding in Queensland. Of particular and serious concern is the most serious consequence for the rural sector. By way of background—when the Federal Government passed the Australian Land Transport Act in 1985, the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, cunningly included a clause which set aside for his own determination the distribution between the States and Territories of 10 per cent of the funds allocated to arterial and local roads for the last three years of the life of that legislation. These three years extend from 1 July this year until the expiry of the Act on 30 June 1990. In order to give some credence to his distribution of these funds, the Federal Minister for Transport established what he was pleased to call an "independent committee of inquiry" to examine the fundamental principles underlying the formula for sharing these funds nationally. This committee comprised three members: Mr R. J. Cameron, formerly a Federal Government statistician; a Melbourne University academic; and a member of the Interstate Commission. 1294 7 April 1987 Ministerial Statement

This committee has been deliberating since 1985 and finally produced a report at the end of December 1986. It was a long and complicated document, which, on face value, purported to set out to provide a series of indicators which would be applicable to all road categories across Australia. The recommendations were heavily loaded to react to traffic volumes, axle loadings, road occupancy and upgrading requirements. It will be no surprise to learn that, consequently, the outcome is severely biased towards the populous States of New South Wales and Victoria with their heavily trafficked urban-road systems. The methods used in the report have no regard for the existing condition of the road system, the effects of decentralised population, the importance of rural industries or the need to promote development. Given these serious and utterly unrealistic guide­ lines, we could have predicted the outcome—a diversion of funds to New South Wales and Victoria. Over the remaining three years of the program Queensland will lose a total of some $7.5m basically in the local roads category. Arterial roads have not been affected greatly, although about $lm per year has been shifted from Queensland's rural arterial State highway system to the urban arterial roads in the larger cities. It is the cut in local roads' funding which is of major concern, as almost all local authorities in Queensland are dependent on this funding to maintain a safe road network. In many cases, the very livelihood of rural council road gangs will now be put in jeopardy. Simply, less Federal money means obviously fewer jobs on our country roads. While any loss of road-funding to Queensland is a matter of grave concern, the longer-term implications of this Cameron report could be disastrous for our State's future allocations from the Federal Government. If the so-called "principles" developed in this report are upheld and adopted by the Federal Government in determining the distribution of road-funding between States after the present Federal Act expires at the end of June 1990, the loss to Queensland will then be of the order of $35m per year. It is intolerable for all Queenslanders to contemplate that the road needs of this State could be glossed over by the Federal Government to such an extent that this could happen. This disgraceful decision by the Federal Government was conveyed to me by letter from the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris. That letter contained the following advice, and I quote it verbatim— "The Government has given careful consideration to the Cameron Report and to the views of the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government on its findings. It has decided to accept the recommendations of the Report to distribute Federal road funds in accordance with the principles of effort neutrality, funding both restorative and upgrading works, and periodic reviews of the data and assumptions underlying the indicators developed by the Inquiry." I defy any honourable member to discern what this extraordinary statement actually means. I su^Jose it is appropriate that a decision which defies realities should be conveyed in a form of words which defies comprehension. It is also grimly appropriate that this letter should have been dated 1 April—April Fool's Day. The rural councils in Queensland and their road construction gangs will be comforted, no doubt, by these reasons for this decision. The Federal Government's record on road-funding has not been good. It seems to find every possible loophole to divert road fimds away from the motorist to fill its coffers elsewhere. Last year, it blatantly used fuel taxes to try and balance its Budget, with the result that Queensland suffered reductions totalling nearly $17m. This year, in its May mini-Budget, I suppose it will take another slice from our fuel taxes without any beg Ministerial Statement 7 April 1987 1295

pardons whatsoever. Reports in the media which, significantly, have not been denied by C^anberra, point to savage cuts again in May. Mr Speaker, it is beyond a joke when the Federal Government strips $6,350m from the motorist each year. For the benefit of honourable members opposite, I repeat: it is beyond a joke when the Federal Government strips $6,350m from the motorist each year, and then distributes a paltry $ 1,200m back for road improvements. Its unmitigated gall allows it to claim great credit for granting this pittance to our starving road system. Obviously, it sees this as an achievement. When motorists fill their cars with petrol, they should realise that, of the 50c or whatever per litre that they pay, a paltry 5.75c goes back into road improvements and a massive 24c is diverted by the Federal Government to its Consolidated Revenue Fund. All honourable members should be concerned by the cold-blooded, mercenary way in which the Canberra Government takes and demands our taxes but does not justly give back in return. I will not cease in my demands for a better deal in road-funding for Queensland in particular, until the needs of our road system are equitably satisfied. It might also be of interest to honourable members representing our great provincial centres of Cairns, Mackay, Mount Isa, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Maryborough and Warwick to learn that this infamous Cameron report has determined that road improvements and maintenance of roads in those areas should be costed as if they were rural roads and not urban roads. This is the perception of reality that we face in Canberra. Roads classified as rural arterial or rural local attract only one-ninth to one-third of the amount required to maintain and upgrade urban roads. So the people of these major Queensland centres will be grossly disadvantaged by the Federal Government's adoption of this report's recommendations. Basically, the Cameron report's recommendations would result, in the longer term, in 60 per cent of all available Federal road funds, apart from national highway funds, being spent in New South Wales and Victoria. That of course is the reality, and I appeal to all honourable members to convey their outrage, and that of their constituents, to Canberra. It may not yet be too late to obtain some basic justice.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (10.12 a. m.), by leave: During the past two years the Board of Teacher Education has undertaken a major review of teacher education and teacher registration in Queensland. In the course of its review, the board received submissions from individuals and organisations, held public meetings in major centres throughout the State, and convened working parties involving a wide range of people from education and from the wider community. The board has now completed its report, entitled Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty- first Century. Earlier today I tabled that report. The report concludes that, in a context of rapid social and technological change in the latter years of this century and the early years of the twenty-first century, the role of the teacher will become increasingly complex and the knowledge and skills required of teachers will continue to grow. The report argues that much of what teachers need to know about education is best acquired after a period of teaching experience. Its central recommendation is therefore that initial teacher education programs must consist of three phases: a pre-service course; a period of early teaching experience; and further formal studies, generally leading to a degree in education. 1296 7 April 1987 Ministerial Statement

Other recommendations in the report relate to: the recruitment and selection of teachers; the content of initial teacher education courses; in-service teacher education; and teacher education institutions. The board's recommendations for initial teacher education do not affect that status of currently serving teachers. I propose now to invite comment from my department, from the other major teacher employing authorities, from the Board of Advanced Education, from the colleges and universities which are involved in teacher education and from other relevant and interested groups. I commend the members of the board and its chairman. Professor Betty Watts, for their detailed report, which I believe will make a significant contribution to teacher education not only in Queensland, but throughout AustraUa.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Rezoning of Goondi Cane to Babinda and Mourilyan Mills Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: Concern has been expressed to me by the Mourilyan Mill Suppliers Committee chairman, Mr Lou PhiUips, that growers are apprehensive about millers' following through with negotiations to improve the growers' financial position following the rezoning of Goondi cane to Babinda and Mourilyan. I make it clear that section 26 of the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northern Region) Act 1987 has a very Hmited application and will not, for instance, prohibit growers and millers from entering into contracts or agreements as provided for by section 60 of the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act. This is in addition to the negotiation of usual local awards. The matters on which growers and millers can agree may be incorporated in a contract, and, subject to its being agreed to by 85 per cent of growers supplying the mill in question, it may then be lodged with the central board for approval. In discussion with millers I have been given a number of undertakings. I am aware that discussion has taken place between Mourilyan mill and mill-suppliers. I have no reason to doubt the undertakings given to me by the principals of Mourilyan mill. However, if for any reason these understandings and arrangements do not come to fruition, I am prepared at a later stage to recommend the introduction of amending legislation to remedy those matters. It would be backdated to the date of proclamation of the Sugar Milling Rationalization (Far Northern Region) Act 1987, which was 23 March 1987.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Aboriginal Communities; Establishment of Slaughterhouses and Transfer of Control of Hospital Facilities Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders—Minister for Northern Development and Community Services) (10.16 a.m.), by leave: On 2 April 1987, in my answer to a question from the honourable member for Cook, I mentioned the establishment of slaughterhouses on various Aboriginal communities and the transfer of control of hospital facihties on Aboriginal and Islander communities to the Health Department. I table the written question from Mr Scott, half of which should have been directed to my colleague the Minister for Health. The member's confusion between slaughter yards and hospitals is typical of the confusion that pervades the Opposition benches. It is a sad fact that confusion over what is a slaughter yard and what is a hospital could be the hallmark of any future Labor administration. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. . Questions Upon Notice 7 April 1987 1297

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Queensland Racing Finance Limited Mr LEE asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to my question to the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General on 2 April and his answer thereto— Is there any statutory authority vested in Queensland Racing Finance Limited?" Mr HINZE: I have a very complex answer indeed for the honourable member. It is: no.

2. Ministerial Rezoning of West Burleigh Land; Mr J. Minuzzo Mr WARBURTON asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to his downplaying suggestions that he carries out Ministerial re-zonings— (1) Has he carried out or is he considering a Ministerial re-zoning of West Burleigh land involving the developers San-Fam Pty Ltd? (2) If so, why has he made such a decision which is a use of Ministerial power which aborts the right of appeal? (3) Is Mr John Minuzzo one of the principals of San-Fam Pty Ltd and did any Ministerial re-zoning decision involve him in discussions with Mr Minuzzo?" Mr HINZE: I do not accept in any way the suggestion that I have attempted to "down play" my role in initiating ministerial rezonings. It is an authority vested in my office by the Local Government Act and the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act which is exercised in a proper and correct manner. The answers are— (1) Yes. (2) The decision was made in this instance having regard to the long history of litigation in respect of the adjoining land, which included a commercial objector appeal in the Local Government Court and a further appeal by one objector to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. In both cases the court found in favour of the applicant. The time delays created by this litigation were both costly and considerable. Having regard to the decisions by the courts in respect of the adjoining lands and the desirability from a towTi-planning point of view of having the balance areas included in the same zone, the procedures have been initiated by me to avoid further litigation and time delays. (3) I understand that a Mr Minuzzo may be a principal of San-Fam Pty Ltd, but I do not have detailed information in respect of this matter. Prior to the decision to undertake a ministerial rezoning of land in question, I had no discussion with Mr Minuzzo.

3. Queensland Government's Foreign Exchange Dealings Mr BURNS asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police— "With reference to page 12 of the Auditor-General's Report on the Public Accounts for the year ended 30 June 1986, which states that the publication of consolidated data on the results of the Government's foreign currency activities would be of significant benefit— (1) What is the total overseas currency exposure of the Queensland Govern­ ment and its statutory authorities as at the present time, both in terms of the respective overseas currencies and Australian dollar equivalents? 1298 7 April 1987 Questions Upon Notice

(2) With respect to the foreign exchange reserve and foreign exchange gains/ losses or adjustments, what were the total payments out of this reserve during 1985/86, broken down into interest payments, redemption, fees and other expenses, and foreign exchange adjustments indicating whether the adjustment comprised either a gain or a loss? (3) What overseas currency loans have been negotiated on behalf of the Queensland Government and its statutory bodies during 1986-87, listing the amount and term of each loan, the currency of the loan and the interest rate payable? (4) For the last ten years, will he list all overseas currency loans negotiated on behalf of the Queensland Government and its statutory authorities which have not been hedged, indicating for each year the amount and currency of each loan, the term of each loan, the interest rate payable on each loan and indicating if the loan has been repaid and, if so, the foreign currency gain/loss realised on each loan?" Mr GUNN: (1 to 4) As at 1 April 1987, the Australian dollar value of the net foreign currency exposure in respect of overseas borrowings entered into by Queensland's statutory authorities was $ 1,872m. Given the State's day-to-day involvement with the currency market, it is not appropriate to reveal the foreign currency composition of the above exposure. Indeed, to do so would place the State at a competitive disadvantage. What should also be stressed is that the foreign currency exposure existing from time to time does not represent the currencies in which the underlying borrowings are denominated. It is the result of the operation of the basket debt management strategy adopted. Under this strategy, the foreign currency composition of overseas borrowings, including any Australian dollar component, varies on a day-to-day basis in response to market conditions and expectations. Under this strategy, the Australian dollar value of the State's offshore exposure as at 30 June 1986 was $ 1,745.7m, which had fallen to approximately $ 1,720m as at 1 April 1987 (exclusive of drawings and repayments). Over this same period, foreign interest rates averaged around 6.5 per cent while Australian rates exceeded 16.3 per cent per annum. As a result, Queensland statutory bodies have saved around a further $170m in interest costs. It should also be noted that during this period the value of the Australian dollar fell by an average of approximately 1.6 per cent while Australian bank bill interest rates rose from 14.8 per cent to 16.1 per cent due to the effect of the Federal Labor Government's policies. Under the currency basket strategy the overall currency exposure of statutory authorities is managed centrally. However, the actual payments are handled by the individual authorities involved. Details of such payments are published in the relevant financial statements and the honourable member is referred to such statements. During the current financial year the Queensland Government Development Author­ ity has entered into, or is in the process of finalising, five overseas financial arrangements. These arrangements are— • ECU 75,000,000 Eurobond issue lead managed by Banque Nationale de Paris with a 7% per cent coupon and a 5-year term. This issue was swapped to a $US85,305,000 6-month LIBOR obligation. Currently LIBOR is 6.625 per cent. • A $US100m Eurobond issue lead managed by Credit Suisse First Boston with a 7'/4 per cent coupon and a 5-year term. • A $US Euro-commercial paper facility is currently being finalised with Morgan Guaranty Ltd and Swiss Bank International Limited. It is expected that drawings under that facility this financial year will be in the order of $US50m. • A 5 billion yen syndicated bank loan with a term of 5 years and swapped to $US33m 6-month LIBOR is currently being negotiated with Meiji Mutual Life and Mitsubishi Bank Ltd. Questions Upon Notice 7 April 1987 1299

The funds made available by these borrowings will be used to finance the State's new money offshore allocation of $315m, and the remainder will be used to refinance offshore loans which were entered into at a margin above LIBOR. Over the term of these loans such refinancing will result in savings in excess of $2m per annum for the statutory bodies concerned.

4. Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Mr BURNS asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police— "With reference to recent massive increases in motor vehicle comprehensive insurance of over 100 per cent— With regard to Suncorp, what increases have occurred in comprehensive motor vehicle insurance in all categories over the past five years, what reasons have been given for these increases and, if Suncorp has followed or intends to follow other insurance companies in doubling their insurance premiums for motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, will he immediately direct them to reconsider any such increase and provide a detailed response of why sudi huge increases are regarded as necessary?" Mr GUNN: Over the period 1 September 1981 to the present time, Suncorp motor vehicle insurance premiums have increased by 67 per cent with the most recent increase being 10 per cent on 1 January 1987. Factors influencing the increase both in claims incidence and claims costs, and therefore exerting upward pressure on premiums for all motor vehicle insurers, are— • the substitution of plastic for metal components, meaning that any damage invariably involves greater cost with parts being replaced rather than repaired; • inclusion of more computerised components which are generally not repairable and the standardising of what in the past has been optional equipment such as air-conditioning, power steering, etc.; • effect of currency devaluation on imported parts, particularly from Japan, which are the most widely used—since 1982 the prices of such parts as grills, bonnets, etc., has increased by 100 per cent; • the price of new vehicles has risen dramatically, for example, in the last three years the price of a Nissan Bluebird has increased by 67 per cent; and • higher reinsurance costs. I can assure the honourable member that Suncorp will continue to make whatever premium changes are necessary to maintain the commercial integrity of its various insurance accounts so that it can continue to offer the insuring public the cheapest viable premiums.

5. Artificial Sweeteners Mr MENZEL asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "(1) Is he aware that a leading hotel in Cairns, which is in the heart of the Queensland sugar industry, has in its coffee bar Lite and Low artificial sweeteners on the tables and no sugar? (2) Will he issue a statement endorsing sugar as the quality product?" Mr HARPER: (1) No, but I would certainly hope that the honourable member and others with the best interests of the sugar industry at heart would draw the absence of sugar to the hotel's attention, if this has not been done already. While the consumer's right to choose a low joule alternative is respected, the fact remains that sugar is a premium sweetener and its usage far outweighs that of artificial sweeteners. Certainly the consumer should not be denied an opportunity to choose sugar. 1300 7 April 1987 Questions Upon Notice

The industry is doing all within its power to ensure that sugar holds this position and has the full support of the Queensland Government. (2) I have no hesitation in endorsing sugar as the quality product. As the industry's highly successful communications campaign states: sugar is a natural part of life!

6. Queensland Racing Finance Limited Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to question No. 18 of 2 April regarding the company Queensland Racing Finance Limited and the answer thereto— (1) On what authority, if any, was this company incorporated and who actually approved of and signed the application for incorporation? (2) In view of the token authorised and paid up capital of the company, what guarantees are provided for the borrowings by the company and by whom? (3) Is there any outside over-riding authority, that is, (a) Government, (b) Cabinet, (c) Minister, (d) board or (e) individual which either instructs or guides the operation of the company? (4) Is this company responsible in terms of policy, administration or operation to any outside body, and, if so, to what person or body? (5) Is this company a Government company or a limited liability company?" Mr HINZE: (1) The company Queensland Racing Finance Limited was incorporated under the Companies (Queensland) Code and the subscribers to the memorandum and articles of association were the five gentlemen referred to in the answer on 2 April 1987 by the Honourable the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to the Honourable N. Lee, MLA. (2) There are no guarantees given by the Government for the borrowings of the company. (3 and 4) The directors of the company are responsible for the management of the business and affairs of the company and are not subject to any overriding authority. The directors were selected because of their experience and background so that they would be able to efficiently manage the affairs of the company. I have said previously that the principal purpose for the incorporation of the company was to maximise the borrowing efforts for the benefit of the whole of the racing industry. The directors of the company were chosen carefully so that they would be able to commit their individual experience and knowledge for the benefit of the racing industry. The company was formed for the purpose, as I say, of maximising the borrowing efforts for the benefit of the industry as a whole. (5) The company is a limited liability company formed under the Companies (Queensland) Code.

7. Prince Charles Hospital Cardiac Intensive Care Wing Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Health and Environment— "(1) When was the Prince Charles Hospital cardiac intensive care wing handed over to the hospital board by the contractors? (2) When was the wing officially opened? (3) When was the wing fully equipped to carry out its function in open-heart surgery and post-operative care? (4) When was the first operation in the new wing? (5) Is there sufficient nursing and paramedical staff to support the capital facilities in the cardiac intensive care wing at Prince Charles Hospital and, if not. Questions Upon Notice 7 April 1987 1301

what is the shortfall in numbers of personnel to bring the cardiac intensive care wing up to full capacity? (6) On what date is it anticipated that the Prince Charles cardiac intensive care wing will be functional at its full capacity?" Mr AHERN: (1) 9 September 1986. (2) 27 October 1986. (3) 27 January 1987. (4) 27 January 1987. (5) At present, sufficient staff have been allocated to meet the needs of the unit for the foreseeable future. However, with continuing development in this field and the increasing demand for such services, it will be necessary to keep staff numbers under review having due regard to resources and priorities. (6) No actual date has been set for the full utilisation of this wing, as it was planned that, with the commissioning of the building and refurbishment of some of the existing buildings, the physical facilities are expected to be adequate for the cardiac surgical needs of Queensland until the year 2000. Full utilisation will be progressively attained, taking into account the needs for this service, available resources and similar units which may become available in the private sector.

8. Science and Mathematics Subjects in Queensland Schools Mr SHERRIN asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to the number of students undertaking science and mathe­ matics subjects in Queensland schools— How many year 12 students studied Mathematics I, Mathematics II, Chem­ istry, Physics and Biology, for the period 1977-1987?" Mr POWELL: The numbers of Year 12 students studying mathematics I, mathe­ matics II, chemistry, physics and biology in all Queensland schools for the period 1977 to 1986 are shown on the following table. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Year Mathematics I Mathematics II Chemistry Physics Biology 1977 7 927 3 236 4 740 4 097 8 482 1978 8 332 3 425 5 073 4311 9 308 1979 8 408 3 426 5 182 4 287 9 597 1980 8 560 3 588 5 514 4 385 9 297 1981 8 177 3 480 5 281 4 243 8 842 1982 8 748 3 679 5 437 4 371 9 440 1983 9 459 4011 5 946 4 659 10 097 1984 10 672 4 304 6 435 5 035 11 558 1985 11 324 4 597 6 899 5 398 12 151 1986 12 122 4 674 7 091 5 525 12 873 Data for 1987 are not yet available.

9. Higher-education Administration Charge Mr SHERRIN asked the Minister for Education— "(1) Is he aware that at least one Queensland higher education institution is iiiforming students, in writing, that if they fail to pay the $250 higher education administration charge by 3 April their enrolment will be cancelled? (2) Can a higher education institution legally terminate the tertiary education of a student before the bill becomes law?" 1302 7 April 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Mr POWELL: (1 and 2) Yes, I am aware that some higher-education iiistitutions have been eager to levy the Federal Government's higher-education administration charge as soon as they can. This is understandable, as the Federal Government has discounted the equivalent amount from the sums provided for higher education in Queensland, hence leaving the institutions short of fiinds. However, the legal advice available to me is that the termination of a student's enrolment on such a ground as the failure to pay the higher administration charge would be unlawful. The legislation in question, which was proclaimed last Saturday, did not in itself empower institutions to levy the charge. Honourable members should be made aware of that fact. The legislation has given to the higher-education institutions the power to make statutes or by-laws necessary in order to levy the charge until such time as the Governor in Council has approved the appropriately worded statutes and by­ laws. To date none have been so approved nor, to my knowledge, proposed. Higher- education institutions in Queensland are not legally entitled to levy the charge, much less take disciplinary action against students who have not yet paid the charge.

10. Ministerial Rezoning of Emu Mountain Mr COMBEN asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— "With reference to objections to the Land Administration Commission's request to the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing for a Ministerial re-zoning over the area known as Emu Mountain near Peregian on the Sunshine Coast, and enquiries concerning this matter from Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen, who has recently been converted to the conservation movement by the Ecological Prayer Group of Nambour— What is his department's present attitude to the re-zoning, especially in view of the interest of the ecological prayer group, the extensive public opposition to the proposed re-zoning and the local environmental importance of the area?" Mr GLASSON: Before answering the question, I refer to the impUcation in the question that Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen was converted to the conservation movement by the Ecological Prayer Group of Nambour. The senator is a genuine and solid conservationist and has been for many years. She is not a convert. I assume that the land referred to is the eastern section of former reserve for experimental farm purposes R. 727, Parish of Maroochy, part of which is proposed for development for urban subdivision by the Lands Department. My department has sought the rezoning from Special Purposes to Residential A zone of those parts of this area which will actually be used for residential allotments and associated streets under its subdivisional proposal. The balance of the area is to remain zoned Special Purposes. Excluded from the rezoning is an area of about 19 hectares surrounding Mount Peregian, which is apparently also locally known as Mount Emu. It is intended that this area be appropriately reserved for public purposes. A further area of about 9.5 hectares is intended for use for park purposes and has been excluded from the rezoning proposal along with certain buffer strips and a proposed police station site. Provision has also been made in the allotment design for a suitable corridor for fauna to travel between the proposed major reserves. Much of a further large area excluded from the rezoning proposal is expected to be reserved in the future for recreational uses. I would point out that immediately on the eastern side of the David Low Way from the subject area there is an existing environmental park reserve containing 93 hectares. Provided the Governor in Council approves the proposed amendment to the town- planning scheme to allow the rezoning, the Lands Department intends to proceed wdth the development of the rezoned areas for residential subdivision. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The audible conversation is too loud. I call the member for Windsor. Questions Upon Notice 7 April 1987 1303

Mr COMBEN: Mr Speaker, in asking question No. 11 standing in my name, I apologise to the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services for referring to him incorrectly last week, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the question.

11. Mangroves, Beelbi Creek; Destruction by Mr B. Shepherd Mr COMBEN asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "(1) What action is being taken against the well-known National Party member and former racing driver, Mr Blair Shepherd, in relation to Mr Shepherd's illegal destruction of more than 5,000 mangroves along Beelbi Creek, and wide­ spread changes to the beach frontage of Mr Shepherd's property by large-scale road works, including the construction of a sizeable island in the mouth of Beelbi Creek? (2) As this entire area is contained within Coastal Management Control District No. 16, which regulates all coastal and nearby waterways and requires Govemor-in-Council permission for the erection of buildings, why has no pros­ ecution been launched under the Beach Protection Act?" Mr TENNI: I thank the honourable member for his apology. The answer to his question is as follows— (1) In 1984, officers of the Department of Harbours and Marine investigated alleged illegal works concerned with the cutting of mangroves and the construction of works below high water mark in Beelbi Creek. As a result of those investigations, legal action was taken on 13 February 1985 and Mr Blair Campbell Shepherd was fined $400 with $30.50 costs, in default 20 days, for breaching section 71 of the Fisheries Act 1976-1984. On 13 March 1985, Mr Shepherd was also fined $500 with $30.50 costs, in default 28 days, for breaching section 86 (2) (a) of the Harbours Act. In August 1986, an appUcation for approval, pursuant to section 86 of the Harbours Act, was received by the Department of Harbours and Marine from Blair Campbell and Merle Shepherd for a rock retaining wall adjacent to Shepherd's property at Beelbi Creek. In October 1986, an application for approval, pursuant to section 86 of the Harbours Act, was also received by the department from B. C. and M. F. Shepherd for the reclamation of an eroded beach and incorporating an extended rock retaining wall. The proposed works are situated, according to the plans submitted with the applications, not on Shepherd's property, but on the public esplanade. In accordance with the department's usual policy, the views of the Hervey Bay City Council were sought in November 1986. The council has indicated that it has no objections in principle to the works. However, it has some reservations about the implications of accepting responsibiUty and has deferred a decision pending Mr Shepherd's return from overseas. The department is awaiting further advice from the council on this matter. The Department of Harbours and Marine undertook inspections in respect of these applications in October 1986 and February 1987. The latter inspection revealed that sand had been relocated along one part of the foreshore of the property owned by Mr Shepherd, while other parts of the foreshore had been excavated. From an examination of aerial photographs, it is apparent that the exact location of Mr Shepherd's property and the esplanade is not easy to determine owing to the alteration in the creek alignment over the years. There is a need to locate the works accurately to determine the extent of them and their location with respect to real property boundaries. The decision will be made as to what further action will be taken in this matter following the completion of the necessary survey by the Department of Harbours and Marine. (2) The boundary of Coastal Management Control District No. 16 traverses the middle of Mr Shepherd's property. No application for approval of works at this site has 1304 7 April 1987 Questions Upon Notice

been made to the Beach Protection Authority by Mr Shepherd. The inspection of February 1987, referred to earlier, revealed that within Coastal Management Control District No. 16, the only recent works evident were that minor mounds of sand had been pushed up on the beach adjacent to the property. From a coastal management point of view, this does not constitute a threat to the beach. The excavation works mentioned in my answer to part (1) of the question and the works for which Mr Shepherd was prosecuted in 1985 are not—I emphasise "not"— situated within Coastal Management Control District No. 16.

12. Commonwealth Government's Rainforest Conservation Policy Mr McPHIE asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— "What is the State Government's position in respect to the Commonwealth Government's rainforest conservation package and is there any likelihood of a threat to the continued viable existence of the North Queensland timber industry as a result of this package?" Mr GLASSON: The national rainforest conservation program has been under active negotiation between representatives of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments for some months. I expect the matter of Queensland's participation in the program to be finalised in the near fiiture. The Queensland Government has made it perfectly clear to the Commonwealth that Queensland's involvement in the national rainforest conservation program will not be allowed to jeopardise the future of the established north Queensland timber industry. Selective logging of about 19 per cent of the Crown-owned tropical rainforest will continue under the supervision of the Department of Forestry. I point out that the major part of that 19 per cent area has already been logged once. Subject to the maintenance of the timber industry, the Queensland Government is happy to co-operate with the Commonwealth in having funds made available for a number of purposes, including land acquisition for national park, management of rainforest parks, improvement of interpretive and visitor facilities in rainforest parks and research to support conservation of rainforest.

13. Department of Forestry's Involvement in Chinese Forestry Project Mr McPHIE asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— "Is the Queensland Department of Forestry still involved in a project in China and, if so, (a) what is the extent of the present commitment there and (b) when is it due to be completed?" Mr GLASSON: Yes, the Queensland Department of Forestry, as the managing agency on behalf of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, is still involved in the Dongmen State forest farm eucalypt afforestation project in south China. (a) The department has been involved in this project since 1981. Since May 1982 there has been a staff of three Queenslanders resident at the project. Several specialists visit the project for short terms from time to time. To date, in excess of 800 hectares of demonstration forests have been planted. Many new species of eucalypts have been introduced to the project area, with some performing very well and significantly increasing the yields previously attained. The project is currently being directed to breeding within the better species. Seed-production areas have been established. All costs are borne by the Commonwealth department. Expenditure to date is approximately $4.5m. (b) The project was reviewed in March 1986, judged to have been very successful and extended to December 1989. By that time, it is anticipated that a south China eucalypt research centre will have been established under the Australia/China program of technical co-operation for development. It is likely that the field trials at Dongmen will eventually come under the control of the eucalypt research centre. Questions Without Notice 7 April 1987 1305

14. P-10 Curriculum in Queensland Schools Mrs NELSON asked the Minister for Education— "(1) Is he aware of concerns being expressed by representatives of some non- Govemment school groups about the possible capital requirements for the intro­ duction of the P-10 curriculum in Queensland schools? (2) What are the objectives of the proposal in terms of possible relocation of year eight to ten students currently placed in separate secondary institutions?" Mr POWELL: (1 and 2) Yes, I am aware that some concern has been expressed about the P-10 curriculum configuration. This concern is not widespread and is confined to those people who think that the P-10 curriculum equals P-10 school buildings. It must be emphasised that the curriculum development of P-10 has been proceeding since 1980. It is in line with contemporary educational thought. The rationale is that students and teachers in the compulsory years of schooling will have a smooth progression of education. Within the rationale for P-10 and the implementation of the curriculum, no thought has been given to the fact—nor would we expect it to be—that, to implement the curriculum proposals, school buildings would have to change as well.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Issue of Syringes by Pharmacists to Drug-users Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to his statement describing the Federal Government's AIDS awareness advertising campaign as "a waste of money" and, in particular, I refer to yesterday's Cabinet decision to postpone for two weeks a decision on a move designed to stop intravenous drug- users sharing dirty syringes, this postponement reportedly because of the absence of the Police Minister, Mr Gunn, who administers the relevant drugs misuse legislation. As the Premier is aware—despite the fact that Mr Gunn and Mr Ahem, who put the proposal to Cabinet, are having their own private political brawl—the facts show that any delay in approving this measure is unwarranted and irresponsible. I refer the Premier also to the fact that Mr Gunn is present at Parliament House today, and ask: what is to stop Cabinet' meeting immediately and making a decision on this matter rather than procrastinating on this proven life-saving measure for a further two weeks? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is very interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak in the way that he does. He seems to overlook that he and his colleagues and the people in Canberra are the ones who promoted this type of living that has created the problem. He is the one who promoted it and wanted to legalise it. In New South Wales, the Government legalised it. Not only did it legaUse it, it subsidised the way of life for homosexuals and the rest of it. Does not the Leader of the Opposition remember that I read out that the Federal Labor Government pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote this sort of action and life-style? He is a hypocrite. He supported it. Now that the thing has got out of hand, he is very self-righteous. When he was promoting that life-style and encouraging young people with subsidies, he did not bargain on AIDS. Of course he did not know that AIDS was going to come into the picture. Now you are very self-righteous and ask what the Queensland Government will do to counter the effects of it. You should have started at the beginning by discouraging people. I suppose it can be said that the advertisement on television about AIDS is wasting the tax-payers' money. No doubt it will shake people up and wake them up. Honourable members should always remember that it was you people who activated and promoted to the fullest extent that type of living, including de facto relationships, free sex and all the rest of it. So many of you people practise it that it comes naturally. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will speak through the Chair. 1306 7 April 1987 Questions Without Notice

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In conclusion, I suggest to honourable members opposite that they had better watch out and take notice of that advertisement before they get caught up with AIDS or something like that.

AIDS Mr WARBURTON: I direct my second question to the Minister for Health. He has just heard the Premier's response to what I thought was a very valid question in the circumstances. I ask the Minister: does he agree with the Premier's very strange assessment of one of the most frightening diseases to have afflicted the Australian community? Is it correct that the Minister's Health Department advisers see a decision by Cabinet in line with the Minister's recommendation to Cabinet as being one of extreme urgency? In the circumstances, has the Minister attempted to obtain any special Cabinet meeting to consider and decide on this important matter? Finally, is there any sign that his colleague Mr Gunn is in any sort of agreement with his recommendation on this matter? Mr AHERN: Cabinet will be considering the matter shortly. I do not consider that the matter is urgent. I believe that the decision will be a favourable one. It is as simple as that. If members of the Opposition are attempting to divide the Government on this issue, I assure them that they will not be able to do that. The Government has been considering this issue carefully and constructively. The total issue of AIDS will be attacked always constructively and positively.

Queensland Government Support for Tourism Mr BRADDY: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport: is he aware that the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that only 5 per cent of Queensland's tourists stay in luxury, five-star hotels and resorts, despite the Queensland Government's substantial financial and legislative support for luxury tourism developers such as Mike Gore and Keith WiUiams? Will the Minister inform the House what financial or other support smaller tourist operators can expect to receive from his Government? Mr MUNTZ: Through the QTTC, this Government has supported a wide range of tourist projects right across the State. That support has been responsible for the growth in the industry. Tourism is a growth industry that now stands second only to rural industries in the economy of this State. It is correct that the Queensland Government promotes major tourism developments, but it also promotes tourist projects such as back-packer expeditions and a wide range of facilities that are available throughout Queensland, from Cape York to Cooloongatta and out into the west. There is no reason whatsoever for the honourable member's accusing this Govern­ ment or QTTC of favouring one particular section of the tourism industry. If the Government did not support and promote the large resorts, they would not mushroom and be able to support the businesses, both small and large, that are inside and outside the tourism industry right across the State—in provincial towns and in cities such as Rockhampton. The Iwasaki resort is one that the honourable member for Rockhampton might refer to as a major tourist development that is located right at his doorstep. The honourable member and his colleagues opposed that resort time and time again, but it will be the stepping-stone for the Japanese market to enter the central Queensland coast and benefit the people who are supposedly represented by the honourable member. The Queensland Government will continue that program. The tourist industry is now worth $9 billion to the State. It is an industry that the Queensland Government will encourage. The Queensland Government will encourage every aspect of it. Questions Without Notice 7 April 1987 1307

Transfer of Local Government Functions to Aboriginal Councils Mr BRADDY: I ask the Minister for Northern Development and Community Services: did Cabinet, at its meeting on 23 March, decide to defer the handing-over of local government functions to the Aboriginal Councils of Yarrabah, Palm Island, Woorabinda and Cherbourg, which expected to receive them on 30 March? Has that decision since been reversed? Has any date been set by Cabinet for those councils to take over local government functions? If so, what date has been set for those four councils and for the remaining Islander and Aboriginal councils? Mr KATTER: The answer to the first question is, "No". The answer to the second question is that the hand-over is taking place in consultation with the councils. The timing of the hand-over and discussion of any legal technicalities will be set by those councils.

Contract Employment Item, Q.T.U. News Mr LITTLEPROUD: I ask the Minister for Education: is he aware that the Queensland Teachers Union and the Trades and Labor Council masters are engaging in a campaign designed to frighten teachers into believing that they will soon be forced to sign 12-month contracts? If so, does he know the QTU's motivation for those tactics. Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for the question. This morning I was handed a document called Q. T. U. News, which makes some rather amazing assertions. It says to teachers that their working conditions are likely to change because, it claims, it appears very possible that in "April of this year, legislation will be passed which will dramatically affect each and every teacher's employment conditions. You would be on a minimum 12 month contract!!" I would like to say to the teachers in Queensland who are employed by the Queensland Government that there is no proposal before me at this stage to do that. I believe that this Government would not be interested in such a proposal as the one being suggested by the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Trades and Labor Council. Mr McLean: You had better talk to Vince. Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Bulimba interjects. Obviously, with the Trades and Labor Council, he is trying to start a scare campaign amongst teachers in Queensland. I am talking about teachers Mr McLean: Why don't you use this speech in the debate when the Bill comes up? A Government member: What Bill? Mr McLean: The Bill Mr Lester is bringing in. Mr POWELL: Again, the honourable member for Bulimba is talking on matters about which I know nothing. As far as I am concerned, no legislation is being introduced into this House that will affect teachers who are employed by the Queensland Education Department. Suggestions of no award protection are a nonsense. Of course, teachers have an award. They are paid under the Teachers Award—State. On the subject of reduced wages, there is no plan to reduce the wages of any teacher in Queensland. In respect of the four weeks' annual leave entitlement—that is what the teachers of Queensland are entitled to now, and in fact that is what they get. In respect of the allegation about no holiday leave loading—I know of no plans to remove that loading. As far as the comment about no job security is concerned, it is fair to say that teachers in service in Queensland have very good job security. In respect to public service hours—most teachers in Queensland work far in excess of public service hours. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any teacher would be frightened of being asked to work public service hours, because the vast majority of them work very much 1308 7 April 1987 Questions Without Notice longer than public service hours already. If teachers were required to work only public service hours, not only would they not get their job completed but they would have far fewer hours to work than is currently the position. It is interesting to note also that this particular document suggests that teachers should contact either the Queensland Teachers Union or the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland. It seems to me that the Trades and Labor Council is pulling the strings of the puppets in the Queensland Teachers Union, and that that union is just another union that is being taken over by the TLC in this State. When teachers in Queensland receive grubby little pieces of paper such as this which just tell blatant lies, they ought to look very carefully at the administration of their own union. I think it is fair to say that those sorts of things should be exposed. In Queensland there is no plan to introduce contract teaching, nor is there a plan to change the conditions of teachers in this State except those listed in the awards under which they work. Cancellation of Labor Women's Conference; Prime Minister's Support of Affirmative Action Legislation Mrs NELSON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to two articles which were published recently in the same edition of the Daily Sun newspaper. The first article, on page 6, referred to the cancellation of the Labor women's conference last week and to the fury of women members of the ALP at being muzzled by their party organisation. The second article, on page 11, referred to the Prime Minister's support for the Federal Government's affirmative action legislation passed last week in Canberra. I ask the Premier: will he advise the House whether these references highlight the great difference between the Labor Party's public policies and its private practices and will he also advise the House whether those two conflicting events reinforce the public belief that in the Labor Party women should be seen but definitely not heard? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The question asked by Mrs Nelson indicates quite clearly that the Commonwealth Government says one thing and does another and that it is not consistent in what it says to women. It is disgraceful that the conference was delayed and postponed. On the one hand, that indicates quite clearly that the Labor Party is frightened of women and on the other hand it disregards their wishes and intentions by postponing the meeting. Again, that shows the double standards that it adopts. The Labor Party talks about equal opportunities, as the Prime Minister did at a following meeting. The point that he overlooks, of course, is that there are no jobs for many of those women, anyway. He tries to indicate that the Labor Party is increasing employment opportunities when everyone knows that it is not. The figures for unemployed persons are rising and rising. Mr De Lacy: How is the situation in Queensland? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is certainly much better than in the Labor States; that is quite clear. In some respects, it is very sad to see that, in its eagerness and desire, the Federal Government has created equal opportunities for women in all areas of activity. They can be seen digging trenches on the road, putting rail sleepers under railway lines—all the sorts of things that were never dreamt of in earlier days. In those days one never saw women confined to or placed in those sorts of positions. That the Labor Party would relegate the women of this nation to these areas with a great deal of glee and satisfaction is another indication of the lack of a responsible attitude that it has for women. If that is equal opportunity, that is a very sad state of affairs. It indicates that the Labor Party contradicts what it says by what it does. Family Life Mr HAMILL: In asking a question of the Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, I refer to her assertion of her support for family life. I ask: what does the Minister mean by "family life", and what criteria does this Government use to distinguish families from other social relationships? Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1309

Mrs CHAPMAN: My Government and I believe that a family, within its own right, comprises a mother, a father and the children. Unlike the Labor Party, we would prefer that mother and father to be married. Unlike the Labor Party, we would also prefer that mother and father to be responsible and to take responsibility for the children whom they bring into the world. Unlike the Labor Party, we will succeed.

Changes to School Holidays Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Minister for Education: is he aware of criticism by the Queensland Teachers Union and the Liberal Party of the Government's decision to stagger the timing of school holidays in 1988 in a bid to assist small business and tourism operators? Is this criticism valid? Mr POWELL: Yesterday, after quite some deliberation. Cabinet decided to amend the timing of the school summer vacation for 1987 in Queensland and subsequent holiday periods by shifting them by one week. In 1987 the Labor States of New South Wales and Victoria finally agreed with the Queensland assertion made in 1981 that this State's semester arrangements were educationally best for children. That was quite a logical decision. However, in so doing, those States lined up all school holidays for the eastern States of Australia. This puts pressure on families who want to obtain accom­ modation, particularly in coastal areas, because those areas then have a very short high- season of very high prices. When Queensland had a semester system and the other States had the old three- term system, there was a much wider band for holidays. Therefore, families were able to obtain accommodation in what was basically a mid-season pricing. Now there is only a high season. In the interests of people taking their children on holidays, firstly, and in the broad interests of the tourist industry, secondly, the Government decided to change the timing of this State's school holidays so that the holidays for the schoolchildren of the eastern States of Australia would be spread out considerably and families would be given a greater opportunity to obtain accommodation at reasonable prices, at the same time allowing tourist operators a greater time in which to recoup some of their vast expenditure. The Government also had to consider travel arrangements by buses, airlines, etc. Fairly clearly, having holidays for all the eastern States jammed into the one period will overload transport facilities. Therefore, changes have been made to the Queensland school holidays. These will have no detrimental effect on children. The honourable member might have noticed that the Government has said that the same date will be retained for those requiring junior and senior certificates, so that teachers and schools will in no way be inconvenienced in the time that is necessary for them to have all the work completed in order to have those certificates granted. In the end, I suspect that this change will be to the advantage of everybody in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Payment of $40,000 by Queensland Government to W. E. and R. M. Rose; Establishment of Prison at Parkinson Mr GOSS (Logan) (11 a.m.): I want to raise two cases which, I believe, show quite dramatically why this Government and this Premier refuse to allow the Queensland public to have a public accounts committee and a public works committee to ensure the reality and the appearance of openness and honest dealing when it comes to the expenditure of public money. The first case that I want to raise is, I believe, a serious one. If my information is correct—and the source is impeccable—this case represents a serious abuse of Government money, and of government, involving the payment or the proposal for payment of 1310 7 April 1987 Matters of Publiclnterest

approximately $40,000 of public money to some friends and members of the National Party. This proposal to give public money to certain people after a court had determined that they were not entitled to the money is, I believe, serious, because they obtained this money not after appealing through the proper legal avenues but after an approach to the Premier personally and his personal intervention in the case with the Minister for Water Resources. As I have said, my source of information is impeccable, and that information indicates to me that the case of W. E. and R. M. Rose v. The Commissioner for Water Resources, heard in the Land Court of Queensland in February last year, was a claim for compensation. After a detailed hearing, the court awarded compensation in respect of the resumption of land for the Barambah irrigation project. In connection with this Barambah Dam, which the Premier has been seeking for some 30 or 40 years, the Commissioner for Water Resources had to resume approximately 18.5 hectares from a dairy farm that was some 341 hectares in area. This dairy farm at Moffatdale, owned by the Roses, was the property affected in this case. After the hearing in the Land Court, the court brought down a detailed 23-page judgment, making specific and detailed findings in relation to the valuation of the property, improvements and crossings, and dealing with the question of legal fees and so on. The judgment made a total order of compensation in favour of the Roses in the sum of $122,950. Let me make the point that that is how the system should operate, that if the State Government and individuals cannot agree on a fair figure for compensation, the place for that to be determined is the court—the impartial judicial system under which the expertise of witnesses and the experience of the court can be brought to bear to determine what is a fair sum for the public to pay as compensation for that resumption. That is what happened in this case. However, if the citizen is then not satisfied, there is a further right of appeal. I will table a copy of section 26 of the Acquisition of Land Act, which says that the decision of the Land Court shall be final. However, this is subject to section 44 of the Land Act, a copy of which I will also table. It says that the only legal avenue of appeal is the Land Appeal Court, constituted by a Supreme Court judge and two members of the Land Court. That is the only legal avenue of appeal for the ordinary member of the public. The Roses were not satisfied with their compensation and they appealed, but, unlike any ordinary citizen who would have to appeal to the Land Appeal Court, the Roses appealed personally to the Premier. The Roses were able to do this and achieve a better result than the ordinary citizen would obtain, because they are well known in the area as strong supporters and probably members of the National Party. My sources tell me that, as a result of these approaches, a submission was taken to Cabinet by the relevant Minister and, not in open court but in secret proceedings behind the closed doors behind which this Government operates, it was agreed that these people will receive an extra sum totalling approximately $40,000. I note that the relevant Minister is listening with interest. Not only does this case prove yet another serious example of favoured treatment for friends of the Government out of the public purse but also, if this information is correct, I believe that it shows a serious contempt for the court system, for the judicial system, in this State. What makes this case more serious is that the justification given for paying this extra sum to the Roses was that it is for certain items, items to which they were not legally entitled and items in respect of which the Land Court had considered the claims and given a detailed judgment specifically rejecting those claims, saying that the Roses were not entitled to the extra items claimed. Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1311

I will outHne the figures. The Roses claimed $229,845.50. The Commissioner for Water Resources valued the property at $85,983—a substantial difference. After hearing expert witnesses, the Land Court came up with a valuation of $122,949.50, which was rounded off to the next highest dollar. It is proposed that the Roses will be paid an extra $40,000, made up as follows: legal fees, approximately $10,000; interest on the compensation payment, approximately $25,000; and a further $5,000, being an extra payment for a crossing over Four Mile Creek. In order to demonstrate how serious this particular case is, I will deal with these items individually. In regard to legal fees the Land Court judgment stated on page 22— "I allow valuation fees as claimed, but I have no grounds to support them in the amount claimed as legal fees." The Acquisition of Land Act is quite clear on this point. The Roses are not entitled to legal fees and, if any order for legal fees was to be made, it had to be made in favour of the Commissioner for Water Resources because his estimate of the valuation was closer to the valuation made by the court than that made by the claimants. That is the law of Queensland that has been ignored in this particular case. They had no legal right to that money and could not have obtained it from any court in the land, yet they obtained it through the back door. In reg;ard to the amount of interest that is agreed to be paid on the amount of compensation of $25,000, the law in Queensland on this point is quite clear and has been established by a long line of cases. The law states that where there is no loss of occupation or no inconvenience to occupation of the property—in this case a dairy farm—the claimants are not entitled to interest. At page 23 the court stated— "The Claimants have remained in possession and have continued to farm the land ... interest is therefore not payable." In the case of the crossing they received an extra $5,000. After hearing detailed and expert evidence, the court awarded $5,500 for the crossing. This Government has given the Roses an extra $5,000 approximately to which they were not entitled and which the court refused to give them. What does this say about Queensland's court system? What is the purpose of Queensland's court system? How can one expect the public to have confidence and trust in Queensland's judicial system and courts when people can go through the back door and receive special deals? This has come about by the intervention of a man who would be Prime Minister. The public of Australia and the High Court of Australia had better watch out, because they are deaUng with a man who, if by some fluke he attains his goal of becoming Prime Minister, will put himself and his friends above the law and above the courts. This is reminiscent of and consistent with an example of the misuse of public money that occurred in an area of Queensland which you, Mr Speaker, and I have the honour to represent. I refer to the Government's decision to locate at Parkinson a new prison, which was not mentioned or foreshadowed in the Budget papers at all and has suddenly come out of the blue. The real reason for this decision, which should be brought home to the public, is not this Government's belief in the need for a new prison—if it was, the project would have been included in the Budget papers—but that the Thiess Watkins group has in that area 95 hectares of land which it has to unload, for two reasons. The land could not be used for its original purpose, because the development of Algester around to the Mount Lindesay Highway has not proceeded as swiftly as expected and, because of the development of huge shopping centres at Sunnybank Hills and Browns Plains, Thiess Watkins cannot proceed with its original proposal, as illustrated on the Ridgewood strategic plan, to build a large super shopping centre. If Thiess Watkins is unable to unload the land on the market, who does it unload it to? It unloads the land on the people of Queensland, and they pick up a bill for $21m because somebody 1312 7 April 1987 Matters of Public Interest in this Government wants to bail out the Thiess Watkins group, or at least help it out by enabling it to put its hand into the public purse. It is a disgraceful betrayal of trust. Mr McEIligott: That's the same as Joe Goicoechea at Lotus Glen. Mr GOSS: It is consistent with Lotus Glen, but at least Lotus Glen was mentioned in the Budget papers. What we have here is a $21 m pay-out to friends of the Goveniment. The local people do not want a prison. There are substantial residential areas in iny electorate, and also in the electorate of Salisbury and in your electorate, Mr Speaker, in the Forestdale and Greenbank areas. Huge numbers of constituents have been ringing me, and I am sure that they have been ringing your office, Mr Speaker, also. The local people are upset about it. It is unnecessary and inappropriate. The area is far removed from adequate public transport and from parole offices, police, solicitors, and the courts of Brisbane, to which it should be proximate. For this reason, the Brisbane prison should be developed. Thiess Watkins cannot sell the land on the market, so it is flogging it off to the Queensland public. If this Government had any sense of propriety, any sense of decency or any respect for the promise that it made to people during the course of the last election campaign, it would review this decision and provide instead the long-promised public hospital which is desperately needed, which is promised year in and year out, but on which this Government consistently stalls. When is Queensland to see the same speed and resolute decision-making made in relation to the hospital as was made in relation to this maximum security prison—a decision to benefit friends? The hospital would benefit the people; the prison will benefit a select few who happen to have the ear of the Government, wish to unload this land and, given Thiess Watkins' successful tendering record, submit the successful tender for this project also. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Time expired. Australian Economy Mr ALISON (Maryborough) (11.10 a.m.): This morning I wish to refer to certain important and relevant economic statistical data to show quite conclusively that the mess in which Australia presently finds itself is very largely due to the Hawke/Keating/ ACTU triumvirate and its machinations on the economic scene, as well as the industrial relations scene. One of the statistical data is the overseas debt, to which I will refer shortly. Messrs Hawke and Keating blame the fall in export prices for primary products and minerals for the serious increase in the gross external debt. That is only partly true because, really, whilst Australia does not have much control over overseas prices for primary produce and minerals, it certainly has, or should have, control over costs to its manufacturing industries. Australia's manufacturing industries cannot compete and for 10 or 15 years have not been able to compete with overseas companies. During that period, Australia has lost about 140 000 jobs in the manufacturing industries. That has occurred because of low productivity, high wages, very bad work practices, Australia's stifling system of industrial arbitration and conciliation, plus the dead hand of our centralised wage-fixing system, and because certain quite irresponsible trade union leaders are being allowed to run riot and do exactly as they wish on the industrial scene. All of those matters are within our control if we had the intestinal fortitude and common sense as a nation to do something about them. The drop in the price of primary products and minerals really has no direct effect on Australia's economic situation other than on the gross external debt owed by the nation, plus, of course, the reduction of Australia's agricultural community to a disaster level. However, the industrial conciliation and arbitration procedures and Australia's wage-fixing methods must be revamped to permit enforceable contracts between management and labour; unions must be made subject to the same laws as those governing other corporate bodies; and union-leaders must be made accountable for their Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1313 actions, as everybody else is. Today, people in the community are asking: what makes union-leaders above the law? Mr Davis: It will never work. Mr ALISON: It will work, all right. The honourable member will see what happens over the next year or two. I refer now to some of the important statistical data. Firstly, let us look at what overseas countries and financiers think of Australia as a nation and its economic performance, which, of course, is related to the exchange rate. The financial papers always seem to have a hang-up about quoting how the Australian dollar compares with the US doUar. That is important, because many of Australia's overseas contracts are in American dollars. I suggest that just as important is how the Australian dollar has fared over the past four years—since Hawke, Keating and the ACTU came to power—with the Japanese yen and the West German Deutschmark. In March 1983, one AustraUan dollar was equal to 212 Japanese yen. In February 1987 it had sunk to 103 Japanese yen. This goes to show that it has dropped to 50 per cent of its value in March 1983. This is a reflection of what overseas countries think about our nation. Let us look at the West German Deutschmark. In March 1983, the Australian dollar was equal to 2.091 West German Deutschmarks. The Australian dollar has sunk to 1.231 Deutschmarks, which again, in the current economic climate, indicates quite clearly the degree to which Australia has sunk compared with one of its major trading partners. In March 1983, one Australian dollar was equal to 86 US cents. In February 1987, it had sunk to 67 US cents. Mr De Lacy: What is it now? You're not using selected statistics, are you? Mr ALISON: What was it even further back than that? Let us look at the inflation rate. This is very interesting and very relevant to the crux of our problems. In March 1983 the inflation rate was 11.5 per cent. In the December quarter of 1986 it was 9.8 per cent. At that rate of progress, it will take another six years to get down to an acceptable level of about nil per cent. When compared with the inflation rate in other countries, Australia's inflation rate is an eye-opener. As I mentioned, the Australian inflation rate during the December quarter was 9.8 per cent. In Canada the figure was 4.5 per cent and in the United Kingdom it was 3.5 per cent. The inflation rate for that same quarter within the OECD countries was 2.2 per cent. Those countries are Australia's major trading partners. In France the figure was 2.1 per cent and in the USA it was 1.3 per cent. Two countries experienced minus inflation rates, namely Japan with minus 0.3 per cent and Germany with minus 1.2 per cent. Those countries have experienced similar problems to those experienced in AustraUa, yet they have been able to drag themselves out of their economic problems into a situation in which it could be considered that, at this particular time, their inflation rates are acceptable. I turn now to unemployment. Mr De Lacy: Don't you know enough about the subject to take interjections? Mr ALISON: I have only limited time. I will be quite happy to debate economic matters at any time that the honourable member wishes. Mr Henderson: That would be like debating nothing. Mr ALISON: That is quite correct. Turning to unemployment—in March 1983 the unemployment rate was 9.9 per cent. I might add that, at that stage, it was dropping. What helped to a significant extent was the wage freeze that was introduced by Mr Eraser. Mr Eraser did a few things right, and that was one of them. 1314 7 April 1987 Matters of Public Interest

As at February 1987 the unemployment rate was 8.2 per cent and rising. It will be interesting to see what that figure is in six months' time. Some of the economic pundits are saying that it is going to reach 10 per cent within the next six months. It is increasing. The prime lending rate—and this is where it is right across the board—in March 1983 was 16 per cent. In January 1987 the prime lending rate was 18.25 per cent. That is probably the biggest problem so far as the community is concerned. It is hurting those people who are paying off their homes. It is also hurting rural producers and both small and large business people. Why is the figure so high? Because of the policies of the Hawke/Keating Government, interest rates are high. In order to keep the Australian dollar afloat, interest rates are being kept at a very high level. That is what it is all about. In relation to the gross external debt—it is an absolute disgrace that our grandchildren will be paying off that debt, even if we start making some correct decisions now. As at June 1983, Australia's overseas debt was $35 billion. In four years that figure has jumped to $101 billion. It took 83 years for Australia to build up a debt of $35 billicm. However, it took Messrs Hawke and Keating only four years to triple that figure. That is how good their socialist policies are! I turn now to the Budget deficit. In March 1983 the Budget deficit for the previous quarter was $595m. For the quarter to January 1987 the figure was $1 billion. It is quite obvious that the Hawke/Keating Government has no control whatsoever. It does not have the policies. The ACTU has the Government by the throat—the ACTU's collective foot is on the Government's throat. Even if it knew what it should do, the Government could not possibly do it. Let us look at Australia's balance of trade. I suppose that, if it was happening somewhere else, it would be quite humorous. I believe that Australia's trade deficit as at February 1987 was approximately $700m. It had been anticipated that the figure might be $1.4 billion. It is interesting to note that, at the time when that figure for Australia's trade deficit was released, some of the financial writers in the press hailed that as a great win for Mr Keating. All it meant was that Australia was still going broke, but at only half the rate. Why do not some of those financial writers and experts start to put their bias behind them and tell the story as it really is? When they do, we will be able to throw our hats in the air. I turn now to the family situation. It has been estimated that during the time that Messrs Hawke and Keating have been in power, the average wage of an average Australian family has gone backwards by $31.30. Mr Sherrin: They are very anti-family. Mr ALISON: They are very anti-family. They are for the homosexuals and all the deviants. As this House heard earlier when the Premier answered a question, the Opposition has suddenly become holier-than-thou and wants to know what the Govern­ ment is doing about AIDS. Who started it all in this country? Who aided and abetted it? Under this so-called workers' Government, the family man has gone backwards. Not many workers in Australia believe that the Hawke Government is for the family; it is certainly not, in very many ways. Every Australian who values our independent way of life with reward for hard work, entrepreneurship and our traditional family values realises that the private- enterprise system is the best way to create wealth for a country. Time expired. Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1315

Commissioner of Housing Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (11.20 a.m.): I rise to again draw to the attention of the people of Queensland the piggy bank type of financial administration being carried out within the Queensland Housing Commission and further proof that the Commissioner of Housing, Mr Hall, has acted in an improper way. Chapter 3.8 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act, under the heading "Responsibility of the accountable officer for regularity and propriety if expenditure equates", states— "Every accountable officer is required amongst other things to ensure that procedures within the department are such as will at all times afford adequate safeguards with respect to the regularity and propriety of payments made. The term 'regularity and propriety of payments' relates broadly speaking to the statutory control of expenditure by Parliament." Shortly, I will table documents from which I will quote. I quote now from an internal Queensland Housing Commission letter, which states— "INTERNAL REPAINT—ROMA 138 CONTRACTOR—W. SCHUURMAN Act. C/I approval was given on 25 July, 1983 to repaint this house internally. Inspector Report D5701 refers. Subsequent to this Inspector Winn issued Order Number C 32885 on Contractor W. Schuurman of 15 Alfred Street, Roma to perform the work at a cost as quoted on his quote number 252 of $837. Inspector Winn was transferred to Cairns in October 1983. Inspector Carter was transferred to Toowoomba as his replacement. On 28 February, 1984 Inspector Carter signed off the blue order copy certifying work to be complete and forwarded the documentation to Head Office for payment. However, an invoice was not attached and payment was made on the contractor's quotation number 252." In other words, the original case that I cited in this Parliament was of a house in Roma that was supposedly being repainted internally. That work was never carried out. However, the contractor was in fact paid for such work. The letter continues— "I note on the blue copy of order that Inspector Carter has signed 'P. Carter for V. Winn'. There appears to be no reason why Inspector Carter would sign in this manner as it was he who had to sign that the work was complete. Inspector Winn has stated that he held no discussion with Inspector Carter regarding this job. Inspector Carter's diary shows he was in Roma on 28 February, 1985 yet he does not show an entry for inspecting the internal repaint on Roma 138, the same day as he signed the blue copy of order. The country maintenance record card (copy attached) also records the internal repainting." Shortly, I will table this internal Queensland Housing Commission document titled "Country Maintenance". It gives the address of the House described in these documents on order C32885 for a house repaint for a total cost of $837 on 28 February 1984, showing that the internal repaint of this house was in fact carried out. It was never done. The letter continues— "Other points noted are:— (a) It seems strange that contractor Schuurman Hves in Roma yet this cheque and apparently others were banked at National Australia Bank at Injune." 1316 7 April 1987 Matters of Public Interest

The fact is that, although that comment was made, the cheque was paid to Schuurman and it was cashed in his name. The letter continues— "(b) The signature W. Schuurman on the cheque is quite different to the signature on his quote number 252. I consider this should be checked out further, (c) I understand District Supervisor Crick questioned Contractor Schuurman as to whether he did carry out the work and whether he sent in an invoice. His reply was no to both questions." Here is a clear example of a contractor who was paid $837 for the internal repaint of the house, yet the repaint never occurred. I now refer to a letter from Mr Crick dated 5 November 1985, in which he states— "I have tried a number of times to contact the painter involved, and this I was able to do this morning. He claims he knows he didn't paint Roma 138 and he 'has never sent an invoice', for the job." I repeat: why was he paid for the job if he had never sent an invoice? The report goes on to state— "I also understand a letter has been sent to Contractor Schuurman asking him the same two questions as in (c). To date no reply has been received. I understand a check has been made with the tenants of this house which revealed no internal repainting was ever done on this house which relates to Order No. C32885. In short, the internal repainting was not carried out and payment was made to the contractor for carrying out this work." This next part is important. It reads— "The contract was relet a year later in group 766G(69)H to a different contractor and the Commission paid again for this work." This really is the crux of the whole issue because I have a photocopy of that contract, file No. 766G(69)H titled, "Result of tenders received 23/11/1984 for the external/ internal repainting of 7 houses at Roma". This is how this massive fraud has occurred: somebody, somewhere within the Queensland Housing Commission, has in fact altered it—as can be seen on that document—in his own writing underneath the original contract order, with authorisation for this house to be painted. In other words, it is the old cover- up story. That person knew that the additional house was never repainted. The money was paid out to this contractor to paint the homes; yet, 12 months later, the person has bodgied the contract up and put an extra home on a contract for seven homes at Roma to be repainted. By the addition of one house, he has made it eight to cover up the cooking of the books that took place. The report goes on to state— "There is no written record of how Roma 138 came to be included in this group, nor is there any record of who requested it to be included. I consider this whole matter has been caused by the negligence on the part of Inspector Carter in not carrying out his inspectorial duties." The sad fact of the matter is that Mr Carter has been made the scapegoat for the whole matter. He was forced to resign from the Queensland Housing Commission on the basis that he would not be charged with internal maladministration. But I come back to the original question: why was it that, when this matter was reported to the Queensland Commissioner of Housing, Mr Stewart Hafl, although he was made fully aware of this matter and of his responsibilities under the Financial Administration and Audit Act, and although a case of fraud had been committed, he not only failed to go ahead and report the matter to the fraud squad for investigation but also failed to report Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1317

at a later date a massive case of fraud that was uncovered? The massive case of fraud is evidenced by this document that I will table in a moment. An extra house was added to the document and was painted. At a later date, double the amount was paid for that contract to be carried out. Last week in this House the Minister said that he would appreciate it if reference was not made to this whole sordid matter of 26 charges of departmental misconduct involving Mr Hall. The Opposition was prepared to accept the fact that these charges were before the Public Service Board. I am prepared to accept that Mr Hall should be given the opportunity to answer those charges. Why is it, however, that on Thursday of last week Mr Hall was sent to New Zealand by the Minister for Housing to attend a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers about the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement? Mr I. J. Gibbs is the only Minister from Australia who was not present at that meeting. Last Thursday, he sent Mr Hall as his representative to that conference. I ask all honourable members to bear in mind that the conference does not even begin until today. From last Thursday till today is not a bad little break—not a bad little holiday at the expense of the Queensland tax-payers. I have it on good authority that Mr Hall will not return to Queensland until next Tuesday. Why? I will tell honourable members why: he is being kept out of the way. The Government does not want him to answer the 26 charges that are levelled at him and does not want to know about the findings made by the Public Service Board. By the time Mr Hall answers those charges, this Parliament will not be sitting and the Minister will not be able to be attacked. As final proof that what I am saying is correct, I table one last document. It is a photocopy of a cheque for $837 made out to Schuurman on the Reserve Bank of Australia, which was cashed at the National Bank at Injune on 26 March 1984. I table aU those documents. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table.

Prison Complex Construction, Atherton Tableland Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (11.30 a.m.): In my electorate, the Queensland Government is gearing up to construct a major prison. This is the single largest public works project in my electorate since construction of the Tinaroo Falls Dam in the late 1950s. The Mareeba Shire Council, of which I am a member, recognised the fragile nature of our local economy, which is an economy based on agriculture and mining, as early as 1982, at which time the council requested that the then Minister for Corrective Services establish a prison in our area. There was an obvious urgent need at that time to expand the economic base away from the vagaries and the cyclical nature of traditional rural industries. Areas such as ours, remote from capital cities, inland from the coast and away from major growth centres have very few real opportunities to achieve much in the way of new industries, such as manufacturing or high-technology estates, and any likelihood of a major tourist infrastructure being established in our area in the near future is remote. Therefore we must be alert to other opportunities, and the possible establishment of a major penal institution was seen as a wonderful opportunity to achieve several most important economic goals in one move. Firstly, it offered a new and growing industry to the area, which would inject considerably more than $6m into our area annually after establishment; and, secondly, it offered a one-off boost to our flagging building industry. Mr De Lacy: How is the National Party branch up at Walkerston going? Mr GILMORE: Extremely well indeed. The major industries of our region are tobacco, maize, peanuts, horticultural crops such as avocados, lychees and mangoes, dairying and forestry. A brief examination of 1318 7 April 1987 Matters of Publiclnterest these industries reveals some deep-seated, long-term problems which could destabilise the regional economy. I would like to spend a few minutes on this subject, simply to reinforce my contention that the economy of the region badly needs diversification and a widening of the economic base. The prison offers that opportunity. The tobacco industry is, as most members would be aware, subject to constant criticism from a variety of well-meaning people from diverse callings. There is also a constant barrage of enthusiastic but misplaced attempts by the Federal Government and the local manufacturers of tobacco products to put our growers out of business. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Cairns to the fact that his interjections are not being acknowledged, and I ask him to desist. Mr GILMORE: The result of this constant cacophony of criticism is the inevitable destabilising of our major industry and an attendant lack of confidence in the area. Peanuts have long been central to the region's wealth and have contributed largely to the current well-being of the economy of the upper reaches of the Atherton Tableland. Recent decisions of the Federal Government relative to duty on imported nuts from mainland China, and the recent emergence of two new diseases in peanuts in the area, have thrown a question mark over the future prospects of that crop. Maize, along with all other coarse grains, is in oversupply throughout the world, and prices received on farm could reach a 10-year low this season. Horticultural tree crops of all kinds have seen their best years and face massive overproduction within a couple of seasons. Forestry has played a pivotal role in the economy of the Tablelands since first white settlement, but logging quotas have now been reduced to sustainable harvest yields and as a consequence employment prospects in the timber industry are bleak. During the last couple of years the tin-mining industry has collapsed to the point that there are now only a handful of producers. In two short years, tin has gone from a $50m industry to nothing. I have not indulged in this description of the economy of the Tablelands region because it pleases me to outline the region's shortcomings; it is merely an illustration of the fragile nature of an economy too narrowly based, and therefore vulnerable to cyclical variations of weather, prices and fortune. The construction of this prison has been actively sought by local authorities and businesses, and is welcomed by the majority of people in the area as offering some respite from problems faced by the local economy. However, there are some grave concerns in the electorate that there could be serious deficiencies in the benefits to be gained if we are not extraordinarily cautious, particularly during the construction phase of the project. Building approvals have shown a marked lack of growth in both local shire areas over recent years, and indeed, if the growth area of Kuranda, which is heavily influenced by the Cairns economy, was removed from Mareeba Shire figures, the building approvals for that shire would show a decline. The value of the proposed prison is roughly equal to the value of the combined building approvals for the Mareeba and Atherton Shires for 2'A years. The annual operating budget, once the prison is in place, will be approximately twice the value of the annual maize crop. The importance of this project to the local building and other associated industries, and, of course, to the whole region, cannot be overstated. Unemployment statistics for the region have shown a steady growth over the last few years. Figures supplied by the CES indicate that in the Atherton area the number of Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1319

unemployed awaiting placement has risen from 1 298 in 1984 to 1 482 in 1986 and, in the Mareeba statistical district, from 939 in 1984 to 1 097 in 1986. The people of the electorate have chosen to accept the establishment of this prison in their midst because the regional economy demands the diversification it offers. They accept the prison, but not subserviently and not without quaUfication. There is a great need for the employment and the benefits that will flow from this prison and it is imperative that these benefits flow to local builders, workers and construction companies. At the outset I stated this to be the largest single construction undertaken since the Tinaroo Falls Dam was built in the late 1950s. The benefits that came from that project were far-reaching and the boost to the local economy was enormous. We must not miss this opportunity to once again inject life and vitality into our local economy. We are not discussing a dream; we are discussing a reality. The money will be spent; the gaol will be built. We must ensure that the money stays in the Tablelands region. Changes to School Holidays Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (11.37 a.m.): The decision to vary school holidays was dropped on the community suddenly through media announcements last night and this morning. Already there have been several angry responses to that decision that I am aware of I am quite sure that other honourable members would have received responses in a similar vein. I understand well the need to examine existing arrangements from time to time in the light of other circumstances that might be occurring, but what has occurred in this situation is that the decision has been made without proper consultation and without adequate notice to schools. Mr Powell: Haven't you learnt your lesson yet? Mr SCHUNTNER: That is the sort of comment that is not very helpful to an intelligent discussion on any topic. The major points that I wish to make are that the way the decision has been made is typical of the way the Government blunders in, without consultation in a variety of ways. I also make the point that, through the lack of adequate notice and despite the assurances that were given to the House in the Minister's answer to the last question of question-time, the decision will have detrimental effects on education this year. The way in which this decision was implemented and announced is reminiscent of the way in which the trading hours trial was brought about. Traders who had made plans for the Christmas trading period, the busiest and most important trading period in their year, suddenly found that a new set of rules applied. After what was for them the debacle of the Christmas trading period, they were left with thousands of dollars worth of unsold stock. Similarly, planning in schools occurs a long way ahead. Many arguments can be advanced about the placement of school holidays, but I do not intend to canvass those in great detail and one could not do that in the few minutes available during the Matters of Public Interest debate. Educational issues and other factors have to be taken into account. These were touched on by the Minister in his answer to the question asked earlier this morning. I am well aware of these. Over the last few years I have played a major role in the development of school holidays policy. The decision to bring in the four-term year was a response to a submission from the Queensland Teachers Union back in 1979-80. I was personally very heavily involved in the formulation of that poUcy. It is to the credit of the Government that it examined that submission and, in due course, implemented policy that was virtually totally in line with that submission. There are various arguments, of course, in the debate on what sort of policy should be implemented, and Governments have to make decisions in the light of all of the points put forward. For instance, I well remember some points that were put forward at that time that proved to be quite wrong. The RNA made the point that if we changed 1320 7 April 1987 Matters of Public Interest to a four-term year, the attendance at the RNA show would be disastrously down. What happened is that in the first year after the four-term year came into operation, the RNA show had a record attendance. The point that I am making is that not all submissions are necessarily correct in their predictions about what will occur. However, it is important that the process of consultation take place. As I said, I will not argue the pros and cons of the various points that have to be considered. However, there must be opportunity for people to make submissions and, just as importantly, for all concerned throughout the education community and the general community to be able to see that justice has occurred through this consultative process. I want to say a few words about the effects on education this year. In particular, I will refer to secondary education, because I believe that that is where the greatest immediate impact wiU be in 1987. A wrong impression was given by a headline in one newspaper this morning that the changes occur next year. The biggest impact is on education in 1987, because the school year has been shortened by one week. I wonder what honourable members would think if the school year was shortened by a week for other reasons. For instance, I know that the Government is concerned about the excessive use of ministerial-granted holidays, and I think that that is to the Government's credit. What would happen if five ministerial holidays were suddenly provided for all schools in Queensland between now and the end of 1987? There would be an uproar because it would cause a dramatic reduction in the amount of available time for the work that has to be done in the school year. What would be the reaction if parents withdrew their children from school for a week, or if teacher industrial action caused a week's reduction in the length of the school year? Mr Borbidge: One of your Federal members on the Gold Coast has been calling on the State Government to do what it has just done. Mr SCHUNTNER: But this Government has not gone through the consultative process that I have been talking about. I am not arguing the pros and cons of the decision. I will return to a point that the member for Sherwood made Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chamber will come to order. Mr SCHUNTNER: As I was saying, I will return to a point that the member for Sherwood made. What if the Commonwealth Government decreed a change in the school year? There would be an enormous hullabaloo about that, and rightly so. Mr Powell: What do you mean by "consultation"? Mr SCHUNTNER: I mean that the Government take submissions from all the interested parties within education and beyond the education community, right through­ out the public, as occurred Mr McPhie interjected. Mr SCHUNTNER: If the member for Toowoomba North would keep quiet, I would be able to answer the Minister's interjection. In 1979-80, there were submissions from hundreds of organisations and people. That is what I mean by "consultation". I believe that this decision indicates a total ignorance of the complexity of running large high schools in Queensland these days. The program for the school year is developed very early during that school year and makes provision for things such as speech nights, athletics carnivals, work experience programs, school camps, school excursions, visits to schools by visiting speakers, teaching and testing programs, end-of-semester exams, and Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1321

so on. All of those things will be in place in a typical high school. Venues will have been booked for them. It is simply not good enough to say that the Board of Secondary School Studies' dates for junior and senior attendance have not been changed. The whole school is affected. One cannot vary the examination program for Years 8, 9 and 11, as schools will have to do. Schools cannot vary their programs for Years 8, 9 and 11 examinations without varying examination timetables for Years 10 and 12. In many schools there simply is not enough room to conduct all of those tests and examinations at the same time. A point that seems to elude people is in regard to the TE score. Once one starts fiddling with the examination testing program for Year 12 students, the TE scores of some students, particularly those borderline cases, will be affected, because programs will have to be revised so that two lessons instead of three lessons will have to be spent on a particular unit of, say, mathematics or history. That means that some students at that level will be affected by their inability to grasp the subject-matter in the shortened time that is available. The community generally is also affected, because people have to book a long time ahead for holiday accommodation. For instance, 17 January is to be the expiry date of the school vacation. Many people who have already booked Apex fares and families from the country coming to the seaside will already have made bookings to take their holidays past 17 January next year. The Education Department and the Government have proudly proclaimed a 10-year calendar for school vacations so that people will know with certainty what lies ahead. I emphasise that an examination of school holidays is in order, but it appears that many questions have not been answered. I deplore the fact that a decision of such public and educational interest has been made without adequate notice and consultation. Australian Democrats; Gold Coast Monorail; Workers' Compensation in New South Wales Mr GATELY (Currumbin) (11.47 a.m.): Today, I raise two matters, one of which I believe is of very grave importance. The Australian public should become very well aware of this matter and give full credence to the things that have happened. I refer to that wart on the Australian political scene, the Australian Democrats, whose founder, Mr Chipp, made that famous quote, "We'll keep the bastards honest." He did not live up to that standard. He wished to set a scene that would hoodwink the Australian public. I believe the Australian voters of today are well aware that they, the Democrats, were the bastards who aided and abetted the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke/Keating/ACTU alliance to rape Australia through the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the assets and means tests that today disadvantage many Australian pensioners. This is a despicable act by a party that purports to try to keep people honest but which is at the present time causing some 3 500 electors in Brisbane to have the 40 per cent reduction entitlement on their council rates removed because of the assets test that has been brought in by the despicable Federal Government. The Australian Democrats should hang their heads in shame. The mayor of this city is using the assets test in an unscrupulous manner to get away from the fact that the council does not have to reduce the amount by that full 40 per cent. It could in fact stay at 20 per cent. The Lord Mayor of this city is manipulating the system and pension-bashing. She ought to hang her head in shame and not be game to show it in front of any senior citizen in this city. I turn now to the exciting announcement of the proposed development of a monorail on the Gold Coast. I commend the far-sighted vision of the Minister for Transport, Mr Lane, and the expansionary vision of the Government in its investigation of a possible monorail for the Gold Coast in order to overcome future traffic congestion. I suggest to the Government and to the transport committee that their vision should extend south

75052—45 1322 7 April 1987 Matters of Public Interest to the border. I understand that the West German experts have indicated that this would be possible. Whilst our opponents in the radical elements represented by minority groups, whose one aim is to prevent progress, will scream and shout from the tallest unit development on the coast, might I assure them that it will be mandatory for financial viability and environmental impact aspects of such a development to be fully examined in conjunction with both the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert Shire Council. This type of development win not only overcome traffic congestion but in itself will be an added tourist attraction, which, properly located, can add to the coast's transport system. It is my firm belief that, with the imminent development of the Zarrow project in Coolangatta, far greater numbers of tourists will travel from the Surfers Paradise region to Coolangatta— to that one-time Mecca of the Gold Coast tourist area. It will be by means of a comfortable and speedy transport service. Tourists will travel, I believe, via a route that would take in many very pleasing scenic aspects of the Gold Coast. It could incorporate trips through the Surfers Paradise/Nerang/Southport area, back through the Pacific Fair region, over through the areas of both Tallebudgera and Currumbin, and thence on down to Coolangatta. I do not believe that any greater tourist area for vision can be seen anywhere in Australia or, for that matter, the world. The electorate of Currumbin takes in some of those great aspects and has the tradition of having been the holiday Mecca for people from the Brisbane city area. Mr Davis: Why don't you go up to Springbrook, too? Mr GATELY: I will take the honourable member's interjection. We also have some very nice scenic areas up there, such as Mount Tallebudgera, which is probably one of the greatest sections of the coast that one would ever want to see. I doubt whether the honourable member would have the capacity to walk up that mountain. I doubt whether he would have the tenacity to climb Mount Tallebudgera. If he did, he would be able to see some of the greatest areas on the coast. From the top of Mount Tallebudgera, he would take in a vision down to and including the cane-fields and township of Murwillumbah, thence in a 180-degree sweep back to Surfers Paradise. The honourable member can sweep another 180 degrees and look at the famed little area of Springbrook to which he referred, and at Mount Tamborine. If he has enough vision to come down to my electorate, I will more than welcome him. In fact, if he is game enough, I will give him a race to the top of the mountain. If the honourable member wants to make any other interjection, I will sort him out later. Mr Comben: Your New South Wales record makes interesting reading. Mr GATELY: It is better than the honourable member's record. He would not be game to let it run loose in the House. A Government member: On horseback. Mr GATELY: The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. The honourable member for Windsor would not know how to get on a horse. Mr Palaszczuk: What a waste of public time. Mr GATELY: Isn't that amazing? It is a bit of a difference for me rather than the honourable member to waste time. The other matter that I raise is obviously of very grave concern to many of the Opposition's friends in New South Wales. Currently there is talk of strike action being taken in that State. Strike action indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker! What do you think it is over? None other than workers' compensation costs! What a despicable way for a Government to again attack business. It is just another tax on small-business operators who can ill afford it. As if the Opposition's Federal colleagues have not done enough to ruin this nation; now they will start it in New South Wales by reaping the last little bit out of every business that operates in that State. So concerned are those people in New Matters of Public Interest 7 April 1987 1323

South Wales who are trying to operate and to continue to keep people employed that they are coming over the border in droves to talk to us about the possibility of the Queensland Government's being able to accommodate them with industrial land so that they can re-establish in this State and get away from such regressive and communistic- type Government attitudes. There are great numbers of them. Many of them have spoken to me and to Ministers of this State with a view to re-establisiiihg. Mr Palaszczuk: Name some. Mr GATELY: I do not need to name those people for grots such as the honourable member. Mr Borbidge: The deputy president of the Tweed Shire Council said the same thing as you are saying in the press last week. Mr GATELY: I take the honourable member's point, that the deputy president of the Tweed Shire has made the very same plea to his own Government. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr GATELY: No, he does not. The honourable member would not know what it meant. The deputy president of the Tweed Shire Council has complained to his own Government that it should reduce workers' compensation costs so that some of those people I mentioned earlier might stay in New South Wales. Like myself, if those people have one ounce of brains left in them, they will leave as fast as they can. Proposed Prison at Logan City Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (11.56 a.m.): Today's Courier-Mail ran a very substantial front-page article relating to yesterday's Cabinet decision to approve a submission from the Minister for Works, Mr Ivan Gibbs, for a $21 m gaol to be built at Logan City on land owned by the Thiess family's Drayton Investments. As Mr Goss has already mentioned, this matter is of grave concern to the Opposition. I refer the House also to an article that appeared in the Courier-Mail on 6 September 1986 in which it was stated that the Corrective Services Minister—then Mr Muntz— "... last night said a final decision on the building project was up to the Works Department. The idea to relocate Brisbane Jail had come from the Premier, Sir Job Bjelke- Petersen, he said." In view of today's statements that the construction of the prison is being handled by Thiess-Watkins on land that is owned and managed by the company, it is obviously of concern that the Premier has made a decision that will protect his old friends and give them substantial financial help. Following the article that appeared in the Courier-Mail of 6 September, the Premier was quoted in the press on the following day as saying that that prison was a fair way down the road. However, two days later, on 8 September 1986, it was discovered that— "Brisbane Jail would be remodelled as a remand prison and reception area for new prisoners. State Cabinet yesterday decided.

Two new jails would be completed by mid-1988. They would be built at Lotus Glen on the Atherton Tableland and at Wacol and would cost $60 million." Once again, that decision has been reversed. There have been two total reversals of policy with no explanation other than an admission from the then Corrective Services Minister, Mr Muntz, that the Premier was involved and that he thought it would be a good idea to relocate Brisbane gaol. 1324 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

In view of Sir Leslie Thiess' involvement in this matter and the fact that the prison is being built upon land that is owned by the Thiess family's Drayton Investments, the Opposition believes that a full and proper explanation should be given by the Premier. Is the Premier benefiting friends of the National Party? Is the Premier, in fact, doing things at the behest of his old friend? What is the cost to Queensland tax-payers of the lease-back proposal for Brisbane gaol? What will the Thiess company obtain from the land upon which the Brisbane gaol is presently located—reputedly to be worth $5m? Will that $ 5m be a windfall to the Thiess family development fund? Those are all major questions which the Government must answer in the administration of prisons in this State.

PAPER The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— One Hundredth Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 March (see p. 958). Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (12 noon): The Family and Youth Services Bill has been long promised, and community expectations concerning it and related measures have been repeatedly built up and dashed over a 10-year period. It was back in October 1977 that this Government first committed itself to a new Department of Family Welfare to replace the Department of Children's Services. That election promise was followed by a discussion paper on the proposed family welfare legislation in 1977. The next move came in May 1981 with the paper on family welfare legislation and then, just for good measure, the parliamentary White Paper on family welfare was released in December of the same year. Finally, what appeared to be the legislative blueprint for the much- awaited reforms was tabled in the House on 12 April 1984 with the invitation to the public to comment upon its provisions. Now here we are, a few days short of three full years later, debating the first measure designed to implement a 10-year-old promise. One certainly could not accuse this Government of undue haste when it comes to responding to the welfare needs of this State. It is a shame that families do not have the same influence as does the white-shoe brigade of the tourism industry, who seem to be able to get this Government to move quickly to enhance their desire to freehold Queensland's prime natural attractions. This Bill, the first of a series to repeal the Children's Services Act, contains little which is either new or innovative. Indeed, the point was acknowledged by the Minister in her second-reading speech—it is most important that honourable members particularly note that point—when she said— "This is the first of a series of Bills which will restructure the delivery of services to families, youth and children in this State." I want honourable members to particularly note the point that the aim of this legislation is to restructure—to relabel; to reorganise—but no mention is made of providing more resources to what is a Cinderella department of the Queensland Government. This Bill reaffirms the Queensland Government's traditional pinch-penny approach to the provision of welfare services—its residual approach to the provision of welfare in this State; that is, limited welfare is to be provided only when the system fails. In other words, welfare services are not designed to be preventive in nature and the Government is not interested in reforming the social arrangements which give rise to particular needs within the community. Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1325

In her chapter on social welfare in Queensland, in the book The Bjelke-Petersen Premiership 1968-83, Edna Chamberlain, formerly dean of social work at the University of Queensland, observed— "The State of Queensland, at least, has lagged in absorption of new ideas which purport both to explain disadvantage in our society and predicate related strategies for its eradication or diminution." Nothing has changed. The Government has waxed long and loud about its commitment to the family, and in introducing this legislation this Minister is no exception. She stated as one of the "two basic assumptions" of the Bill— "... parents are the most competent people to bring up children." Mr Stephan: Isn't that right? Don't you agree with that? Mr HAMILL: I don't think the honourable member would be very competent. She continued— "... the Government is committed to the notion that the family environment is the best environment in which to rear children." What is new in that statement? Nothing really, when one considers the variety of statements made by successive Ministers in successive position papers. The draft Family and Community Development Bill, which was tabled almost three years ago, states— "The preservation of the family is the key aspect of the draft Bill. A principle which is adopted in the Bill is that in the first instance all efforts must be made to assist families responsible for the rearing of children, to provide adequate care and nurturing for their children within the family context." The Minister's predecessor, Mr Muntz, in June 1984, said— "The second thrust of this Bill which I hope will be considered today is its emphasis on the family as the main focus point of service delivery. In the past. Welfare Services have concentrated too heavily on individuals without appreciating how their family circumstances have affected their behaviour and problems." In the 1981 parliamentary White Paper, the following passage appeared— "The new Department"— the new department promised 10 years ago— "should have the responsibility for ensuring that the development of a comprehensive range of family services is co-ordinated and equitably distributed throughout the State. A primary aim of services to families should be to ensure that children do not have to be taken into care except as a last resort." The then Minister, Terry White, who now sits on the back benches of this House but on the front bench of the Liberal Party, in May 1981 said— "The Paper expresses the Government's recognition of the family as the basic unit of society and expresses the commitment of the Government to encourage and assist parents to discharge their responsibilities to their children." In May 1979, his predecessor, Mr Doumany, said as follows— "It is proposed that new legislation will not be exclusively child-centred as is the present legislation but will move towards reinforcing the importance of the family as the basis for the welfare of children and individuals and indeed as the basis for a strong, safe and secure community." 1326 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

And now, the grand-daddy of them all: in the policy speech of the coalition parties in 1977, the following statement was made— "The Coalition is totally committed to supporting the family unit—and the need for such a commitment has never been greater than it is today ... The emphasis will be on family-based welfare assistance and on external preventative work, particularly in the area of anti-social behaviour by children." I point out that that statement was made 10 years ago. Queensland has endured 10 years of statements, 10 years of Ministers going on and on and on, mouthing the same commitments to the family. What happens? Nothing. Ten years have elapsed until this day when, finally, the first stage of the legislative program is introduced into the House. What remains unknown, however, is exactly who is the focus of Queensland's family legislation. The Government mouths the word "family" without telling anyone who Queensland's famiUes are—although I do remember one attempt by the Minister's predecessor, who branded sole parents as deviants. This morning, another statement was made by the Minister, which I will come to in a moment. What the Minister does not recognise is that, contrary to the statement made by the Minister this morning, there is a great variety of family structures in Queensland. It is not simply a population made up of nuclear families—a Mum and Dad and a couple of children—as the Minister tried to tell honourable members earlier today. Mr Booth: She did not mention how many children. Mr HAMILL: She mentioned a couple of children—that she hoped that the families would care for them. She mentioned families as being Mum and Dad and a couple of kids. If the honourable member listens a little closer, he will realise the inadequacy of the Minister's pronouncement. I trust that the National Party may drag itself out of the nineteenth century and recognise that the whole issue of family policies is far more complicated than either the honourable member or the Minister would care to believe. In its study of Queensland families in 1982, the Australian Bureau of Statistics categorised families. The first category covered married-couple families—which, of course, included a group that the Minister does not smile very kindly upon, de facto couples— with at least one dependent child. These are the nuclear families that the Minister highlighted as the focal point for family poHcy. They totalled 301 551, or 46.3 per cent, of Queensland's 651 300 families. I ask all honourable members to note that figure. That category represents less than half of Queensland's families and less than half of the category which the Minister described this morning. The next category is married-couple families without offspring, which totalled 215 580, or 33.1 per cent of all Queensland families. Of course, those couples are conveniently forgotten by this Government. The third category is married-couple families with only non-dependent offspring in the same household, which accounted for 57 965, or 8.9 per cent of the total. Those families are forgotten by this Government. The final category is one-parent families, that is, with dependent children, which number 42 985, or 6.6 per cent of the total. That category has been forgotten by this Government, although it includes not only supporting mothers, who are so often vilified by the Minister, but also supporting fathers and other lone parents who no longer have a partner, whether because of bereavement or divorce. They are forgotten by this Government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics identified two types of what it calls "other" families. The first subtitle referred to a single parent with no dependent children but with non-dependent offspring, plus all other persons in the household related to them, provided that those persons do not have a spouse or offspring in the household. They have been forgotten. The other type was under the subtitle of persons related other than as a spouse or parent/offspring, for example, brothers, sisters or cousins living in the same household. They also have been conveniently forgotten. The sorts of people who Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1327

are being forgotten, for example, are those families in which, perhaps, a husband and wife are looking after an aged relative. Nowhere does this Government recognise that unit as a family worth supporting. Those two types of "other" famihes that I have mentioned accounted for 21 044, or 3.4 per cent, and 11 072, or 1.7 per cent, respectively of the total number of families. Unfortunately, this Minister and her predecessor appear only to recognise the legitimacy of the married-couple family with dependent children—and only that subgroup which does not include de facto relationships—as the targets of family policy. I reject that focus. A true family policy should cater for the needs of all types of family. It should not moralise and deny those in need of the assistance they require. It should not discriminate against the majority of families which do not conform to the Minister's ideal nuclear family model. This Minister would do well to remember the admonishment of the project team in the 1979 report on the proposed family welfare legislation. Page 9 of volume 1 of that report states— "The project team believes that the presence or absence of children should not be integral to the definition of a family. As there are a variety of family types throughout the community services need to be designed flexibly enough to meet the needs of all of the forms. There are some observable differences even within the nuclear family over the last decade which principally relate to the role of women. It is likely that other changes, including the development of new family forms, will continue. Any legislation therefore, should exhibit tolerance of differences and flexibility to meet changing needs." I commend those observations to the Minister. The other assumption on which this legislation was based was also outlined in the Minister's second-reading speech as follows— "... voluntary agencies, both denominational and community, are skilled and competent to provide assistance where it is needed.

We are inviting and encouraging the involvement of voluntary agencies in the provision of services." Mr Stephan: There is nothing wrong with that. Mr HAMILL: That statement is yet another rendition of the often-heard statements from this Government. I suspect that the honourable member has heard those statements so often that he could parrot them himself I will give examples of a selection of similar commentaries from the Minister's predecessors and from position papers presented by this Government. In April 1984 the introduction of the proposed Family Community Welfare Bill stated— "The Bill will represent, in many ways, a new era of welfare service provision in Queensland. Increasingly, it has been recognized that the provision of services to support the family unit is not the sole province of Government. It is a responsibility that is shared with individuals, non-government organizations, and the community generally." Mr Stephan: Do you disagree with that? Mr HAMILL: I did not say that I disagree with it. You do not hasten too quickly, otherwise you will find yourself getting into the sort of difficulties that you have already found yourself getting into by the blinkered view that you took of Queensland families; the fact that you do not recognise the majority of Queensland families as providing a worthwhile contribution to family life in this State. 1328 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr HAMILL: In June 1984, the present Minister's predecessor, Mr Muntz, stated— "The new Bill seeks to give new meaning to the role of the non-Government sector in welfare service delivery in Queensland and to augment that role with the traditional Government agencies. In the past, the Department of Children's Services has tended to operate as a monopoly. Many believed that welfare was solely a Government responsibility and that the role of the many voluntary or non-Government organisations was purely subordinate to that of Government. My view, and that of the Queensland Government is that because welfare services and their delivery concern the very social fabric of our society, the well- being of our famiHes, the care of our children, and the directions of our youth, the provision of these services is neither the sole responsibility of Government nor the voluntary sector." In December 1981, the following statement appeared in the pariiamentary White Paper Mr Borbidge: Don't you agree with that? Mr HAMILL: Rather than agree or disagree, I certainly recognise the role of both the Government and the non-Government sector. What I am stating is that the Government must be accused here of tedious repetition in its pronouncements when they are not backed up by substance, as the honourable member for Surfers Paradise will soon appreciate. The parliamentary White Paper of December 1981 contained the following statement— "That non-government welfare agencies should be given greater encouragement to provide appropriate services, including some services which are currently provided by the Department. The basis of the relationship between the Department and non- Government service providers should be a contractural one." In May 1981, the then Minister, Mr Terry White, said— "What is new is the emphasis to be placed on encouraging the voluntary sector by advice and funding." Certainly the funding would be new. The statement continues— "The Government's role will be to assure itself that a standard is maintained, to fill gaps in services where voluntary agencies are not able or available to offer a service and on a joint basis, as yet to be determined, to provide funds for the offering of services." In May 1979 the proposed family welfare legislation discussion paper contained the following— "It is possible that these services should not necessarily be provided from the base of a Public Service Department but should be provided on a community involvement basis in co-operation with the community but supported and funded by the Department. Already a range of services is provided from the basis of a co­ operative relationship between the Department and voluntary agencies. This relationship needs to be strengthened and supported." My contention is that what is purporting to be a new deal for what the Government terms "voluntary agencies" is in fact the same old deal. Indeed, it clings to the same old terminology of "voluntary" as if to hark back to some halcyon days when charities were run by volunteers alone. Without denying the enormous contribution of volunteers to our welfare system, I believe it would be more useful to describe these agencies as non-Government, as their reality is generally one of public sector subsidised services Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1329

delivered by salaried full-time or part-time staff. It is this sector which is being called upon to provide a greater and greater range of services to the community. The Queensland Government makes no bones about it. The 1983 report of the Department of Children's Services reveals definitive Government policy as seeking a move towards greater involvement of non-Government agencies in the provision of welfare services. What has not flowed with this transfer of responsibility from Government to non-Government agencies is the transfer of adequate funding. Despite claims of massive increases in State Government allocations to the community, the fact remains that it is the Commonwealth which is providing the lion's share of this supposed generosity. The Minister has spoken of a 27 per cent increase in State allocations to community organisations this year. Nevertheless, if the 80 per cent increase in Federal funds, distributed under the Supportive Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), is removed, a figure of 12 per cent is a more realistic assessment of the increased generosity of this Government. Furthermore, it should be noted that $360,000 of funds earmarked for licensed institutions under the Department of Children's Services Budget in 1985-86 lapsed because of the failure of this Government to make the necessary appropriation in that year. A recent, good example of the Queensland Government's priorities is to be found in the plea from the Marriage Guidance Council for financial support. Surely such a body engaged in the support of families should be a worthy recipient of funds from a Family Services Ministry. Yet the Queensland Government allocates a miserable $25,000 annually to the council's activities. That is less than most Ministers spend on their entertainment expenses. It seems that this Government does not appreciate the role this body could play in preventing family break-down. As I stated earlier, this Government would rather move in to pick up the pieces after a crisis than address problems before they develop into crisis. However, there seems to be little shortage of funds for promotional campaigns such as Queensland's Year for Parents, which absorbed $200,000 of tax-payers' money. Honourable members should not misinterpret my remarks. I am certainly not attacking parents. After all, I am a parent myself Mr Campbell: And a good one. Mr HAMILL: I thank the member for Bundaberg. I would rather sums such as that were spent on actual services or other real family support measures than on the self-promotion which characterises this Government's media advertising. Mr Davis: And also with the photograph of the Minister on it. Mr HAMILL: That is exactly the point. The Queensland Government is distin­ guished by the amount of money that it pays to put photographs of its Ministers in the newspapers. Perhaps the Government has difficulty getting normal news space and it has to buy space in the newspapers. Despite its professed objective of transferring service delivery to the non-Government sector, comparative figures showing State Government support for community agencies reinforce my contention that this Government merely pays lip-service to the role of non-Government welfare agencies. When it comes to the bills, this Government simply does not want to know about them! I quote from the Australian Society of May 1985— "Grants to community agencies again show Queensland trailing behind all the other States except Western Australia. However, the Western Australian figure of $1.83 per capita (the same as Queensland's) is conservative; grants to vacation care and women's refuges could not be identified separately in the Budget papers. Per 1330 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

capita spending for the other States in 1983-84 was: $3.24 (NSW), $2.50 (Vic), $3.41 (SA), $3.56 (Tas)." So much for supporting the non-Government sector! Despite all the platitudes of the last 10 years, one only has to look at the record of this Government. That is all I ask honourable members to do. Not only does one see the same old relationship between this Government and the non-Government welfare sector in the area of funding, but also the new legislation reveals that the formal relationship remains unchanged. Clause after clause of this Bill clearly demonstrates that it is the department and the permanent head who make the decisions and that the views of the non-Government sector can be ignored. Where is the consultative process? It is not to be found in this legislation, yet it is supposed to represent a new partnership—a new deal. Where is an appeals structure for those seeking funding and for those who have been unsuccessful? Where is the joint planning of services? Where is the corporate plan? Where is the strategy whereby the Government and non-Government sector identify areas of need and how best to meet those needs? These essentials do not exist. Furthermore, this legislation leaves one lacking any confidence that this Government intends to foster changes which would bring about more co-ordination and co-operation between Government and non-Government welfare agencies. Service delivery in Queensland's welfare system will remain the ad hoc, unplanned, piecemeal response to crises which characterises this Government's approach to social administration. The approach is wasteful of valuable and scarce—I emphasise "scarce"— resources. One has only to look at the findings of the operational audit in 1982 of the then Welfare Services portfolio. The conclusions read as an indictment of this Govern­ ment's administration. The report drew attention to— • a lack of clear objectives and goals of the department and components; • a lack of goals for funding schemes; • a lack of accountability for funds allocated; • poor information to assess the impact of funding allocations; and • limited evaluation mechanisms. One would think that the Government had money to burn, but nothing could be further from the truth. Comparative data on per capita expenditure by the States compiled by the Commonwealth Grants Commission further highlights the low priority accorded to welfare by the Queensland Government. In its 1983-84 report, the commission examined per capita expenditure on welfare services. The six-state average per head of population was $47.20. New South Wales spent $45.61; Victoria, $49.38; Western Australia, $55.30; South Australia, $62; Tasmania, $48.30; and Queensland, $34.40. Mr De Lacy: That is disgraceful. Mr HAMILL: It certainly is. From those figures it can be seen that Queensland spends less on welfare than any other State, and $13 per head less than the average spending for the six States. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr HAMILL: Sanctimonious moralising does not cost money, and that is why the Government is so good at it. Such a small budget as Queensland allocates for welfare demands rigorous guide­ lines for the distribution of funds. Again, this legislation generates little confidence that the Queensland Government will lift its performance in this vital area. Inextricably linked to the issue of financial support for Queensland's welfare system is the question of human resources. To put it bluntly, Queensland's welfare systems Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1331 would disintegrate were it not for the legion of volunteers who give of their own tiine and effort to provide service to the community. I do not think the enormity of this contribution is widely recognised nor fully appreciated. According to the latest available ABS statistics, and admittedly the figuresar e four years old, 28.6 per cent of Queensland's population or 483 786 souls provided some voluntary help to welfare agencies in the 12 months to November 1982. Of these, 267 353 were females, and it was noteworthy that welfare services in country areas were more reliant on voluntary labour than was the case in the Brisbane statistical division. The ABS noted that— "Approximately 59.5 million hours were spent on voluntary help in Queensland for the year ended November 1982. This was an average of 123 hours per volunteer per year". To put that in other words, in that year alone the equivalent of 30 000 full-time jobs was contributed as voluntary work. It is clear that, because of the inadequacy of existing funding arrangements, many non-Government agencies have to rely heavily on voluntary labour to supplement the work of their paid staff. Similarly, funding and staffing of the Department of Children's Services remain a serious problem. In the period 1981-82 to 1986-87 the staffing establishment of the Department of Children's Services has increased by only 8.1 per cent, yet the workload from substantiated cases of child abuse alone from 1981-82 to 1985-86 increased by 314.5 per cent. The figures speak for themselves, and it is worth noting that despite a plea for 136 additional officers in 1985, to date this Government has still only responded with the additional 40 staff approved by Cabinet in December 1985 when Mr Muntz was still Minister. The 1986-87 Budget provided no additional staff to ease the staffing crisis existing within the department, and apparently the only hope for relief is to be found in the Minister's second-reading speech on this Bill in which she claimed that the abolition of the Department of Children's Services as presently constituted will— "... abolish some duplication and thus free-up resources to be used in areas of need such as child abuse." It is fair to say that any immediate loosening of staff resources arising from the departmental restructuring will not go far in meeting the critical staff shortage which exists. Furthermore, the optimistic claims that sufficient redeployments may be made by 1990 to meet current needs takes no account whatsoever of increased case-loads over the next three years. It is not only in the area of child protection that staff shortages are apparent. As is the case for the department created by this Family and Youth Services Bill, the Department of Children's Services has duties with respect to the regulation of premises used for temporary care under existing legislation. Serious community concern already exists regarding the capacity of the department to fulfil its responsibilities under the Act and the regulations made thereunder. Take, for example, the recent report in the Courier-Mail dated 6 February 1987 of a complaint lodged with the Department by the Logan City Council. The details of this case are well worth reading for the information of all honourable members. Under the headline "Logan complaint on child minders", the article states— "Logan City Council will complain to the Director of Children's Services about the number of unlicensed child minding centres, run by unqualified staff. This follows a complaint to the council about a day care centre operated from a private house in Slacks Creek. It was claimed that up to 25 children, aged 18 months to 4'/2, were looked after there daily without adult supervisors and food was cooked near children. When council officers visited the house, no adults were present and teenagers were caring for the children. The acting city engineer, Mr Peter Way, said in a report to the council: 'Inquiries have been made with the Department of Children's Services. 1332 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

'It is apparent... the department does not have the staff or resources to police its own regulations. 'The outcome is many such day care centres are springing up in residential areas. 'They are unUcensed, not subject to inspection or scrutiny as to the fitness of the operators or suitability of the premises, and in open defiance of regulations.' Mr Way said the house owner advertised regularly in a local newspaper. The advertisement read: 'Ex-kindy teacher will mind full-time, one child $40, two children $70. Kindy and pre-school situation, meals provided, 18 months to five years.' Mr Way said 14 children were present when a second inspection was made. His report said the owner claimed to be a qualified kindergarten teacher. When pressed, the owner agreed she had some tuition in New Zealand, but had not completed the course. The Children's Services Department deputy director. Miss Ruth Matchett, said yesterday the department was waiting for a report from the council. 'We are certainly concerned and will investigate these claims, but I don't think we should be expected to have people snooping around all the suburbs at all hours,' she said. 'We rely on people lodging complaints with us or the local authority.' The house owner, a mother of a daughter, 15, said she looked after seven children for friends. She did not charge a fee—they made donations. She said the children were cared for in a rumpus room. She did no cooking there. 'I advertised for more children because I was down on numbers,' she said." I wonder whether she was really saying in the advertisement that she may have been down on friends. I trust that the Minister, when she exercises her right of reply later in this debate, will tell us of the outcome of her department's investigations into this matter. Nevertheless, the reported comments of the acting city engineer, Mr Way, hardly instil confidence in the capacity of the department, given its existing level of staff and resources to fulfil its responsibilities with respect to licensing care-providers under the Bill. Yet without sufficient financial and human resources the department is being asked to cope—little wonder Children's Services experiences such a high staff turn-over and a high bum-out rate. As I stated earlier, the staffing crisis within the department is not new. Indeed, in October 1985, the Minister, Mr Muntz, publicly acknowledged the need for more staff. It was as a consequence of the notorious Department of Children's Services report for the year 1984-85 that the issue received public prominence. In his report, the Director, Department of Children's Services, Mr Graham Zerk, commented upon the increased workload which had been generated by the steep rise in child protection notifications. In what must rank as one of the most pungent criticisms of Government performance ever to be found in a departmental report, the Director stated— "It is clear that the needs for staff now exceed the establishment of the Department by a considerable margin." He added— "The situation has now been reached, however, where it is no longer possible to provide the full range of statutory services for which the Department is responsible, and even child protection work is being prioritised." That statement is even more telling if one has recourse to the previous year's report, which stated that child protection was the highest service delivery priority of the Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1333

department. Furthermore, when one considers that in the 1985-86 year alone—that is, the year following Zerk's highly critical report—cases of substantiated child abuse rose by 62.2 per cent and staffing levels increased within the Department of Children's Services by a mere 0.8 per cent, the deep-seated crisis of the department can be better appreciated. True to form, the National Party Government does not tolerate people telling the truth about its periformance. The lack of reality is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland— there's the Minister, the Queen of Hearts, shrieking, "Off with his head; off with his head!" The Minister's views on capital punishment are well known. At one fell swoop the office of Director, Department of Children's Services is no more. As part of the restructuring of the departments within the Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs portfolio, the statutory duties and powers of the Director, Department of Children's Services will be vested with the permanent head of the Department of Family Services. This development will be widely viewed as another victory for the career public servants over the professional staff within the department in what has been traditional friction between the two classes of employees and a retreat from the position arrived at in 1981 with the appointment of Zerk, a social worker and Public Administration graduate, as Director. As a consequence of the passage of this Bill, we may well revert to the situation where sensitive child-development and child-welfare decisions are being made by a person who lacks a professional background in this area. The Minister is in a position to allay these concerns—who is to be the permanent head of the new department and, if it is not Mr Zerk, then what role is envisaged for him within the new structure? The Bill before the House is principally concerned with the licensing of three types of temporary care arrangements— (a) family day care; (b) foster care; and (c) residential care. The Government has recognised a number of advantages in making use of community organisations in the provision of temporary care, not the least of which has been cost. The Sturgess report—one that is very dear to the heart of this Government—commented upon this aspect and compared the cost structures of departmental facilities with alternative community-based care. Its findings are set out in the following table— Annual Cost Weekly Cost One Child One Child Departmental institution $54,072 $1,040 Licensed institution $5,807 $112 Foster care $2,482 $48 Proctor care $20,293 $390 Two points must be made in relation to that table. Firstly, by having recourse to the non-Government sector for the provision of care, the Government has been able to minimise its costs in this area. It has shed a considerable proportion of the financial responsibility for care, which must now be met by the community agency involved. Secondly, the heavy dependence upon voluntary labour within the non-Government sector allows the Government to obtain alternative temporary care at rock-bottom prices. The use of family day care to meet the Department of Children's Services emergency placement needs is a case in point. Family day care was originally designed as a source of temporary care in a family situation for children whose parents were at work. Family day care parents are, by and large, not experienced in providing care and meeting the emotional needs of children who are the victims of child abuse. Yet the Department of Children's Services places with these people children who have been removed from their 1334 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill families because of suspected or substantiated neglect or abuse, or children who are otherwise at risk with their own family. In 1985-86, 1 442 children were placed with family day care providers by the department. That is the department's own figure. Apart from the issue of whether the care-providers are equipped to provide the required emotional support to the child, there remains another issue at stake, that is, whether other children in need of family day care are being displaced because of the department's reliance on family day care schemes to meet its placement needs. Undoubtedly the answer is "yes" because, as will be seen later, there remains an acute and unmet need for child-care facilities in Queensland. Another example of cut-rate welfare which has attracted criticism is the level of assistance which the State makes available to foster-parents. Mr Sturgess went so far as to state in his report that "the poorly rewarded foster-parents are the carpet under which many of the community's problems are being swept". He makes his point more forcefully at page 155 of his report— "9.43 As the table appearing in paragraph 9.16 shows most of the homeless children are being cared for by foster parents. The weekly fostering allowance was increased on November 1, 1985 and now is:— First 4 weeks for a child under 13 years $60.30 Thereafter for a child under 13 years $51.35 First 4 weeks for a child 13 years and over or who is attending a secondary school $67.40 Thereafter for a child 13 years and over or who is attending a secondary school $58.40 Lump Sum Outfitting Grant on Initial Placement Maximum Payable Child under 13 years $160.00 Child 13 years and over or attending a secondary school $196.00 9.44 It will be seen that, as with moneys paid to licensed institutions, there is no differentiation within the rates to take account of the difficulty and the expense of looking after a particular child and to describe this as anomalous is to make an understatement. The cost of looking after foster children will vary greatly. Some foster parents accept only new bom babies for the period it takes to arrange their adoption. One foster mother who altogether has fostered more than 70 babies in those circumstances said it cost her only about $10 weekly to look after such a baby. At the same time foster parents to whom are sent difficult adolescents are expected to make do with only $7.05 more each week from which must be met not only the expenses of providing food and accommodation, but the costs of clothing, school books, entertainment and the like. It is, perhaps worth while noting the Department of Children's Services advises foster parents to pay from their allowance pocket money of $4.70 weekly to each child aged 13 years and over which takes care of all but $3.35 of the difference between the rate for the newly born baby and the teenager." Although the level of allowances was adjusted by regulation, effective on 23 October 1986 and tabled in this House on 25 Febmary 1987, the adjustments in no way meet the Sturgess recommendations. The new schedule is as follows— "(A) Outfitting for a child in care— maximum sum of $168 for a child up to 12 years of age maximum sum of $206 for a child over 12 years of age Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April I9i^~l 1B35

First 4 weeks for a child 12 years and over: $72.60 per week Thereafter— $63.15 per week First 4 weeks for a child aged between 5 and 11 years: $63.30 per week Thereafter— $53.90 per week." The anomalies highlighted by Sturgess still remain. His criticism is certainly not satisfied by these revised allowances. To put it simply, the Queensland Government cannot expect our State's children to receive quality care when it is provided on the cheap. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect community-minded citizens to assume such heavy responsibilities in the area of child care without sufficient support from the public authorities who, after all, are charged with the statutory duty to make arrangements for the care of those of our State's children whose families are unable or unwilling to care for them. The other area of child-care provisions which is addressed by this Bill is that of child-care centres, regulated by the State but supervised by local govemment. There exists a great demand for child care in our community—not only full day care but also pre-school, after school, vacation and occasional care. In other words, community needs are as varied as the community itself In the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey on child-care arrangements which was released in January this year, it was estimated that 31 600 Queensland families required additional formal child care. Further to this, the survey revealed that in November 1984, 1 700 one-parent families—at least the Australian Bureau of Statistics recognises the variety of families in the State—and 11 700 two-parent famiUes gave the major reason why they did not use formal child-care facilities as cost, or travelling and associated difficulties with transport. Of great significance was the finding that 1 000 one-parent families and 8 100 two-parent families were being denied child-care facilities simply on the grounds that facilities were just not available. As honourable members would be aware, the extension of child care has become a major priority for the Commonwealth. In the area of children's services alone, Queensland's share of funding rose to $3.2m this year. As is the case under a range of welfare programs such as SAAP and HACC, the dynamism has come from the Commonwealth, with State funds being included only in order to receive the Commonwealth largesse. It is fair to say that, given the State's history in relation to welfare spending, and its priorities, many community organisations which receive funds under these programs would not exist should the funding be the sole prerogative of the Queensland Govemment. Likewise, it is the case in relation to child-care funding, of which the lion's share is provided by the Commonwealth and channelled through the Department of Children's Services. Sadly, the administration of these funds has been subject to an unacceptable degree of political interference. Take, for example, the case of the proposed child-care centre in Greenview Park, Albany Creek, in the Minister's electorate. I quote from a letter from the Department of Children's Services to the Shire Clerk of the Pine Rivers Shire Council dated 5 November 1986, which stated, inter alia— "Albany Creek has been identified as a high need area for the establishment of a child care centre under the joint State/Commonwealth Child Care Centres Program. 1336 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

Council land in Greenview Park, Albany Creek, appears to be suitable for the construction of a child care centre and the Department of Works has been requested to access its suitability. If the land is suitable and if Council is prepared to make the land available, a centre will be constructed in the near future with State and Commonwealth funds." I think that the word "access" that appears in the letter should have read "assess". My information confirms that these details are in order and, apparently, Albany Creek was to receive its child-care facility under that joint Commonwealth/State program— that is, until Minister Chapman intervened. It would appear that the high need priority of the area was to be ignored by the Minister who, rather than being concerned about the needs of her constituents, was more eager to lend a sympathetic ear to the objections of a private child-care centre proprietor in the area. It is typical behaviour from this Minister. Honourable members have heard how, in relation to the Builders Registration Board scandal, she overrode the rights of ordinary people in her endeavours to look after the interests of personal friends. Now, in the administration of her own portfolio, she disregards the findings of her own department that, regardless of the existence of this private day-care centre, Albany Creek was designated "a high need area for the establishment of a child care centre"—and refuses to approve the Greenview Park site. It is just too bad for those Albany Creek residents who need child care. Obviously they are not sufficiently well connected to the Minister who makes the key decisions. But, that is how this Govemment operates—not in the public interest, but at the behest of its mates. Other members will present further examples of political interference in the provision of services to the community within this portfolio. I have already raised the question of the capacity of the Department of Children's Services to adequately enforce its own regulations concerning day-care centres. Certainly, the Government is looking to local govemment to play a key role in this regard. Again we can ask what resources are to be made available for this task. Or is it another example of the State's ducking its responsibilities and, in this case, requiring rate-payers to pick up the tab for one of the responsibilities of State authorities? It certainly has not been the consistent view of the expert advice, which has led to the drafting of this Bill, that local govemment should play such an important role with respect to the enforcement of regulations in relation to day-care centres. Take for example the views of the project team in the 1979 report on the proposed new legislation. I quote from page 97 of Volume I of that report— "It is important that wherever children are cared for apart from family, that this care be made available under license from the department. We would see the department licensing out service delivery, supervision of standards, resource development and joint evaluation." It is highly questionable whether this legislation requires such extensive and co-operative monitoring from the Government and the licensed care-providers. The project team then commented with respect to the role of local authorities— "At the present time, local govemment authorities carry out this function for day care centres." The function referred to is the licensing and regulatory function. The report continues— "Experience would indicate that this should be a departmental function with the local authority providing certificates in relation to health and building requirements. Also fire boards would need to provide certificates in relation to fire safety of the building." It is quite clear that this legislation envisages local government assuming a far higher profile in the regulation of these centres than that report, certainly, considered Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1337

appropriate. However, typically, in this legislation no mention is made of how local government is to provide the necessary resources for this task. The Opposition will not oppose the passage of this Bill; indeed, the Bill is long overdue. However, the Opposition has serious reservations about the implementation of the system as outlined in the Bill. Overall, it is concerned that this review of temporary care measures will be hamstmng by the continuing reluctance of the Queensland Government to provide adequate financial resources for our welfare system. The Opposition endorses, in particular, a number of aspects. For example, the decision to preserve in law the existing parent/child relationship in cases in which children go into temporary care is applauded and welcomed. I will seek leave to incorporate two tables in Hansard. The first table shows the actual expenditures of the Department of Children's Services for the period from 1979 to the present time and contrasts this actual level of spending with the level of spending required to keep the allocation—that is, the 1979-80 allocation—constant in real dollars. I now seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INFLATION RATE REQUIRED EXPENDITURE (to maintain previous years funding in real terms) $ 1979-80 29,166,057 — 1980-81 27,091,213 8.8 31,732,679 1981-82 26,481,536 10.07 29,989,972 1982-83 30,258,237 11.2 29,447,468 1983-84 33,925,066 3.9 31,438,308 1984-85 39,157,480 6.7 36,198,045 1985-86 45,945,701 8.4 42,446,708 1986-87 •54,315,100 * 8.0 49,621,357 APPROPRIATION ONLY PROJECTED. Mr HAMILL: The table shows that in 1980-81 and 1981-82 spending on children's services declined in actual terms—in other words, not only did it not keep up with inflation, but in actual dollar terms it fell. Spending in real terms fell in every year prior to the election of the Hawke Labor Govemment. It has been only because of the Federal Govemment's strong support for community welfare services that spending has increased in real terms in each of the last four years. Mr Littleproud: They mined the economy. They had to spend more money. Mr HAMILL: The Queensland Govemment has always been very happy to accept the money. It has never been backward in accepting money which it then claims to be its own when it is spending the money. Recently, when the Minister indicated that this Govemment was giving stronger support for licensed institutions and other community organisations, she conveniently forgot about Commonwealth allocations. The seriousness of this financial strait-jacket placed upon welfare spending by Liberal and National Governments, both at a State and Commonwealth level, prior to 1983 can more easily be appreciated in the second table which compares actual expenditure with the required real expenditure to maintain spending at 1979-80 real dollar levels. Despite the massive welfare interest from the Commonwealth over the last four years, actual expenditure in Queensland may only outstrip real expenditure in 1979-80 terms in the current financial year. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. 1338 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

TUAL EXPENDITURE INFLATION RATE REQUIRED REAL EXPENDITURE $ *** 1979-80 29,166,057 — 1980-81 27,091,213 8.8 31,732,670 1981-82 26,481,536 10.7 35,128,065 1982-83 30,258,327 11.2 39,062,408 1983-84 33,925,066 3.9 40,585,841 1984-85 39,157,480 6.7 43,305,092 1985-86 45,945,701 8.4 46,942,719 1986-87 •54,315,100 * 8.0 50,698,136 • APPROPRIATION ONLY PROJECTED.

Mr HAMILL: In other words, for seven years, thanks to the neglect of welfare services by this Government and its political compatriots in Canberra, spending in real terms has not been able to surpass the real level of spending in 1979-80. It appears that this year, with a projected appropriation of $54m, which would outstrip the required real expenditure figure of $50.5m, it may do so. In the maintenance and extension of our State's welfare system, a real partnership between the Govemment and non-Government sector is needed. However, if the non- Govemment sector is to adequately fill the role required of it by Government, it must receive adequate support. Likewise, both sectors must come together in the planning and evaluation of programs and in the establishment of proper accountability for the public moneys spent in this important area. This moming in the Minister's statement it could be seen that she has blinkered her views on the needs of families. As I said previously, her blinkered vision extended only to the nuclear family of Mum and Dad and the kids and only gmdgingly then to de facto relationships. A much clearer statement of the Government's intentions in the area of family policy is needed.

If what the Minister said this morning is any indication, despite these legislative enactments, I suspect there will not be much change. Therefore, in this context I think it is fair to ask: is the new Department of Family Services merely a renaming of existing departments, or is the Government reafly embarking on a new focus for policy-making and service delivery? I suspect it is the former. Certainly the Minister's statement this morning gave me no confidence that it is otherwise.

Mrs Chapman: It was not intended to give confidence; it was intended to give common sense.

Mr HAMILL: That is another inane contribution from the Minister, who is known for inanities. In the Minister's statement this morning she excluded from her consideration the needs of 54 per cent of Queensland's families. If that is not inane and if that is not blinkered, I do not know what is. In order that the non-Govemment sector can plan for the future, it is absolutely essential that the Govemment and the Minister, who dwells on inanities, clarify their intentions in relation to what is in fact an absolutely vital area of public policy. Debate, on motion of Mr Powell, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2.30 p.m. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1339

INDUSTRIAL (COMMERCIAL PRACTICES) ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (2.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984-1985 and the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961- 1986 each in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Lester, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (2.31 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act, which was introduced in 1984, has been a useful addition to industrial legislation dealing with dispute situations. It was primarily provided as mirror legislation of sections 45D and 45E of the Federal Trade Practices Act, which deal with secondary boycotts. The Act was widened in 1985 to bring within its scope three categories of disputes between employers and their employees. The legislation has been used sparingly since its introduction, but its greatest value, as in the case with sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, has been as a deterrent to strike activity by unions. Many of the strikes now called on by militant union officials have effects not only on the people of Queensland but also outside the State. Australia's reputation as a reliable trading nation is in question. In these days of strong competition from overseas countries, particularly developing countries, Australia must maintain its export markets. Those markets cannot be jeopardised by unfulfilled and delayed contracts brought about by a few unions in this country. Furthermore, in order to hold a competitive edge over others in the market-place, it is essential that research and development be permitted to be carried out by industry without hindrance from the trade unions. The Australian syndrome of strike now and think later must be replaced by a responsibility from all concemed with trade and commerce. Our export trade and the ability to introduce new means of production are paramount to our future well-being. It is therefore proposed to amend the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act to provide that industrial disputes which have or are likely to have the effect of hindering or preventing another person from engaging in export trade or commerce, or in research or development, be brought within the conduct which may be subject to an injunction under the Act. The Act already provides that seven clear days' notice of a strike is to be given to an employer by a trade union or by those employees intending to participate in the strike. In order to minimise the potential for loss by those not directly involved in the dispute, it is intended to include within the provisions of the Act the requirement that notification also be given in writing to every person likely to suffer loss or damage by reason of the strike who has previously given notice to those intending to strike that he desires to be notified. In-addition, the notification is to specify the conduct which will constitute the strike, and the Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs is also to be notified. The need to notify the Minister in advance of strike action would allow me, as Minister of the day, to monitor industrial activity in the public interest. Other amendments proposed in the Bill include— • machinery changes to several sections to clarify the intent of the sections; • removal of an anomaly to make members of unincorporated associations of employees liable for monetary penalties in the same way as members of incorporated associations are now liable; • clarification of the law with regard to proceedings without a jury unless the court determines otherwise; 1340 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

• widening the ambit of the Act to cover conduct directed at an employer to give preference to employment of members of a particular union over members of another union; and • a provision declaring that financial or other assistance provided to any person by the Crown for the purposes of the Act will not render the Crown liable as for an offence or for costs of the proceedings. It is proposed to extend to this Act certain evidentiary provisions already contained in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under the amendments— • The court is permitted to take judicial notice of a strike or lock-out. • In proving incitement or counselling, it is sufficient to prove the substance of the speech or statement made without proving the actual words used. • It is conclusive evidence in the absence of evidence to the contrary that proof of publication of any speech or statement attributed to any person on behalf of an association of employees in a newspaper or broadcast by radio or television is evidence that the speech or statement was made by the person to whom it was attributed. • The court is permitted to take judicial notice of every national and commercial broadcasting station and television station. The amendments proposed to be made to the Industrial Act are aimed at strengthening the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction in dealing with awards covering research and development projects. In making awards, the commission will not be bound by existing custom or practice; nor will it be required to pay regard to the provisions in other awards. The commission may make interim awards which will allow research and development work to proceed or to be maintained. Methods of operation and machinery being introduced should be safeguarded, and the commission is required to determine the amount of confidentiality to be applied in this area. The amending legislation will have application only to those projects which have a total expenditure in excess of $500,000 over a period not exceeding three years, or in excess of $50,000 in the case of proposed new machinery or methods significantly different from those already in operation. Research and development projects eventually should make a substantial contribution to industry if they are allowed to develop. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McLean, adjourned.

Resumption of Debate at Late Hour of Sitting Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (2.38 p.m.): I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would allow the resumption of the debate to be made an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting." Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1341

Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 38 Ahern Jennings Ardill Shaw Alison Katter Beanland Sherlock Austin Lane Beard Smith Berghofer Lester Braddy Smyth Bjelke-Petersen McCauley Burns Underwood Booth McKechnie Campbell Vaughan Borbidge McPhie Casey Warburton Burreket Menzel Comben Warner Chapman Muntz D'Arcy Wells Clauson Neal De Lacy White Cooper Nelson Eaton Yewdale Elliott Newton Gibbs, R. J. Fraser Powell Hamill Gately Randell Hayward Gibbs, I. J. Row Innes Gilmore Sherrin Knox Glasson Simpson Lee Gunn Slack Lickiss Harper Stephan McEIligott Harvey Stoneman Mackenroth Henderson Tenni McLean Hinton Milliner Hinze Tellers: Palaszczuk Tellers: Hobbs FitzGerald Prest Davis Hynd Littleproud Schuntner Gygar Resolved in the affirmative.

FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BILL Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time-limit Order Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (2.44 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "(a) That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the Family and Youth Services Bill from passing through all its remaining stages at this day's sitting, all of its remaining stages to be passed by 5.30 p.m. (b) That, at the time so specified all remaining questions, if any, shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, including the two amendments to be moved by the Minister, without any further amendment or debate and, where applicable, remaining questions on the clauses of the Bill shall be put en bloc." 1342 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 38 Ahern Jennings Ardill Shaw Alison Katter Beanland Sherlock Austin Lane Beard Smith Berghofer Lester Braddy Smyth Bjelke-Petersen McCauley Bums Underwood Booth McKechnie Campbell Vaughan Borbidge McPhie Casey Warburton Burreket Menzel Comben Warner Chapman Muntz D'Arcy Wells Clauson Neal De Lacy White Cooper Nelson Eaton Yewdale Elliott Newton Gibbs, R. J. Fraser Powell Hamill Gately Randell Hayward Gibbs, I. J. Row Innes Gilmore Sherrin Knox Glasson Simpson Lee Gunn Slack Lickiss Harper Stephan McEIligott Harvey Stoneman Mackenroth Henderson Tenni McLean Hinton Milliner Hinze Tellers: Palaszczuk Tellers: Hobbs FitzGerald Prest Davis Hynd Littleproud Schuntner Gygar ved in the affirmative. Second Reading Debate resumed (see p. 958). Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (2.49 p.m.): In supporting the Bill, I commend the Minister and her department on its introduction. I also congratulate the Minister on her handling of the Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs portfolio. The Bill has been in the pipeline for quite some time. Welfare legislation, generally, must be carefully considered, particularly on such a controversial subject as that covered by this Bill. Without the delay that has occurred and the response that has been forthcoming to the Bill, it would be impossible to achieve any consensus at all. Some of the claims made by the honourable member for Ipswich, Mr Hamill, seem to be very far out and very far away from the idea of the reasonable attitude in the community. Ms Warner: It was a reasonable speech. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member claims that it was a reasonable speech, but I am not of that view. I do not know where the honourable member for Ipswich formulated his ideas. He mentioned that no real provision was made for more resources. I ask: what better resources exist from which to utilise the fostering of children than a stable family unit? What better resources has the community than the stability of the family unit that can be given to young people who have gone through a very traumatic experience? If the natural parents can contribute to the welfare of the children, so much the better. Large sums of money are not required to achieve stability for the children. I am surprised and amazed that the Opposition speaks of more funding. Opposition members speak as though financial resources will be the answer to the problems of the split family environment. Mr Borbidge: They don't believe in value for the tax dollar. Mr STEPHAN: No, they do not believe in value for the tax dollar. I wonder whether the Federal Government is prepared to increase its taxes to provide the funds Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1343

that will be required in the circumstances. I note that Mr Hawke has not provided extra funding. Mr Hamill: It is getting value for the tax dollar. I was talking about the efficiency audit and the criticisms of it. Mr STEPHAN: You are talking about funding again. Mr Hawke does not think that. He has cut back the amount of child endowment severely in real terms. If he believes that, why is he cutting back the funding and adopting that attitude? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr STEPHAN: In some of those instances Mr Hawke is letting the people down. The National Party supports the family. In 1984, which was Queensland's Year of the Family, the National Party highlighted the family unit as being a requirement in society and something to look up to. I tum to the amount of tied funding coming from the Federal Government. In his comments, the honourable member for Ipswich made the point that not too much money was being provided through the State Budget. The Federal Govemment may be providing more funding than is the Queensland Govemment, but the money is being provided by taxes imposed on the people of Queensland. I question why much of the money is tied to specific purposes. The Queensland Govemment is not given free rein. In many instances, the Federal Govemment believes that it knows what the Queensland Govem­ ment requires, rather than allowing it to decide for itself Many of the services provided in Queensland have had to be provided as a result of the difficult times that young people go through in the early years of their life, from years 1 to 7, which are very important in a child's development. Some of the youth crisis services available at the moment would never be required if children with problems had had the support of their parents—be it the mother or the father—or a brother or whatever. I point out that a couple of years ago I was responsible for the setting up of a youth crisis service that is presently known as the Gympie and District Youth Support Scheme. It was necessary to provide emergency aid to homeless youth in terms of both accommodation and food. The demands being made on the service are rapidly exceeding the ability of the service to cope with an ever-worsening problem. The situation is not improving and the increased demands are not helping. In an attempt to cope, the youth crisis service has deemed it necessary to expand. It has been set up along lines similar to those of other organisations that operate in the State. Previously, I compUmented the Salvation Army for its efforts and the work that it does, which is similar to the work that is being done by other organisations, such as church groups, from time to time. The Salvation Army has played a very real and important role in giving support and encouragement and in providing shelter. The Salvation Army is a voluntary organisation and there is nothing better or more efficient than that type of organisation because of what it is able to do with a httle bit of extra support by way of subsidy. I do not feel that complete funding of such organisations is necessary. I do not believe that the most efficient method is 100 per cent funding of those organisations. The provision of 100 per cent funding for, say, one person to be employed for eight hours a day, five days a week would not be sufficient to look after young people who get up to a lot of silly nonsense in the early hours of the moming. Two or three people may need to be fully employed and, if the Govemment was responsible for all funding, the level of funding would soon get out of hand, to the extent that $100,000 would go nowhere at all. That is the level of funding that is going into those kinds of youth support services. Such an amount could be better spent by being given to voluntary organisations or family support groups such as those that are operated by the Church of England in Gympie, which I will mention later. This legislation is but one of a series of Bills relating to welfare matters which the Minister will be introducing during the life of this Parliament. From my reading of the 1344 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

Bill, it has two important features. Firstly, it clearly recognises the integrity and value of the family in our society. Just a moment ago, I pointed out that the family unit is the basis of our society. I believe that it is incumbent upon all honourable members to do everything within our power to preserve this way of life for the benefit of future generations and our community; to promote and strengthen the family unit; and to foster sharing and supportive relationships within families in ideas, times, interests and concerns that affect family members. Secondly, the legislation offers encouragement to the voluntary sector to share with the Govemment in providing welfare services. In Queensland, there has been a long history of co-operation between the department and the voluntary sector, particularly denominational bodies, in the provision of services for children and young people. I mentioned eariier that in the area of my electorate, a family group home is operated by the Anglican Church, which provides an excellent service for the children of the district who need alternative care. This home provides a necessary facility in Gympie and contact is maintained with the Department of Children's Services in respect of the children who go to live there. EstabUshment of the family group home is a fine example of how the welfare dollar can be stretched by co-operation being established between the Govemment and other welfare agencies. Expertise and knowledge of local problems can be of great assistance. I congratulate the local community, the committee and the Anglican Church on their very active role in and dedication to the establishment of that particular family group home. I also point out that the State Govemment contributed an amount of $68,000 in respect of that group home. From time to time, the honourable member for Ipswich made the point in his speech that no money had been expended by the Govemment because no money was available. That is just one example of money being expended on the establishment of that particular home, as well as funds being provided to meet the ongoing cost of maintenance and support of house-parents who look after the young people 24 hours a day. At present, about eight young people are staying in that particular home. The Anglican Church is providing half the capital funding and the Govemment is providing the other half Certain equipment in the family group home which wears out or needs to be replaced is also funded. The department pays $57.95 per week per child in the family group home, and in addition two staff positions are funded. That is a clear example in my own area of where the Govemment is co-operating with the voluntary sector. In that particular case it is the Anglican Church. In other cases it is other churches and other voluntary organisations and groups. That co-operation takes the form of considerable financial assistance and other kinds of support. Under the terms of the Bill, that sort of co-operation will continue and will be extended to different types of agencies. I also draw attention to clause 28 of the Bill, which deals with voluntary arrangements for the care of children. That clause empowers the permanent head to pay the Ucensee of a voluntary agency to provide temporary care for children. The Govemment is not dumping children on the voluntary sector or failing to recognise its financial responsibility for assisting the voluntary sector. That cannot be overemphasised. It is the voluntary sector in which so much interest is shown and from which so much support comes. A little bit of encouragement goes a very long way. This Government is not concerned with building a huge welfare bureaucracy which either has or is thought to have a monopoly of expertise. The expertise is in the environment of stable parents in the family unit and the home environment. Those people have gone through the school of hard knocks and in many instances have had to look after their own children who have had their own particular problems. That is far different to the situation in which the advisers and people concerned have not had that same close contact with their own family. The result of building such a bureaucracy is to encourage dependence. Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1345

Instead of trying to solve their problems, parents and others begin to doubt their capacity to do so and look to Big Brother welfare for solutions. For some families it leads beyond dependence to a denial of their responsibilities and a dumping of children on the State. The Government believes—and this is reflected in the Bill—that parents must live up to their responsibilities; they must be assisted, encouraged and empowered to accept those responsibilities. The family is the principal building block of a stable society. I also refer honourable members to clause 14 (2) of the Bill relating to the provision requiring the permanent head, in developing programs and making grants to carry them out, to consider the objects of those programs; one of those objects being the promotion and protection of family life. The underlying requirement of the family is that it is a corner-stone of the stable foundation upon which young children can develop and lean. The provisions of Part IV of the Bill which allow for voluntary arrangements for the care of children are once again implicitly supportive of families. They provide an alternative to the provisions of the Children's Services Act which allows the Director to declare a child to be in his guardianship. Many families under temporary stress are reluctant to approach the department because they lose the guardianship of their children if they are declared to be in the care of the Director. It is very important that encouragement is given and that voluntary arrangements are reached with other families in close proximity, whether they be relations or friends, or even somebody that they may not know, but knowing full well that, in three months, six months or whenever they find that that period of stress is completed, whenever they find that they are able to cope so much better, they will then be able to return to the Children's Services Department and be able to convince its officers that they have no problems at all and that the children will be able to be returned to them. Under that sort of a voluntary arrangement some of those problems can be stopped before they start. That encourages natural parents to unload some of their problems before they become too much for them. That prevents children from being criticised and abused, and nobody is the winner under an arrangement of that type. Under the provisions of the Bill before the House, parents temporarily under stress can approach either the department or a licensed agency and enter into an arrangement for their children to be placed in temporary care. Under the arrangement the parents do not lose their rights to guardianship. That is clearly spelt out in clause 27 (a) of the Bill, which states— "The fact that an arrangement has been entered into with respect to a child does not affect the rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities of a person who is the guardian of the child or the person in whose custody the child is placed." The keynote of this section is respect for the integrity of the family and a recognition that there are times when families are under stress and that they need to be able to make secure arrangements for- the care of their children. I do not wish to take up the theme of prevention of child abuse but I can foresee that the provisions of this section may well have a significant role in reducing the incidence of child abuse. As I pointed out earlier in my speech, many young people would not now be in difficult circumstances if they had had the necessary stability and influence when they were in their very formative years. Parents who recognise that they are under stress and who feel that they may well physically abuse their children will be able to enter into an arrangement which is time- limited until they have dealt with the particular stressful situation. When the stressful situation disappears or the parents have received some assistance, they will be able to have the child back. It will not be locked into the guardianship of the State and will not suffer the stigma that goes with that. Provided the natural parents can cope, once again the child will be able to enter into the care, protection, love and support of its natural parents. 1346 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

I congratulate the Minister on this Bill, which recognises the inherent strength of the family and the vital role that the voluntary sector has played in the provision of services to families and the community generally and encourages the voluntary and denominational sector to extend these services. Provided the Govemment can encourage those groups and receive their full support, I have every confidence in the success of the scheme. It will give great support to a lansge number of young people. Ms WARNER (South Brisbane) (3.07 p.im.)): I rise to speak on a subject-matter that has been before the people of Queensland for msme time. As my colleague the member for Ipswich said, over many years constartt .aiiixd mrontinuous reviews have been conducted into this area. The attempt by the former Minister that produced a Green Paper created enormous debate. At the time of that exercise a number of points were made that could have been taken up in the Bill before the House. However, this Bill offers the people of Queensland none of that ingenuity or in fact any kind of a different approach. It provides for very much the same as already exists. Here and there a few words have been changed. Of course, some parts of the Bill require commendation. One is the insistence that children be fostered or cared for by people of similar cultural and ethnic background. That is a useful provision that needs to be commended. The other commendable aspect is that parents are not required to give up the total guardianship of their children. That is a welcome relief Apart from those things, this piece of legislation offers very little in the way of any new direction or commitment or any kind of reform. For a long time this has been an area that has been crying out for reform. Over the years, bedevilled by understaffing, poor staff morale and moribund stmctures, the Department of Children's Services has lurched from crisis to crisis. The Bill does nothing to address those problems. In fact, it is totally silent on the issue except that, ironically, it indirectly takes up the problem of understaffing in that the person who raised that question in a report to the Govemment, Mr Graham Zerk, has had his position totally abolished. I imagine that he lodged that report with some degree of trepidation but, in doing so, he maintained his professional integrity. I presume that his fate is a signal to other members of the public service who might prefer to put their professional ethics before their political allegiances. Of course, in the State of (Queensland, that is a fairly dangerous thing to do. I would go so far as to say that in many ways welfare professionals throughout this State, whether they are involved in community agencies or in the department, are fairly uniform in their round criticism of the Govemment's lack of resourcing of the welfare sector, as is anybody who has any information or expertise on the subject. Everybody knows that the problems that beset society stmcturally are not overcome just by allocating money to Govemment departments to try to deal with them. A major reason why people fall into what are termed social problems is that they suffer from poverty, are unable to cope, and are not being given the tools by society through which they can survive. Govemment members would probably say, "That is their own fault and therefore we can just discard them." I would have thought that, having under her control the Department of Children's Services, which has people who actually understand the problems, perhaps the Minister would have leamed that in most cases it is not their own fault. In fact, if the Minister views people in that way, she cannot conduct her portfolio with any kind of sensitivity or compassion. The problem with this piece of legislation—and I look forward to future legislation because perhaps it will not be as lacking as this legislation—is that it ignores the basic underlying problems within our social stracture that create situations in which children are neglected or abused or simply become unmanageable. The reasons why these things happen are as numerous and as varied as are the varieties of life-styles that exist within the community. It is not as simple as the Minister would have honourable members believe when she blindly asserts that the fundamental basis of society is the family. This moming, in the interests of clarity, and for the benefit of honourable members, the Minister defined Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1347 what a family is. She said that it is basically Mum and Dad, who are married, and the kids. Perhaps I can suggest an alternative Mrs Chapman: I said "preferred". Ms WARNER: The Minister would prefer that. Unfortunately, it seems that the community does not, and that is the Minister's problem. Perhaps I could give a more realistic and comprehensive definition of the family so that people can be dealt with as they really are rather than how the Minister wishes them to be. It must be remembered that she is talking about a minority of people within the community. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair and always refer to the Minister as "the Minister". Ms WARNER: I thought that I did refer to her as "the Minister". Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to speak through the Chair and to refer to the Minister by her proper title. Ms WARNER: I think that that could be grammatically difficult, Mr Speaker. I will give an altemative and perhaps more comprehensive definition of the term "family", that is, that it consists of two or more persons who live in the same household and are related to each other by blood, marriage or adoption. If that kind of definition of the family is used, maybe the needs of all the people in Queensland could be catered for rather than just the ones that the Minister favours. While I am on the topic of favouritism or whom the Minister will choose to recognise as having needs and whom the Minister will not choose to recognise as having needs, I mention an example that my colleague put forward regarding the Minister and her own electorate of Pine Rivers. I put forward another example in the Hervey Bay area, where apparently prior to the election the Minister was in the electorate and had promised a number of people there that a child-care centre would be established. The Children's Services child-care planning committee considered that matter and discovered that that area was not an area of high priority for the development of a child-care centre. However, when the committee was deliberating, the Minister actually sent a senior officer along to the committee to argue that the committee had used the wrong statistics and that it should change its mind on the subject. Of course, the committee agreed to review the statistics on the subject. However, hopefully it will not be bowing to that kind of political pressure. I would hope that that would not be the case. Perhaps the Minister would like to make a comment in her reply—if, of course, she has time, because the Bill has been guillotined and therefore the fairly important subject of welfare again is shoved into the background. The Govemment would prefer to talk about the policies of the New Right, which do not include resources of stmctures or any arguments about welfare. This piece of legislation ignores the basic underlying problems within our social stmcture that create the problems that children face. One of the problems that the Minister has in defining the family as she has so defined it is that it is unrealistic, because those families exist only in the minority. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect that very isolated group of people—Mum, Dad and the kids— to cater adequately for all the economic, social and emotional needs of the children. The fact that is bemoaned very much by Govemment members is that the nuclear family, as it has come to be known, has a propensity to break down. It breaks down and divorce occurs. Altematively, if that does not happen, quite often the children themselves are at risk and have to be taken away. The Minister should show some compassion for families in that situation and not say, "You are the backbone of society, so get on with it." That is not good enough. Some stmctural support, advice, help and resources have to be put in place to assist 1348 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

people to deal with their everyday problems. Their everyday problems are the same as everyone else's problems: work, housing, food, education and emotional support. Those problems are common to all, and some people, for one reason or another, are not able to cope. When those things happen it is up to the rest of the community to have some compassion for that lack of ability and not describe those people as pathological, which is what the Minister did in her speech. She referred to a number of families as pathological because they were not able to deal with the needs of their children. I quote directly, "The pathology of some families". "Pathology" means sickness. The argument that is before the House in this legislation is that when some families get sick, the children have to be taken from those families and put into so-called healthy families, that is, families that have not broken down yet under the enormous strains of everyday life. These children who are subject to abuse or neglect or who are uncontrollable have the additional trauma of being separated from their families and are put into regular, ordinary, everyday families who do not have any particular skills in those areas. In addition, there is a minimum amount of resourcing and background work, because, as all honourable members are aware and as has been described by a number of people, the Department of Children's Services is understaffed. The Minister is going to put children in that situation, and thinks that it will solve the problem. It will not solve the problem. In fact, it could lead to the break-down of a second family, as well as the family from which the child has come. Anyone who has had any experience of traumatised children knows that there are no quick, simple, fix-it, commonsense solutions to what are extremely grave emotional problems which have resulted from a number of traumatic experiences. This is not necessarily the fault of the families because they are sick, but is necessarily the result of isolated units of people being asked to put up with the pressures of unemployment, loneliness, poverty and lack of housing. These are the areas that this Government should be looking at if it is to achieve a society in which everyone is deemed to be healthy and can cope on everyone else's terms, and not a society in which there is a hierarchy of people, some of whom are at the top, can cope very well and do not care about anybody else. It seems to me that the Minister's portfolio is an extremely sensitive one. I ask the Minister whether, out of the goodness of her heart, she could occasionally look at some of the social problems that are faced by other people and, instead of condemning those people as she has condemned single women in an outrage of self-righteousness—those people who produce and rear children for the next generation—because of their so-called love life, think to herself, with some degree of Christian charity, "There but for the grace of God go I." If she could think that for one moment, maybe welfare in this State would begin to look upwards and the people in her department would have more confidence in the way the department is being restmctured, in the kinds of things that are happening and about whether or not the Minister will be fighting for increased allocations in the Budget in order that departmental officials can do their jobs. Those people in the department are stmggling. They are stmggling not only against the lack of funding and under-resourcing, but also against the narrow-minded attitudes that prevail within the Govemment arid on the part of the Minister in regard to the range of social problems that this Govemment and society are dealing with. One of the problems about the nuclear family and basing everything on it is that the nuclear family is an unstable unit. Historically, it has not existed for very long, and for very good reason. Such situations are not very satisfying emotionally. The types of societies that have endured longer are those in which the extended family has been predominant, in which the mother is not solely responsible for the rearing of children by herself and where some help is provided. Sometimes, people are moved from inner- city environments in which their family and friends are near them and placed in Housing Commission areas in outer suburbs where the family support and stmcture, the other relatives—the uncles, the aunties, the cousins—and the friends are not there. Very often, six months after a couple move into their new beaut house, which might be very nice physically, the marriage breaks down. Marriages require something more than just the Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1349

two people in them and a sense of justice; they require some kind of social support with some type of compassion. It is no good for the Minister to say, "That is the way people should be, and if they are not like that, they are pathological." That will not help at all. Unfortunately, such attitudes prevent people within the Minister's department from dealing with the matter that is before them. People should be looked upon as persons who are basically like oneself, not as people to whom one does good. I refer to people who basically have the same needs. Mrs Chapman: Responsible, do you mean? Ms WARNER: Everybody is responsible for everyone else, and that includes the Minister. Mrs Chapman: That is a socialistic attitude. Ms WARNER: I suggest that if we had that type of attitude, perhaps many of the present societal problems and the increased incidence of child abuse and all the other social problems would not be the problems of only those people, they would be the problems of all of us. They are the problems of the social stmcture that we preside upon in this Parliament. Therefore, it is the responsibility of members of Parliament to make sure that there is adequate housing. It is our responsibility to ensure that there is adequate employment and it is our responsibility to ensure that, when people have problems because something goes wrong, there is a safety net and that that safety net is a welfare system that is sensitised to those problems. It should not be a welfare system that bases its idea of society on something that is fiction, such as the nuclear family, because that is what the nuclear family is. The legislation offers no basic answers to the major problems that face us. The voluntary sector has been referred to in great detail. The voluntary sector can be looked at in a number of different ways. Community agencies offer many and varied responses to a number of problems with which the department deals. In themselves, they are valuable resources. If one talks to the people who work in those agencies, whether it be the Salvation Army, the Youth Advocacy Centre, the Migrant Resource Centre, or a whole range of other agencies that exist in the non-Government sector, one will find that the professional people, who have an understanding of the basic stmctural problems in our society that cause the social problems to which the Minister should be attending in her department, will say that there is a need for greater co-ordination and a greater stmctured response to what is a stmctural problem within our community and that those agencies should be given the funding that is necessary to carry out the work for which they have been set up. Unfortunately, many agencies have to spend as much time in the collection of funds, as charities do, as they do in actually carrying out the work that is required of them. A recent survey conducted amongst those non-Govemment agencies showed that virtually 100 per cent of the people from the conservative side and the less-conservative side of the agencies agreed that the Govemment was underresourcing the area and that it was depriving those agencies of resources. If those agencies cannot deal with a particular problem, they would like to know where help can be obtained. Hopefully, that help will be provided by the Government's network. There is no concept of networking in all of this. The whole idea of allowing voluntary workers without training and professional skills to assume the statutory responsibilities that will now be administered by the permanent head of the department, rather than necessarily by a welfare professional, means that the welfare service delivery area will fall into the hands of people who are isolated one from the other, because they are care-givers on an individual basis. They have neither training nor skills and receive very little to recompense them for that work. Perhaps the Minister has some ideas about bringing those people together so that they may discuss their mutual difficulties. However, there is nothing in the legislation that suggests that there will be a networking stmcture for all of the people who are involved in the delivery of welfare in this State. That is a serious omission, because 1350 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

only by the exchange of information between people working in that field will better ways of dealing with the problem be found. That is singularly lacking in the legislation. I have complained previously that it seems as though the Opposition is going to be cut off fairly quickly in this debate. Mr McPhie: You are wasting your time telling us that again. Ms WARNER: I am not wasting time, because I believe that the point needs to be made long and hard that this Govemment does not spend enough time and care on, or place enough resources into, the welfare sector. As a result, Queenslanders are suffering. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (3.27 p.m.): I support the Family and Youth Services Bill that is now before the House. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the somewhat limited contributions from Opposition members. I very much resent the inference that the Minister and this Government are neither compassionate nor caring towards those people in the community who are less fortunate than ourselves. The fact that Opposition members are making those sorts of brash and unsubstan­ tiated statements to try and score a few political points in the great game that they play in this House shows that they do not know the Minister, the department or the Govemment. Mr Hamill: Your attitude speaks much louder than your words. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member who interjects is the very same member who bored this Parliament silly for approximately one hour earlier today. I suggest that he might like to sit quietly and listen to the debate, because he might learn something from those members of this Parliament, other than members of the Labor Party, who wish to make contributions to this very important debate. A very great difference in philosphy has emerged between the Labor Party and the National Party Govemment. The solutions that have been put forward by the two Opposition spokesmen have revolved around big Government and big spending funded by big taxes. Those are the Opposition's solutions to the welfare problems of Queensland and Australia—we have to spend more and find more money. Nothing was said about getting value for the welfare dollar and the tax dollar. Mr Hamill: You must have been asleep at that time. Mr BORBIDGE: I have never heard the honourable member support the Queensland Govemment each year when it has mounted its case to Canberra about the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars by which this State is underfunded. However, he will always contribute to a debate such as this and say that the Govemment should be spending more money. I invite the honourable member to inform the House as to what taxes he would introduce in Queensland to finance the big promises that he and his colleagues make. The majority of people in the community believe that the more prosperous a private-enterprise economy is, the less the welfare budget and costs will be in the final analysis. The more suppressed and depressed a private-enterprise economy becomes, and the higher the levels of taxation, interest rates and unemployment become, the greater the welfare bill will be for the entire community. The Government does not believe that we can keep spending more and keep raising taxes when we know that programs are in place that are doing a fine job, in consultation with many volunteer organisations throughout Queensland, in meeting the legitimate requirements and needs of the people of Queensland. I congratulate the Minister and her department for the fine job that they are doing, the great contribution that they are making and the professionalism that they display daily. There would be few departments with which members of Parliament have as regular and as frequent contact concerning cases of extreme personal hardship. The Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1351

dedication and achievements of the department that go unheralded in the community should be noted in a debate such as this. The legislation before the Parliament places significant emphasis on the aims that the various programs within the Department of Family Services will achieve. They are as follows— the promotion and protection of family life; the development and strengthening of local neighbourhood and community services; the preservation and fostering of independence of individuals; the provision of assistance to persons who are disadvantaged or disabled; or any other object which is consistent with the objects of the Bill. As other members have pointed out, there is considerable emphasis on encouraging the voluntary sector to assist in the achievement of those objectives. That is particularly reflected in clause 14 (2) of the Bill. The Govemment, through the department, has already a large number of grant programs in place, but by placing those programs in statute the Minister is emphasising the importance of such grants and, in a way, inviting the voluntary sector to come forward and apply. So a special partnership exists between the Government and the community working together to overcome the very many problems that so many people face daily. I would like to give some specific examples from my own electorate of Surfers Paradise of the way in which the department makes grants to the voluntary sector. A grant is made to Gold Coast Lifeline for the cost of training and recmiting volunteers. Under the joint Commonwealth/State Youth Supported Accommodation Program, the Gold Coast Project for Homeless Youth receives a grant of $83,249 for the estabUshment of a youth refuge. St John's Drop-in Centre has received a grant of $7,000 for the provision of meals services. This is a particularly good example of a denomination, the voluntary sector and the Govemment co-operating. The premises of the St John's Church are made available rent free so that a voluntary agency can operate from them, and funds to assist are made available by the Govemment. Irwin Blowers House, established by the Churches of Christ to provide care for children in the care of the Director, Department of Children's Services, receives a grant of $59,663. In addition. Lifeline Gold Coast receives a 100 per cent subsidy on the salary of a social worker to the extent of $15,705 per year. They are all clear examples of the Govemment's working closely with the community, those volunteer organisations and many others. I pay tribute to the many people who in a voluntary capacity contribute their time, efforts and own resources to make those establishments and others work, and work properly. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to the late Irwin Blowers, after whom Irwin Blowers House was named. Senior Constable Irwin Blowers was responsible for the establishment of the juvenile bureau on the Gold Coast and pioneered significant police work in the Gold Coast region for disadvantaged young people and their families. He recognised the need for an emergency accommodation facility to be available when there was a major family crisis, thus alleviating the need for holding juveniles in the watchhouse or at departmental facilities in Brisbane. It is because of Irwin Blowers' great commitment and concem for young people that the Churches of Christ resolved that this project should serve as a memorial to his work—another example of an unheralded project in the community that should be recognised during a debate such as this. The Minister's department is already deeply involved in the making of grants to voluntary agencies by a process of administrative arrangement. The importance of these 1352 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

grants has been recognised, and the broad general framework in which they are to be made has been placed in statute. I now refer to that section of the legislation dealing with licences. This is an extension of the existing provision of licensing residential-care facilities. Usually, residential-care facilities provide medium to long-term care to children who are in the guardianship of the Director, Department of Children's Services. These licensed residential-care facilities are dotted throughout the State, ranging from Boys Town with its outstanding program at Beaudesert to small family group homes scattered throughout the State. The honourable member for Gympie has referred to the family group home in his electorate and I understand there are similar establishments in Ayr, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Bundaberg and Eidsvold. They are in fact scattered throughout the State and are generally funded on a co-operative basis by the department and various denominational agencies, and mn by those denominational agencies. It has been decided that, as well as licensing residential-care facilities, the department will license foster-care agencies. This means that the invitation is open to any segment of the voluntary sector to obtain a licence to operate a foster-care agency to recmit its own foster-parents. These foster-parents will be issued with a certificate of approval by the agency. The department—contrary to what may be alleged by the Opposition both inside the Parliament and outside—is not opting out of foster-care. It will recmit its own foster- parents as necessary and issue them with a certificate; but the invitation is there for the voluntary sector to become engaged in foster-care as well. I would not want to let this debate pass without paying tribute to the great work that foster-parents have done and are doing for the children of this State. If it were not for their dedication, I am quite sure that many children would not be rehabilitated. This rehabilitation takes place because foster-parents demonstrate concern and deep personal care for the children placed with them. Existing foster-parents licensed under the Children's Services Act will remain foster- parents. Clause 65 of the Bill provides that foster-parents already approved will be deemed to have a certificate of approval by the permanent head, so there is no question of those worthy persons who are already foster-parents having to reapply for new certificates. As I have already said, the thmst of the Bill is an invitation to the voluntary sector to become involved in more areas of caring for children, who are the nation's greatest resource. A by-product may well be that more people will come forward and seek to become foster-parents. It is not unlikely that some people would prefer to work with a voluntary or denominational agency than they would with a State department. This preference might be based on the fact that they see a voluntary agency as more personal and closer to their own particular aims and wishes. This legislation addresses that very real need in the community. Last year—and, indeed, eariier this year—I had the privilege of chairing a community- based committee on the Gold Coast called Gold Coast Families for Children. By working with the Department of Children's Services, we were able to find foster-families for children who had a short-term need. That program was particularly successful. As an indication of the problems that the Government faces from time to time, I inform the House that the only comment made about that program by a member of the Opposition, whom I will not name because he is not present in the Chamber, was an attack on that program and ridicule of it. That is unfortunate. That particular program achieved a great deal. I would like to thank the other people who served on the committee. I congratulate the Gold Coast officers of the Department of Children's Services for the role that they played. I say to the Minister that she has a great group of professionals on the Gold Coast which, because it is growing so rapidly, is one of those regions in Queensland where people from time to time do need the help and the assistance that this department makes available and for which this legislation will further pave the way. Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1353

The legislation before the House is most worth while. I have great pleasure in supporting it. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it. Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (3.41 p.m.): I begin by expressing my extreme disap­ pointment at the way in which the passage of this Bill, like so many others in the past few weeks, has been handled. The member for Gympie has already said that the Bill has been in the pipehne for some time. It is not a matter of urgency, therefore, and I certainly object to the gag's being applied to the debate. The Govemment makes much ado about the importance of the family and the natural resources of young people: yet, when those important matters are debated, the debate is limited. The filibuster is used with abandon. In the past weeks in this place it has been seen that the Govemment has not wanted to debate sugar industry legislation. Now it does not want to talk about children and the family. Matters of primary industry and family are fundamental to the National Party's platform, yet the Govemment will not talk about them. The honourable member for Redcliffe, when he was Minister for Welfare Services and responsible for family- related matters, was responsible for the initiatives about which we are speaking today. Indeed, he was instmmental in producing a White Paper—perhaps "White" should be in inverted commas. Mr Hamill: With all due respect to Mr White, they were around before he became a Minister, too. Mr SHERLOCK: No doubt they were. During his time as Minister, Mr White also introduced a draft Bill. Because of the gag that has been applied this aftemoon, Mr White will not be heard in this debate. This debate is important. If it is so important, why not adjoum the debate until more time is available for it? One cannot help but feel suspicious of this Govemment when it uses the gag so frequently. I commend the Minister for her approach to the portfolio generally and for her compassion, energy and interest in what she believes. I believe the portfolio is one that is central to the development of a strong and vibrant Queensland. The family is the focus for succour and for the growth of young people, who are, as the honourable member for Surfers Paradise has said, the greatest and most important natural resource. They do have unbounded energy and enthusiasm, and they project a positivity that the rest of us in society could well follow. The Minister has a positive approach, and she has demonstrated that. I acknowledge the Department of Family Services as a hard­ working department with extremely professional staff whose commitment is not only professional in the way in which they administer the department but is also demonstrated in the real grasp that they have of the issues. I have worked with officers of the department in other capacities and I admire their dedication. In introducing this Bill, the Minister forecast changes in her department that would benefit families and the development of young people. The objectives set out in clause 5 of the Bill are clear and laudable. No-one in this House would disagree with them. However, the Bill completely ignores some of the main issues that concem families and young people in the 1980s and the 1990s. I would have preferred to hear from the Minister, when she was supporting the passage of the Bill, an overview of her policy and philosophies in the whole menu of legislation that she has forecast and to provide this House with a proper perspective rather than to deal with the legislation piecemeal. That is not in the best interests of decision-making or of debate. In her second-reading speech the Minister made two points. Firstly, she spoke about the family environment and said that families are most competent in bringing up children. Secondly, she spoke about the voluntary contribution of community agencies having skills and a commitment to deliver services to children and young people. Last week I said that during Intemational Youth Year, which was just two years ago, young people identified seven major issues about which they were concemed. In

75052—46 1354 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

Queensland, among those focused upon were recreation, education, health, income security, accommodation and law. In discussion with young people during the year there emerged one other concem: the very real fear and concem of nuclear proliferation, the control of nuclear weapons and the fear of nuclear war. During that same time and in my work with young people since, two very clear messages projected by young people have emerged. Firstly, they are looking to our generation in the community for clear standards of guidance and standards of living— what could be termed a code of behaviour—for some semblance of discipline. They want mles. They are prepared to accept mles, but they want some say in setting them. They do not, and they will not, respect us and our generation if we do not set and enforce mles upon them. If as parents and as leaders in the community we do not provide guidance to young people, I believe we lack responsibility. Secondly, and equally importantly, young people are looking to our generation's families and communities as people who will listen to them. They are desperately looking for someone to care for them. They are desperately looking for someone to love them and for someone to express that love. This combination of discipline, if that is the word—perhaps on the one hand it is stability and on the other hand it is love, care and affection—is best provided in families and in community-based agencies and organisations. The family is the comer-stone of the community. This moming the Minister said that a mother, a father and children are the model of the family that she understands. Many other honourable members and I understand the same model. There is a great dilemma, however, created by the single-parent family and the strain that that puts upon the single parent. Some of that strain is brought about by natural causes and by accident. These days in the community most of it is brought about by divorce and by separation. I do not think the community was done any favours when divorce and separation were made so easy. There is a school of thought that it should be made more difficult for people to get married and that perhaps in that way society would leam the value of marriage as the focus of the family. Certainly the break-down in the family unit as we know it has put enormous pressures on the social security system in Australia, and certainly in this State. Any legislation in this House or in other places that shores up family support, that encourages famiUes and that supports married couples to hang in together in spite of difficulties will have my support. Initiatives that caU for so-called freer or enlightened life-styles from which children will suffer or be disadvantaged I cannot support. The family is certainly the most cost-effective way for the community to operate in providing the practical necessities of life. It is certainly the best environment to provide the social development needs of young adults and children. What is needed in Australia and Queensland is a dramatic change in the attitudes of AustraUans. They should leam to stand on their own two feet, to contribute to society and to increase their training for employment. The community needs to stop talking about education as education and commence speaking about training for life. It needs to stop talking about unemployment and commence speaking to young people about job opportunities and employment. I support the idea that parents, preferably two of them, are the best people to create the healthy and positive life-styles that will pull Australia up by the bootstraps again. Everything possible must be done to encourage the adoption and fostering of children in stable family relationships. This Bill seeks to introduce better administrative procedures. If restmcturing the department helps, that is a good thing. As has already been pointed out in this debate, the department could do with a good dose of extra fUnds. I find it difficuh to come to grips with the millions of dollars that are being spent on developments in fields such as horse-racing. I have no particular argument with the horse-racing industry at all, but it is certainly well heeled. I cannot equate the expenditure in many other areas with the lack of resources in serious matters such as child abuse and the lack of resources to Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1355 support the cry that children and the young people of Queensland are its greatest natural resource. I tum now to voluntary agencies in the community which work tirelessly to develop children, young people, those with special needs—handicapped young people and those in disadvantaged areas—and also those in the mainstream of life. Throughout this State countless sporting clubs, police youth clubs, scout and guide groups, boys and girls brigades and allied youth agencies provide training for hundreds of thousands of young people. One example is the organisation with which I have been associated for so long. I refer to the Scout Association and, equally, the Girl Guides Association. Currently, 40 000 young people are receiving training in more than 400 communities throughout the length and breadth of the State. At the end of this year, at Wedderbum in New South Wales, as the first of Australia's bicentennial events, this country wiU host 16 000 young men and women from 78 countries from all over the world, who will come together for the 16th World Scout Jamboree. This is the first time that such an intemational gathering has been held in the southem hemisphere, let alone Australia. For 12 days those young people will take care of themselves and at first hand build bridges of international understanding. At the end of that time those young people will have a positive experience of life which will be unequalled. All of this is possible because of the acquired skills of countless voluntary youth workers who are prepared to give up their time—in this case their Christmas holidays— without any gain or reward. In fact, they pay $300 or $400 for the privilege. Those youth workers give up their time without gain save the satisfaction that that contribution to the community is important. The role of Govemment is to provide support to those voluntary agencies. I applaud the funding of the capital projects that this Govemment and many Governments before it have provided for club facilities, amenities and programs. More support is generally needed, not so much for capital works but particularly for training programs, citizenship development and programs which will develop young people. Many of the community organisations to which I refer are not merely baby-sitting organisations. Those organisations do not just keep people off the street and occupied. They teach young people skills, self-reliance, self-esteem and self-worth, as well as provide leadership opportunities. Those organisations in fact teach young people to take a responsible place in society as responsible adults. The member for Ipswich gave honourable members an extensive overview of statistics and figures relative to the assistance that voluntary workers give in the development of young people. I congratulate the honourable member on his homework and contribution to the debate. The contribution by voluntary workers cannot be measured or costed, nor do the volunteers who carry out this important work want it costed. They do it for love. When those people stop doing it for love, the community will lose out. The volunteers do not want recognition; they want support. The Minister has said that this is the first of a series of Bills to be introduced dealing with the care and protection of children and the care and control of juvenile offenders. I look forward to the introduction of the remainder of the legislation. As I said, it would be helpful indeed if, at an early date, the Minister could provide for the Parliament an overview of her whole plan. I commend the Govemment for the work that it is doing in the care and control of juvenile offenders and for the facilities that I have seen thus far. The facilities vary from the older Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Centre at Windsor to the recently opened centre at Wacol. Those two institutions, as well as Westbrook—as different as they are—are nevertheless common in one aspect, and that is the care that the staff of those institutions provide for the young residents and the professional competence with which they carry 1356 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

out their duties. In that environment it is difficult to imagine that some of these young residents are guilty of serious offences. Through the Minister I commend the staff of those institutions for their positive attitude and the real care that they provide and the concern that they show. They are tmly working to rehabilitate young lives in Queensland. I sound a waming note in regard to the search to provide those better facilities. This Govemment must not go overboard and create unreal expectations in the lives of these young offenders, who perhaps never in their lives before have come into contact with so much sporting equipment or extensive recreational facilities. Whilst I strongly support the thmst of training 8 or 10 young people in a community, for example, to prepare, serve and clear away after their own meals, I wonder about the necessity for all of the modem gadgets, such as microwave ovens and dishwashers in that kind of environment. It is very easy to provide money and capital resources. Again and again the Govemment has demonstrated that it is prepared to implement capital programs without the infrastmcture to properly and adequately use the facilities provided. Every dollar that is spent in any capital program requires a futher dollar for the maintenance of those capital facilities and a further dollar or two for the human and other resources that are required to operate them. The provision of family and youth services is people intensive. I support many of the statements made by the honourable member for Ipswich on this matter, including his reference to the lack of sufficient funds for welfare in this State. I call upon the Minister to unfold the rest of the plan. Everyone is anxious to know what it is. I agree that young people are Queensland's greatest natural resource, and, when it makes that statement, this Govemment needs to demonstrate that it does mean business. Last night I was appalled when I heard that Cabinet had not only changed the school holidays for the coming year, but also done so without any consultation whatsoever. 1986 has gone down on record as the year in which the Govemment stole Christmas from many small businesses, when it failed to consult or wam business about the trading hours issue. In 1987, the Govemment may well rob Year 12 students of the opportunity of acquiring vital TE score points that an extra week of intensive study might provide, which perhaps may make the difference between having a career opportunity or not. In 1988, this Govemment might well rob many families of the opportunity of having a summer holiday, which they have booked a year ahead. Many businessmen and certainly many farmers take their holidays after the intensive Christmas period, and next year that opportunity will be lost to them. The Govemment must leam the lesson that lack of consultation costs, and costs everyone. It dries up initiative, and if continued the Govemment will lose support. This State cannot afford to lose the support of concemed Queenslanders who are prepared to adopt and foster children and not to encourage people to spend countless hours doing voluntary work with young people and children. The Government relies heavily on the support of people, and it cannot continue to ignore that fact. The Liberal Party will support this Bill. It looks forward with great anticipation to the introduction of fUrther episodes of legislation and the opportunity, one hopes, to fully debate them. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (3.58 p.m.): I rise to support the Family and Youth Services Bill. As has already been stated, I acknowledge that this Bill is part of a group of Bills to come before this House which have the aim of abolishing the Department of Children's Services and reorganising the Department of Welfare Services in such a way that it will benefit today's society. I acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Ashgrove. He stated that he was keen to see the rest of the legislation come forward. I can understand that. If the honourable member bears with the Govemment, the legislation will be forthcoming in the August session. I noted during the debate that the Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1357

Opposition's shadow spokesman for welfare services, the honourable member for Ipswich, Mr Hamill, was his usual self and was very critical of the Minister. I will quote from the speech that he made during the Address in Reply debate. He stated— "Our Minister is guility of such imbalance in her public utterances on this subject. Like a voyeur, this Minister sensationalises cases involving the sexual abuse of children as if they represent typical cases of child abuse. The fact is that those cases are not typical." I think that Mr Hamill misquoted the Minister. The making of statements by the Minister coincided with a great deal of media coverage of instances of sexual abuse. Honourable members will also recall that at that time the Sturgess report was very much to the fore. In my work with the Minister it has been my experience that she has a very close relationship with society. She goes about her work with compassion. She has a definite warmth of personality. At times, when it is necessary, she is also capable of doing some straight talking, and she has to be admired for that. Therefore, I believe that the remarks made by the member for Ipswich during his Address in Reply speech and the debate today were a little bit off the mark. The member for Ipswich alleged that the State Govemment skimps on the money that it spends on welfare services. He listed in great detail the various weekly costs of keeping children in various welfare services. Some were of the order of $ 1,000 a week. The honourable member made the accusation that Queensland skimps on those services. I remind the honourable member for Ipswich that Chinchilla has a group named the Chinchilla Family Support Centre, which comes under the direction of Queensland Welfare Services. It is interesting to note also that a great deal of the funding provided to that centre comes from Federal Govemment coffers. That being the case, it shows that the Federal Govemment sees the wisdom in using such a voluntary organisation in Chinchilla, which uses the expertise of local people. The Federal Govemment realises that it is getting good value for money. The State Govemment realises that it is expending pubic money and that it must do that in the best possible way. It realises that it must be efficient in expending that money. By using local organisations, the Queensland Govemment is achieving that aim. In fact, the figures detailed by the member for Ipswich bear out that statement. The role played by the Chinchilla Family Support Centre is interesting. A few years ago, a group could see a need. It received some ftinding from the Federal Govemment. As people settled on what are called hobby farms half-way between Chinchilla and Tara, the need for the services provided by that organisation grew. Social welfare workers realised that many cases of hardship existed in that area. At the time, the Minister, Mr Muntz, agreed to subsidise the employment of a social worker. Chinchilla used to share that social worker with Tara. The demand has reached the stage at which Tara has its own welfare worker for two days a week, as does Chinchilla. The Chinchilla Family Support Centre organises marriage guidance sessions once or twice a month, legal aid counselling and family counselling. The members of the local committee are all voluntary workers. They provide crisis care in situations in which it is needed. That is a perfect example of what is happening in the Condamine electorate. That will help people to understand the thmst of the Bill. The Govemment is trying to better shape legislation so that the expertise that exists in our society can be incorporated with the Government's resources. Since studies have been conducted into child abuse, certain matters have come to the notice of the public. Personally, I doubt whether the level of child abuse has grown. However, I think that the awareness of child abuse has grown remarkably. I was once a schoolteacher. With teaching, reading was a basic thing. Over the years when research was done, one found that teachers became more aware of reading difficulties in children. Many types of things were identified, named and catalogued. All of a sudden it was the in thing—these days, I think that the phrase is "flavour of the month"—to identify 1358 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

more and more things. I think that a little bit of that mbs off today in child abuse. Be that as it may, the study showed a few things. It is probably well knowTi that a person who was abused as a child will more than likely grow up to be a child-abuser. Unfortunately, that is home out by studies. Very often, children suffering from physical abuse belong to a family that is under financial or emotional stress. At some stage, child-abusers or potential child-abusers demonstrate a cry for help. To the trained eye and the trained practitioner, that cry for help comes in various forms. It could come in the form of a visit by a parent taking the child along to a doctor, welfare agency or community social worker. In each case it appears that the parent has a fictitious disease. Somewhere inside themselves those parents sense that something is wrong. Although they mean well, those parents become afraid that they will harm their children. A visit to a doctor or welfare agency is their first attempt at broaching the subject. If the trained people in those centres are able to identify the problem, much can be done towards counselling those parents. To date, one of the limitations in the legislation has been that if those people know that they are desperately in need of assistance and cannot find a local organisation that can provide them with some respite and counselling, they have to tum to the Department of Children's Services. As the legislation currently stands, if a child is put into the care of the Department of Children's Services, all guardianship rights to that child are forfeited. There is a certain stigma attached to doing that. Because of that stigma, and because people will say, "That child has been taken over as a ward of the State", although parents mean well and do not wish to harm their children, they are not prepared to take that step to hand their children over so that they may receive assistance. The proposed legislation will allow various community organisations which have the expertise to go out and make arrangements with those parents in regard to counselling, how long a child will stay in a certain institution, and financial compensation while that child is being cared for. By doing that, people will be relieved of the stigma of that absolute step of losing full guardianship of their children. Well-founded studies have shown that those parents do love their children and wish to maintain family ties but are not prepared to take the awful step of relinquishing full guardianship. They want simply a short-term arrangement until they receive counselling, reduce their stress and get themselves in order. I wish to endorse some of the comments that have been made by previous speakers about the value of those people who work within the community on a voluntary basis and who offer assistance to those people who are less fortunate. All honourable members have said the same thing—and it needs to be said—that those voluntary workers render a great service to the community. They give from their hearts. Many honourable members have suggested that what those people really need is money, not acknowledgment. I do not believe that that is completely tme. There is certainly a great need for financial assistance within the various necessary schemes. However, I also acknowledge that the work that is done by those people in the various organisations—whether they be churches or community service groups such as the Chinchilla Family Support Centre—is invaluable. It behoves the Govemment to work in very closely to complement the contributions that are made by those people. I believe that the Bill goes partly towards fulfilling that aim, and I commend it to the House. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (4.09 p.m.): It is with a great deal of concem that I join in the debate on the Family and Youth Services Bill. At present in Queensland there is a crisis. There is a crisis within the Department of Children's Services. That crisis has been covered up, but it is going to surface. Two major aspects that have contributed to the crisis are the very low morale amongst child-care officers within the department and the inability of the department to cope with the increasing numbers of child-abuse cases. During the four months from November 1986 to Febmary 1987, 39 vacancies for child-care officers were filled and 24 vacancies are still unfilled, out of a total of approximately 250 child-care officers in Queensland. That gives an indication of the staff Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1359

tum-over and reveals the crisis situation conceming staffing and staff morale in the Department of Children's Services. Several years ago, in his annual report, Mr Zerk stated that the department could not cope with reporting on child abuse under the statutory requirements, and that many of the professional officers could not cope with the workload and suffered bum-out. In Queensland, many child-care officers resign from the Department of Children's Services just because they are overworked and cannot cope with the position they are in. Often, many officers resign and go interstate because the wage stmcture is more beneficial in other States. Some supervising child-care officers go to another State to take on a position of a child-care officer at a salary of $3,000 more than they receive in Queensland. In certain circumstances, decisions by the top officers of the department have not supported the professional officers. I would now like to incorporate into Hansard the latest statistics on child abuse. Leave granted. QUEENSLAND STATISTICS OF CHILD ABUSE

81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86

NOTinCATIONS 1442 1461 2574 3420 5642 65% increase in year

291% incn:as e over wl ole period SUBSTANTIATED 579 650 1142 1480 2400 CASES 62% increase in year 315% increase over whole period

BUNDABERG & SURROUNDING AREAS 84-85 85-86 86 (July-Dec) NOTinCATIONS 67 167 136 150% increase 65% increase in year to end of year BUNDABERG & SURROUNDING AREAS July-Dec 85 July-Dec 86 NOTinCATIONS 75 136 up 82.6% SUBSTANTIATED 24 59 up 145% SUSPECTED 10 46 up 360% UNFOUNDED 77 90 up 16.8% MOST SERIOUS TYPE OF MALTREATMENT JULY-DEC 1985 STATE BUNDABERG PHYSICAL 21.3% 28.8% EMOTIONAL 10.2% 18.6% SEXUAL 15.3% 10.1% NEGLECT 46.9% 42.3% Mr CAMPBELL: That table shows that in the four-year period from 1981-82 to 1985-86 the notification of child-abuse cases increased by 291 per cent. In the last year, 1985-86, the notifications increased by 65 per cent. Over the four-year period, the substantiated cases of child abuse increased by 315 per cent. In the last year, 1985-86, a 62 per cent increase occurred. 1360 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

With that tremendous increase in workload for child-care officers, a corresponding increase in the number of child-care officers did not occur. One can equate from that statistic that their workload increased greatly. When I was speaking on the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, I pointed out that from 1984-85 to 1985-86 in Bundaberg a 150 per cent increase occurred in notifications of child-abuse cases. In the six months July-December 1986 a 65 per cent increase occurred. Although the workload increased over that lV2-year period, there was not one increase in staffing to take care of that workload. What happens if the staff is not available to provide support facilities? It means that when volunteer groups are asked to take over and perform work, if the support facilities in terms of funds and staff do not exist, they will not cope. In many cases, volunteer groups feel that they cannot cope with the extra workload placed on them through understaffing within the Department of Children's Services. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise congratulated the foster-parents for the great work that they do. I too recognise the dedicated work that they do in caring for neglected children. One problem that is occurring is that that group of foster-parents are not being provided with the real support that is required by them to do the job properly. I will now requote a passage quoted by the honourable member for Ipswich. In his report, Mr Sturgess said— "The poorly rewarded foster parents are the carpet under which many of the community's problems are being swept." In many instances, foster-parents are being placed in a situation with which they cannot cope. It has been shown in many cases that foster-parents cannot cope. They cannot cope because there is insufficient contact between the child-care officers of the department and foster-parents to ensure that children under the care of the Minister are provided with, and are assured of, proper care and safety. Cases of abuse of foster-children by foster-parents have occurred. It is not just one case, but several; and perhaps many cases have not come to light because foster-parents are not being given the support service that they need. In many cases, foster-parents feel neglected because when they do need support from the child-care officers of the Department of Children's Services, no support is forthcoming. I became aware of these problems because foster-parents in the Bundaberg area needed help. I decided that before I came into the debate today, I would contact the foster-parents' association and its members. Members of the foster-parents' association are dedicated people who really care about what they are trying to do. They came up with some fairly interesting aspects, particularly how they felt that their job could be made easier in coping with the problems that they have. The first question I asked was whether they needed help. They said, "Yes, we do need more help from the department." They believe that they cannot get the help that they need because there is a shortage of staff. They believe that the child-care officer who should be out in the community providing that support service is so overworked that he or she is unable to help foster-parents. In some cases, the little thing that really upset the foster-parents was not having telephone caUs that they made to request help from the child-care officer answered or retumed. More than anything else, that is what upset them. It is just a little thing, but it indicates that those officers were so overworked that they did not have time to answer or retum the calls made by the foster-parents. In other cases, the foster-parents felt that the child-care officers made them feel like second-rate citizens. One comment was that a child-care officer had said that he or she would rather work with semi-professionals than deal with foster-parents. I suspect that that comment was made because of the inability of the child-care officer to cope with Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1361

the excessive workload. Not only are child-care officers unable to cope with the existing levels of child abuse, but also they cannot fully support foster-parents. Today I call for extra efforts to be made to provide additional service for foster- parents. I mentioned a case in Rockhampton in which a foster-parent allegedly killed his foster-son. Although no-one knows, perhaps it was the case that over a time there was a build-up of problems. If that foster-parent in that particular case had been provided with close contact with child-care officers, they may have picked up on the problems and that terrible deed may not have happened. Foster-parents also beUeve that a need exists for guide-lines on disciplining foster- children. In many cases, foster-parents are not given guide-lines as to what they can or cannot do. For instance, can they treat their foster-children in the same way as they treat their own children? In some instances, when foster-parents have been prepared to discipline their foster- children, they have been told that they should not do that. In one case, a foster-parent was very concemed because the child was coming home late. When the foster-parent asked, "Where have you been? I would like to know", the child-care officer said, "Please don't hassle the child." There must be some guide-lines as to what discipline those foster-parents can or cannot impose. Some things have helped; however, one of the additional things needed for the care of foster-children is a health card. At present, foster-parents have to meet medical costs and sometimes pharmaceutical costs. Perhaps provision could be made for granting foster-parents health cards to look after those foster-children. Mrs Chapman: You mean claim it on Medicare? Mr CAMPBELL: No. I mean that, although a claim can be made on Medicare, sometimes when they go to a doctor who is not bulk billing, the foster-parents have to pick up the difference. That is one cost that they do not believe they should have to meet. In many cases they can take the foster-child to receive free medical services at the hospital, but that may mean a wait of hours and hours. In many of these cases they are doing it on a volunteer basis. The extra requirement should not be imposed on them. They also feel that extra training should be given to foster-parents. A network of training seminars is beginning. It is hoped that that training wiU be given and that it will be adequate. Overall, they said that all they wanted was a bit of support and help. They love doing the work, so that is aU that they need. To reiterate the words of the member for Ashgrove, they do not want recognition, what they want is support. One other aspect about caring for foster-children which should be mentioned is that often parents are left with a very sizeable bill that has been caused by the foster-child. The parents have to pick up that bill themselves. In one case, substantial damage was done to the home by the foster-child. It is very difficult when people who are conducting a caring service are then mistreated by the foster-child who causes substantial damage to the house for which the foster-parent has to pick up the tab. In other cases, one foster-parent had to pay a telephone bill of $1,500 because the foster-child ran up the telephone bill without the foster-parents' knowing. They were left in the lurch. Another foster-parent had an $800 telephone bill. I believe, Mr Minister, that those comments could be taken on board Mrs Chapman: I am not a "Mister". Mr CAMPBELL: It is interesting that the Minister said that and I will make a point about it. I refer to clause 11 of the Bill—and this is the Minister's Bill—where it states— "The Minister, from time to time, by writing under his hand may appoint such number of persons as he thinks fit ..." 1362 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

As we do not have a Madam Minister, I believe that a little non-sexist terminology could have been inserted in the Bill. In this case I think I can get away with calling her "Mr Minister". Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! I think it is a trivial matter and I suggest that the honourable member for Bundaberg proceed. Mr CAMPBELL: That statement was made in a frivolous manner, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister made an important point that there is a great need for volunteer groups to play an important part in family and youth services. If the Govemment wants the support of volunteer groups, it and the department must respond, not by rhetoric but by giving financial and staff support. In many cases that has not been forthcoming for any stmggling volunteer groups. A grant was received from the Minister in order to conduct a seminar on child abuse in Bundaberg late last month. Those involved with the seminar were very happy to receive that grant. I believe that it is very important to raise the recommendations and the main points that emerged from that seminar. That seminar received input not only from specialists and professional people but also from the community as a whole. In looking at child abuse, the seminar arrived at 15 points. They are— (1) that there could be a support group after SCAN to provide more support not only for the family but also for the child; (2) that there be a support group of parents and children; (3) that OSCA—that is the Out of School Care Association in Bundaberg—be supported to provide after-school care for children because in many cases problems may arise when a single parent family has to work, thereby causing difficulty in the raising of the child; (4) more media presentation; (5) play groups with counselling to parents; (6) networking the resources; (7) write to the Minister for Education to include safety programs and building self-esteem in the curriculum; (8) telephone line to which children could reach and talk over their problems; (9) neighbourhood centre also for teenagers; (10) education of support groups; (11) Dial an Angel, Adopt a Grandparent; (12) relief care places; (13) more parent education and parent effectiveness type courses; (14) shopping mall advertising; and (15) more Govemment support. Those were the major programs that came from the child-abuse seminar held in Bundaberg. I am particularly concerned about clause 10 of the Bill, which provides for the delegation of powers by the permanent head. My concem is that that is subject to the direction of the Minister to the contrary. The power provided to the Minister to actually override the recommendations of professional people and professional groups on the care of children who are in the care of the department is a very negative aspect of the Bill. I understand that the administration of the Bill should be subject to the Minister's powers. That is clearly defined in clause 6. However, the power contained in clause 10 is very important and raises a very major concem for the professionals who work in Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1363

this area. Their decisions and those of SCAN groups can be overriden not only by the permanent head but also by the Minister. I ask: in the past has the Minister negated any recommendation of a SCAN team? If that is so, that creates great difficulties that I believe should not be acceptable. That the Minister could or would override recommendations from professionals such as those in a SCAN group about the care of a child in the control of the department and place a child with foster-parents against the recommendation of the professionals is unacceptable. Have there been occasions when the Minister has overridden the recommendations of SCAN or similar groups? If so, on what basis was that done? I am also concemed at the level of grants. Over a long time there has been a low level of funding for volunteer groups. Because grants are made on a yearly basis, they affect the efficient working of volunteer groups. Many volunteer groups do not like the fact that funding is made on a yearly basis. If volunteer groups are to be asked to make a greater contribution to family and youth services, funding should be on a basis that is longer than one year. There should be some continuity in ftinding so that these groups can be assured that they will be able to continue in the long term. Volunteer groups need to be supported not by rhetoric but by facts. In Bundaberg there has been the repeated rejection of a request for a community development officer. Seemingly no decision has been made on funding for a family social worker for Lifeline. If the Minister is to ask volunteer groups to provide more services, she has to make certain that funds are provided. I beUeve it is important that the family and youth of the State are fully supported and I hope that the Govemment and the Minister will provide extra services and extra support to foster-parents especially. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (4.29 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the legislation and, in so doing, commend the Minister on her foresight in undertaking such a wide- ranging view of the activities of her portfolio in an effort to provide a more streamlined and efficient service to Queensland families. At the risk of sounding repetitious, I must also emphasise a number of points that the Minister made in her second-reading speech and say that the Bill is the first in a series of Bills that will restmcture the delivery of services to Queensland families and young children. It must be considered as part of an overall package in streamlining family and youth service delivery within the State. There are two aspects of the Bill to which I give my whole-hearted support, that is, the two premises that the Minister so clearly stated in her second-reading speech and which I believe are centre-pieces of National Party policy and philosophy that underly so much of the work of this Govemment. The first premise is that parents are the most competent people to raise children. There have been so many instances overseas of institutionalisation tending to creep in as an answer to many of the ills of society and the problems that confront families in this rapidly changing world in which we all live. I believe that that trend overseas has been to the detriment of the overall well-being of children, and I am very grateful and pleased that the Minister has avoided the temptation of allowing many of our young people to fall into the trap of being counselled by the so-called experts, despite their good intentions. Over the years my own training as an educator has shown me that in many instances, especially in the care of young people, the so-called experts, even with the best of intentions, cannot provide the loving and warm environment that is provided with the family unit. I certainly commend the Minister for making that one of the basic premises of the legislation and for drafting the legislation in such a fashion that it is the family that is providing the basic support for many of our young people. The second basic premise for which I wish to commend the Minister and the Government is the assumption that voluntary agencies, both denominational and community based, are skilled and competent to provide assistance where it is needed. As I have already said, even with the best of intentions, many of the so-called experts 1364 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill in the field cannot provide the same level of concem as is provided by voluntary agencies. My own denominational church, the Church of Christ, has a long history of providing the level of support that is so evident in many of the other community and church agencies in this State. The Church of Christ's department of social service, which provides programs for care of the aged and also of young people, is staffed with such conscientious people as Don Stewart, the director; Lindsay Dipple, Malcolm Chandler and Don Cranston. Those four men are doing great work through the Church of Christ. They are competent, dedicated people who are providing a tremendous service for young people and also for aged people in the State. I doubt very much whether that service and the dedication that they and many other church and denominational bodies show could be matched by experts, no matter how dedicated they may be. I commend the Minister for those two basic assumptions on which the Bill is based. The Bill, of course, does a number of other things which are worth while. One is to replace the Department of Children's Services as a department established by its own statute and to vest the Director's powers in a larger portfolio. It is a point that I do not believe any other member has touched on so far in the debate. Elevating the status of the Department of Children's Services to a portfolio level, with its own permanent head within the Department of Family Services, is recognition by the Govemment of the importance of this facet of Govemment work. It is long overdue and is evidence that the Govemment has recognised once again the importance of family life within the overall framework of life in this State. I must add that the Govemment has not done so with any intention of slighting the present Director, Graham Zerk, whom I know well. He is a tremendous public servant, who is very dedicated and very loyal to his Minister as well. I have no quarrel with the Department of Children's Services as a result of my own brief time as the member for Mansfield. I have had numerous contacts with its officers at the Mount Gravatt branch and have found the departmental officers to be very dedicated and very conscientious in their service to the people in my electorate particularly. I certainly know that the Director, Graham Zerk, has provided a tremendous service to the people of Queensland—especially to the young people of Queensland— for quite a period. In addition, making the permanent head of the Department of Family Services the statutory authority will result in the Minister's enjoying a much higher level of advice in areas relating to the family. Not only will the status of the department be elevated; come bargaining time for the Budget pie to be divided up, the status of the Minister will be elevated. This will bear well upon the allocation of resources to the department in the future. In addition, making the permanent head of the department the statutory authority will mark the coming of age of a tme family services department in this State. Within the portfolio of Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs there are a large number of different types of functions, many of which have already been touched upon in this debate. This Bill will give the permanent head statutory authority over all of those many, diverse and varied functions within the department. This will bring Queensland into line with similar departments in other States where statutory authority is vested in the permanent head, whatever his title may be in each of those States. It also brings the Department of Family Services into the same pattern as many other departments within this State, especially those departments that have many and varied functions under the same Minister. Most of those Ministers now have a portfolio head to whom all of those varied departments answer and provide a co-ordinating function and a first line of advice to the Minister concemed. In itself this measure will lead to greater administrative efficiency by placing responsibiUty for statutory decisions upon the most senior public servant in the department, who is the closest to the Minister and has the most access to the Minister. Instead of the Minister's receiving varied reports and instead of there being several lines of Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1365

communication from a number of department heads, all material will be channelled through her closest adviser, the head of the family services portfolio. In the long term, this decision-making will lead to an avoidance of duplication of function and to the freeing up of resources. That point has been made by a number of members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise has referred to the efficiency of the allocation of existing resources, which is a point that has to be made. Everyone is aware of the tremendous success that has been experienced in a totaUy different sphere by the Minister for Transport, Mr Lane, in the Railway Department, in which the allocation of the existing resources to date was reviewed in order to get the best value for tax-payers' dollars. This is the right way to go in the first place in order to try to make the existing operation the most efficient and before this Govemment goes cap in hand to ask for more tax-payers' money. I commend the Minister for taking the opportunity to first get her house in order and then obtain the most efficient aUocation and use of tax-payers' money. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SHERRIN: That is very much a point. The Commonwealth Labor Government is doing some strange things, such as providing surfboards for lesbian riders. This Govemment does not throw the money around in that way. It gets its own house in order first and then looks at using extra resources. In addition, this provision will lead to the clearing of the lines of communication within the department. As I have already stated, the BiU marks the coming of age of the Department of Family Services in this State. Further evidence of that can be found in the objects of the Bill, which clearly recognises the value of the family, the local neighbourhood and the community in providing support and nurturing families in trouble, and also recognises the value of youth within the community. This is a point that, as a former educator, I have made repeatedly during many public appearances in the State; that the future of Queensland lies not in the members of this House, but in its young people. Any society that neglects to care for its young people is writing its own death warrant in the long term. It is a pleasure to see the Govemment providing support to the family and young people through legislation of this kind. The point that some individuals will need specific assistance in the long term is not overlooked in the legislation. For too long the potential that exists in people themselves for mutual support in the community has not been recognised. There seems to be a common feeling in the community that the Govemment has all the answers and that it will provide all the support to a person in need. That is far from the tmth. It is creating a "give me" mentality in many persons. When people are in need, they look to the Govemment for the old hand-out. They have that old cargo cult mentality, "If I need it, the Govemment will provide it." The richest resource of the Govemment and the people is the community in which we live. I can remember very well when, as teachers, my wife and I were transferred to Ingham. We arrived in that town with a very young baby and with no place at which to stay. The Education Department did not provide accommodation for teachers. We arrived at a motel with a young baby. It was tremendous to arrive in such a community. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you represent that area, you would be aware that that community is only too wilUng to support others. Although we had never laid eyes on the people before, they were only too willing to support us. The community surrounded us and supported us. They provided additional fixmiture and helped us to find a home. The community provided all of that support. We did not need to go to Govemment agencies for assistance. On a number of nights I can recall being at home and people calling in. Although I had never met them before, they may have had children enrolled at the school at which my wife or I was teaching. They called in and said, "How are you? Have you settled in? How are you off for furniture? Do you have your fumiture? We have an old wardrobe and a spare bed. We can drop them round." That is the type of community 1366 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill support that this legislation attempts to tap into. I commend the Minister on that. I think that in the past we have tended to overlook a valuable source of community support. Mr Davis: You're going for a record. That's 10 times you've commended her. Mr SHERRIN: I can't help it if I think that she is doing a tremendous job. The objects of the Bill cleariy imply that the development of community and a community spirit is important. Once people have been brought together into a cominuiiity, they can look to their shared needs. In a process of rational discussion, they can prioritise their needs, assess what can be met from the community's own resources and invest some of their energies in seeking resources for the needs that are beyond the expertise and the means of the community. I have made the point before that what our society needs is not a proliferation of extra Govemment services, of Govemment-paid experts who flit in and out of towns and suburbs with all the answers to society's ills; society needs a consoUdation—a marshaUing—a bringing together of people themselves into communities of mutual community support where wisdom and knowledge can be shared and planning undertaken. Without attracting another inteijection from the member for Brisbane Central, I would like to reflect on another personal experience of community support that my wife and I have experienced. I do not know whether many honourable members have had experience with the Childbirth Education Association. An Opposition member interjected. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member has had a baby. I am very pleased for him. I could well believe that. The Childbirth Education Association is a self-help group that receives very little Govemment funding, if any. It is locally based—community based. Young couples and expectant mothers having their first child do not go to a Govemment agency for advice and assistance in that critical time of their marriage and of their life. The Childbirth Education Association, which is a community group, provides support, educational programs and mutual self-help to assist members in overcoming the problems of childbirth. The fear of the unknown creates a great deal of tension. With the delivery of two of our children, my wife and I found that the Childbirth Education Association provided support for its members through educational programs and real involvement. It provides assistance to those in need. That is the sort of thing on which this legislation would be modelled. Another community group that my wife has found particularly helpful is the Nursing Mothers Association of Queensland. It is another community group. It receives very little, if any, Govemment assistance. It provides tremendous help to many mothers experiencing difficulty with young babies. I am not degrading the value of the expert. The expert must be able to share his or her knowledge in the context of the reality of a community's strengths, weaknesses and needs. Unfortunately, in many instances Mr Davis: What about sex education in schools? Are you in favour or not? Mr SHERRIN: I am sure that the honourable member needs it greatly. Unfortu­ nately, on a number of occasions experts are unable to tackle the problems. This Bill also stresses the importance of the family unit. I have little doubt that the family is the best leaming and socialising unit for children that could possibly exist. I say that after nine years of teaching experience in State and non-State high schools. After considering the range of Govemment support that is available for young people, I have found nothing that matches the family as a supportive unit in aiding the development of young people. There is nothing to match it. Nothing that the Govemment could provide would begin to match the family as a warm and nurturing place in which to raise young people. Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1367

All honourable members would realise that families go through rough patches. Many honourable members would have experienced rough patches in their own family Uves. There are periods when families reach the point of disequilibrium. With a sympathetic community, families can receive support during times of stress rather than having to solve their own problems or to battle on by themselves until the family unit finally disintegrates. This Bill will provide support to families in trouble, not necessarily through Govemment agencies but through support that is engendered through mutual community support and by allowing community groups to assist families in trouble. Cases have been cited in the press and on television about persons who have overcome great physical problems, which have been created by severe accidents or illness, with the support and care that they have received from loving relatives, friends or people close to them in the community. Somehow, individuals gain strength from the support and concem of others around them. No doubt honourable members who have lost loved ones would know that the support that they have received from family members and those close to them has helped them to overcome the sense of loneliness and loss that they have experienced. Similarly, when families are in trouble, support is available. This legislation is designed to assist those families in trouble with support from other members of the community. If people feel that they are not fighting their battles alone and that other people care, great physical and emotional ills can be surmounted. That same process certainly applies to families. During periods of stress or crisis, if a family is surrounded by a supportive community, it can survive, recuperate, flourish and develop. I tum now to clause 5 (d) of the Bill, which recognises that there will be individuals who will be confronted with social problems that neither the community nor the family can solve. The objects of the Bill also recognise the contribution that youth can make to this State. I am pleased to see that contribution being recognised by legislation. The objects as a whole, with their emphasis on the community, the family, youth and the individual, present a coherent philosophy for the development of a co-operative, functional and caring society within this State. This Bill empowers the Minister to establish advisory committees. With their establishment, the Minister will be able to call upon any member of the community to assist her with advice regarding particular issues that confront her and her department. I understand that a number of advisory committees already exist within the Minister's portfoUo. That statutory recognition of those committees implicitly recognises their value and the high esteem that is placed upon their advice by the Govemment. It also gives them a higher status than they have previously enjoyed. That recognition and status reflects how open the department will be to the receipt of advice from outside sources together with assistance in achieving its objectives and developing its programs. I regard this as a milestone piece of welfare legislation. At the risk of attracting another interjection, I congratulate the Minister on the Bill. Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (4.50 p.m.): I join with my Opposition colleagues in welcoming the introduction of the Bill. As the Minister said, it represents the first stage in a series of Bills designed to replace the Children's Services Act, which most members of the community will be glad to see the end of No doubt, that Act has been overtaken by time and there has been an urgent need for more modem legislation to cope with the very onerous and important task of child care. Having said that, I dispute with the Minister the title of the Bill. It does not seem to me to be a family and youth services Bill but quite clearly is a child-care Bill. I do not really understand why it could not have been titled as such. The provision of family services will be something that the Opposition will look out for. It is one thing to include the name "family" in the title of the Bill; it is another to provide the sorts of services to the family that most people in this day and age will require. 1368 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

I take exception to the comments that are regularly made by members of the Govemment who seem to believe, and often say, that they have some sort of special concem for families that is not shared by members of the Opposition. They have been saying that so often that they are now starting to believe it. I dispute that most strongly. I do not think that any statistics exist to indicate that honourable members on the Govemment side of the House have any better record in regard to their family lives than that of members of the Opposition. As I said, the simple addition of the name "family" to the title of a Ministry, a department and a Bill before the House does not necessarily indicate the Government's concem for family services. I had intended to discuss at length an article from Australian Society entitled "Can the family survive?" However, out of concem for my coUeagues who also wish to contribute to the debate, I will attempt to summarise the article. The nuclear family as we have known it in recent times is a relatively new development. The article points out that in the 1920s a significant number of men and women never married and, of course, never had children. It was only in the late 1920s, particularly because of employment situations, that men and women did tend to marry and seek the security of a family environment. The article points out also that since family statistics were first coUected in 1966, other family forms and non-family living have been on the increase. The major changes have been a doubling of the proportion of female-headed, one-parent families, which has increased from around 10 per cent to almost 20 per cent in the proportion of households consisting of a person living alone, and the increased frequency of couples of aU ages living with no children in the household. The article goes on to state that there are indications that society is moving back into the situation in which, although the nuclear family as we know it will remain the predominant life-style, there wiU be a significant number of people who wiU never marry and will never have children. There will also be, of course, quite a large proportion of people who wiU live in a one-parent situation. Therefore, I am surprised that the Minister attempted to define the family so precisely. I am even more surprised at the comments made by members of the Govemment that there is no onus on those who are fortunate to Uve in a stable family situation to provide services to the other sectors of society who, in many cases, through no fault of their own, do not find themselves in that situation. Mrs Chapman: There is no actual definition of the family in the Bill. It covers everybody. Mr McELLIGOTT: That is right. The Minister interjected on the member for South Brisbane when she suggested that it was the responsibility of those who live in a stable family situation to provide for those who have difficulties. She interjected to the effect that that was a socialist objective. If that is the case, I am certainly proud to be a socialist. However, I wonder what it says for members of the Govemment who apparently believe that if people are not able to estabUsh a stable family relationship, then somehow they should be cast aside. Mrs Chapman: What we are saying is that we expect them to be responsible, to not rely entirely on the Govemment for hand-outs. Mr McELLIGOTT: Yes. I was going to describe the Premier's attitude to homosexuality. Many members of our society, through no fault of their own, find themselves outside of the mainstream of society. As part of the basic philosophy of the Labor Party, members of the Opposition argue that there is a responsibility on the balance of the community, through the elected Govemment, to assist those people. Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1369

The sort of Govemment initiative that I suggest needs to be part of a family service is the home-maker service in South Australia. I cite that as an example. It was funded by the Govemment and it picked out four classifications that were the main client groups. Those groups included families with neglected and/or abused children; families with few resources; parents whose children had temporarily been removed from home; and parents who have problems relating to institutions. I would agree that in the Queensland situation they would be four target groups who would benefit from some sort of assistance sponsored by the State Govemment to allow them to cope with situations in which they find themselves. I want to relate very quickly what I regard as a very interesting point made in the current debate on AIDS. Last night on ABC television, a program included comments made by someone who, I presume, was from the Marriage Guidance Council. Unfortunately, I did not hear the gentleman's name. He made the point that, because of the emphasis being placed on monogamous relationships as a counteraction to the spread of AIDS, more people would tend to stay in unsatisfactory marriage situations. I think that that is a very reasonable point to make. Although the divorce rate has tended to increase, his comment—that people will tend to stay in unsatisfactory marriage relationships—is very vaUd. Mr Littleproud: You take a vow when you get married, though. Mr McELLIGOTT: Sure. I am not arguing about that. I am saying that in relation to this Bill, the demands on Govemment and various voluntary agencies—including the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council's support of those marriages in difficulty—will increase. If the Govemment is going to cope with things such as child abuse and child neglect, and if society believes that the family offers the best opportunity for security in that regard, the Govemment will have to take account of those increased demands, because I think that the point has been fairly made. In the same context, I want to comment on a submission made to the Minister in March this year by the management committee of Wee Care Family Emergency Service Incorporated in Townsville. Wee Care is a very stable organisation that has been providing that service for a period of 10 years. It operates out of premises provided by the Apex Association. As I said, it is a very stable organisation. I think that the comments made in the submission are worthy of consideration. It states that— "When the organisation commenced operation hospitalisation of a parent was the paramount reason for admission. The majority of clients were employed in the workforce and geographical isolation from extended family support generated the need for temporary child care. The economic and social climate is now under-going change. Though hospi­ talisation still remains high on the list, more children are being admitted because family problems are causing temporary break-down in the parent's nurturing role. Wee Clare continues to see its main objective as a community based agent, working to keep families intact by caring for the children in a secure homelike atmosphere during times of domestic stress. Wee Care is seen primarily as a crisis centre and every effort is made to retum the child to the family, as soon as feasible, when the crisis is resolved. On-going support is given to the family with home visiting, counseUing, liaising with referring agencies and setting up further involvement with agencies appropriate to the family's needs." I certainly support the comment of the honourable member for Bundaberg that one of the great problems faced by organisations such as Wee Care is that they do not have access to guaranteed funding. Wee Care, for example, is not in a position year by year to be able to guarantee the community that the organisation will be able to continue to offer its very worthwhile service. 1370 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

I see the Minister and the Opposition spokesman exchanging glances, which suggest that perhaps I am going on a bit. I will leave the Wee Care matter and tum to two other matters that I wish to raise today. I will do so briefly. I notice that in the definitions contained in the Bill, the definition of "child care" specifically excludes care provided to the child during school holidays at premises where vacation care is provided and also under an outside-school-hours care program that is conducted with finances provided by the Commonwealth. I wonder why those two child- care programs are excluded. It seems to me that particularly in the case of vacation care programs, there is a need for licensing and some degree of supervision. It is a fact that in many instances those programs are organised and controlled by local authorities. Nonetheless, they do require supervision. I am also aware that in most cases vacation care programs are funded by the Commonwealth. I wonder whether in fact the Bill is saying that the State does not and will not accept any financial or other responsibility for those programs. The Minister may be able to answer that question in her reply. In Part III—Family, Youth and Community Services, clause 14 provides for the permanent head to consider programs that have as their objectives the provision of assistance to individuals who are disadvantaged or disabled. This aftemoon I want to make a plea to the Govemment, through the Minister, to consider the transfer of responsibility for intellectually handicapped people from the Health Department to the new Department of Family Services. It seems to me that care of the intellectually handicapped is not a health matter and I do not believe that intellectually handicapped people can be adequately catered for in the very large stmcture of the Health Department. It seems to me that an intellectual handicap is not an illness, although of course intellectually handicapped people do suffer the same sorts of illnesses as other people in the community. However, it seems to me that their special needs would be better met in a welfare sense and not, as I said, through the major stmcture of the Health Department. This aftemoon I was going to take the opportunity of quoting extensively from the first annual report of the Intellectually Handicapped Citizens Council of Queensland which indicates very clearly that, to date anyhow, that coucil has not received the appropriate support from the Govemment in regard to staffing and even in regard to premises. I am not aware of what has happened since this annual report was presented to the Parliament. Certainly the record is very poor indeed, and it seems to confirm my arguments that an intellectual handicap is more a welfare-orientated problem and not a health problem. I will leave that with the Minister. Perhaps she could have discussions with her colleague the Minister for Health to see whether, under the terms of the Family and Youth Services Bill, those people who have intellectually handicapped people in their families could benefit by the transfer and by the introduction of programs provided for in the Bill. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (5.03 p.m.): The first matter that I wish to discuss in relation to the Bill relates to the child care centre control provisions that are set out in the legislation. The Bill provides that local authorities may license and generally control child care centres. Clearly, that is an admirable provision for the Bill to contain. However, the Bill defines local authorities to be the Brisbane City Council or any local authority constituted under the Local Govemment Act. I suggest that the Minister and her department have not caught up with developments in other areas of Queensland and other pieces of legislation which have come before this House in recent years. In Queensland, local authorities can also be constituted under the Community Services (Aborigines) Act and under the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act. Indeed, as the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services told the House this moming, the functions of local govemment are being handed over to Aboriginal and Islander communities in the very near future. It is therefore suggested to the Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs that the matter of the definition of "local authority" was not property thought through and should have been otherwise defined. The Aboriginal and Islander people of Queensland who live on community reserves and Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1371 who now constitute their own local authorities should have been given an opportunity to control child care centres as other local authorities are to be aUowed to do under this legislation. In view of the short time that I wish to take this aftemoon, I will raise several other matters briefly. They are matters conceming voluntary and denominational agencies, particularly in Rockhampton, where two agencies mn by the Anglican and Catholic Churches are doing sterling work. They have been handicapped by the failure of the Govemment to sustain properly the level of funding. For example, the Christian Family Centre, which is mn by the Roman Catholic Church, is a very large agency in the family and child-support field. The only subsidy it receives, I understand, is 80 per cent of the salary of one social worker. The Christian Family Centre employs 15 people in this family-support and family and child area. It operates to Bundaberg in the south, Mackay in the north and out into the west of central Queensland. It is highly regarded and is staffed by very competent people. Through its agency it can engage the services of many volunteers, which is something that the Govemment cannot do. This is a matter that we in the Opposition raise continually. In this legislation and in speeches made in this House and elsewhere, the Government pats itself on the back about what a good job it is doing in supporting voluntary agencies. We in the Opposition say that the Govemment is not doing enough. Elsewhere the Govemment talks about privatisation and about employment contracts. Welfare is a field in which voluntary agencies have been engaged for many years and have great expertise, yet the Govemment stands condemned by many people throughout the State for its inabiUty to sustain properly these voluntary agencies, agencies that are doing extremely good work. There is no doubt that if the work of the Christian Family Centre was done by the Govemment, it would cost considerably more than it presently costs. I suggest the Govemment look to its support of that organisation. At present it is grossly insufficient. Similarly, the AngUcan Church in the Diocese of Rockhampton mns a program through an agency caUed Careforce. I understand that presently Careforce receives 25 per cent of its budget from the Queensland Govemment. This agency mns a family support program. In the last six months it had contact with 217 families. In January it had 95 family contacts; in Febmary, 91 family contacts. Again, if the work done by this agency was performed by the Govemment, it would cost at least twice the amount of the annual budget, which is presently $157,000. I urge the Minister to increase the level of support from its present inadequate 25 per cent to a much higher level. Careforce is seeking a subsidy of up to 75 per cent. Again, Careforce is awaiting notification from the Govemment as to what it will receive. The Govemment's rhetoric in these areas must be matched by its performance. I urge the-Minister to look to that. The member for Surfers Paradise attacked the Opposition spokesman by asking, "Where would the funds come from?" If the member for Surfers Paradise and other Govemment members had bothered to attend the lecture on public accounts committees to which they were invited, they would have learned where millions of dollars could have been saved—millions of dollars that could have been spent on welfare. That bipartisan lecture showed clearly that in the south and elsewhere in Australia these committees have worked. The Govemment cannot cry poor in this area when it fails to carry out proper book-keeping. Certainly welfare and family, child and youth support are areas on which the Govemment could clearly spend more money, mostly by supporting non-Govemment agencies. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (5.09 p.m.): As was done by my colleague the member for Ashgrove, I state that the Liberal Party supports the legislation. Mr Davis: I remember when you were the Minister sitting over there. Those were the days. Mr WHITE: That is right. That is why I am so delighted to see this first stage of the new legislation come before the House today. 1372 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

It has been a long haul. One ought to reflect upon the fact that legislation affecting family welfare requires a great deal of sensitivity. Some legitimate criticism has been levelled at the fact that the legislation could have been brought before the House earlier; nevertheless, honourable members ought to be open minded enough to congratulate the Minister and the Govemment on making a move in the right direction. Indeed, there has been widespread consultation throughout the community. During my period in the Ministry my officers and I traversed the State and received submissions and other input from a wide range of people, from both the Govemment and the non-Govemment sectors. I think that the opportunity should be taken now to convey appreciation to the many organisations and individuals who have had a major input into this important legislation. As has been said, there is a great deal of activity in the non-Govemment sector. I am pleased to see that one of the major assumptions of the legislation is that there will be room for further development of the non-Govemment or voluntary sector. I take this opportunity to thank the many people with whom I have been involved, particularly senior members of the department and other officers, some of whom are present. I mention in particular Mr Pettigrew, Mr Thatcher and Mr Plummer, who have aU played a part in helping to have this legislation introduced. It is probably fair to say that Mr Thatcher spent many nights at the office drafting legislation when he probably should have been at home. I do not know how many times we have had a go at the legislation over the years. I do not want to embarrass Mr Thatcher too much, but it is good to see him here today. I can see him smiling over there. The Liberal Party is happy to support the basic assumption of the legislation that parents are the most competent people to raise children. Like all sensible people, members of the Liberal Party realise that not every marriage works out, that not every relationship is stable, and consequently, unfortunate though it may be, back-up support needs to be provided for people who are really in need. I think perhaps that where society has gone wrong in many respects is that Govemments have been concentrating their efforts on the remedial side of welfare rather that on the preventative side. The Govemment ought to consider further giving greater support to organisations which are providing marriage guidance and counselling. I think that many of the problems would not come to the fore if there were more stable and proper marriages in which people can build stable relationships, so that when children do appear on the scene, Govemment agencies and voluntary agencies are not mnning around picking up the pieces. The major assumption underlying the legislation is good. The Liberal Party recognises that there is a need for greater back-up support. My party would like to see that support moved into the area of what one might call preventative welfare services, where one heads off the troubles before they become apparent to everybody. Much has been said about the role of voluntary agencies. I am very pleased to see that the voluntary agencies will be given wider responsibility. Indeed, many of them will need additional resources. Some honourable members have spoken at length about individual agencies. I do not wish to canvass that any further, except to say that most voluntary agencies have done a splendid job on a shoe-string budget. Most of the members of those organisations are competent people, and most of them, to their great credit, have done a great deal to keep marriages together and to help raise a number of children who, through necessity, have not had the great privilege of growing up in a stable family, as it were. It should also be said that in a time of economic downtum, when it is pretty obvious that Govemments are not going to have the increasing resources that they have had in the past, attention in the welfare area has to be given to greater efficiency. I think that the bringing together of the department under the Minister and the permanent head is a move in the right direction. That is no reflection on Mr Graham Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1373

Zerk and previous directors of the Department of Children's Services. I think that the portfolio as a whole will be in far better position to utilise its collective muscle in bringing resources together. I would hope that, through this amalgamation of the Department of Children's Services into the Department of Family Services, additional resources will be freed up to help those people who are really in need. I know that time is short. Before concluding, I thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesman for their courtesy in giving me a short time in which to say a few words. I appreciate that. One last point: I hope that when the other segments of the legislation come forward later in the year, attention will be given to the development of a wider range of sentencing options for the courts. There is a great deal of concem in that area and I believe that if the magistrates and judiciary are given wider sentencing options, more will be able to be done with some of the children in need. Hon. Y. A. CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers—Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs) (5.15 p.m.), in reply: In the interests of time, I will ignore all the petty personal abuse levelled at me, because I believe that this legislation dealing with the family is far too important to be brought down to a party political argument. It is widely recognised that the Labor Party does not regard the family with the same sanctity as our Govemment does and that the colleagues of the honourable member for Ipswich in Canberra and in the other States have done much to destroy it. Apart from denigration of the traditional family stmcture, the honourable member's other main point seemed to be that he was advocating bigger Govemment. He called for more staff, more resources and even an appeal system, for any individual or organisation that did not obtain a grant from my department. That would require another bureaucracy, which we can ill afford. The honourable member canvassed a very tiresome history of the legislation, the accuracy of which would have to be challenged in the light of the fact that he could not even recall accurately my answer to his question in Parliament earlier today. It is ludicrous to allege that our Govemment ignores the needs of families which do not fall into the category of the traditional family stmcture which we support. My department's services support very extensively parents and children in family situations which are not in the traditional vein. I wonder whether the honourable member is also advocating an appeal system for the dozens of organisations which have been de-funded in Queensland by the Hawke Labor Govemment in recent years. It is becoming monotonous to listen to the misleading figures which the honourable member and his colleagues frequently quote against our Govemment. They have been proved to be untme on many occasions and do not reflect the total welfare expenditure in this State, including the massive outlay on free hospi­ talisation. What the Opposition speakers have failed to point out is that many of the demands for services now being made have been created by the failure of the ALP Federal Govemment to face up to its responsibilities. For example, income maintenance has been an accepted Federal Govemment responsibility for the past 40 years. In Queensland, studies show that up to 94 per cent of emergency relief requests come from Commonwealth pension or other welfare beneficiaries. It is therefore unrealistic to claim that the State Govemment has failed to provide the necessary resources, when it is clearly seen that the Commonwealth has fallen down on the job and has abandoned its responsibilities. The honourable member for Ipswich attempted to advance figures to show that this National Party Govemment has not been providing adequate financial support to the non-Govemment welfare sector. However, the facts do not support this. If the honourable member had bothered to refer to the public documents, he could have easily seen that his suggestion that the department allowed residential care funding to lapse in 1985-86 was without foundation. In fact, expenditure in that area was approximately $250,000 1374 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

in excess of the original appropriation. Furthermore, during the period 1984-85 to 1986- 87 State Govemment funding to this area increased by 47 per cent. Similarly the other figures of the honourable member were wrong, as during 1986-87 State funding—excluding Commonwealth funding—for non-Govemment organisations from the Department of Children's Services increased by 27.4 per cent. I think that any reasonable person in this House would acknowledge that in these times of restraint in public expenditure, these figures show a commendable record. Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge this, the honourable member continued to refer to out-of-date figures going back as far as the 1970's in an attempt to divert the attention of this House from his obvious lack of knowledge of the contents of the Bill under debate. The honourable member ignored the fact that the Queensland Govemment will be spending in excess of $ 1.6m this financial year on child-care centres and has indicated that it will spend in excess of $2.75m in this area in 1987-88. By attempting to exaggerate the record of the Commonwealth Govemment in this area, this is what he has led us to believe. However, he also failed to recognise that the Commonwealth's increased funding in this area was directly related to its decision to withdraw $6.6m from this State for pre-schools and community kindergartens—a shortfall which has been met by the Queensland Govemment. Shame on that mob down in Canberra. It is tragic that a welfare spokesman would seU out his State by supporting a Commonwealth Labor Govemment that is denying Queenslanders over $250,000 a year in its rightful per capita share of total Commonwealth funding under the Family Support Program. Now back to his reference to the establishment of the child care centre in Albany Creek. That was also misleading. As indicated in my letter to the Pine Rivers Shire Council dated 27 Febmary 1987, the approval of sites is a joint Commonwealth and State responsibility. The Greenview Park site has never been recommended to either myself or the Commonwealth Minister for Community Services by my department or the Commonwealth department. I am hoping that the reorganisation of my department wiU give greater access to me as Minister, thus avoiding the lack of consultation. Sometimes consultation has been lacking in the past. I also place on record my tremendous respect for the very valuable role that is performed by foster-parents. I realise that theirs is often a thankless task carried out under difficult circumstances. They perform a great service and certainly they do not just do it for the money. However, they are among the highest paid foster-parents in Australia. Contrary to what Opposition speakers would have us believe, this legislation does not discriminate against any family or family stmcture. Let me get that message across very clearly. There is no definition of the family in the BiU; all families are embraced by it. I thank the honourable member for Gympie for his very sensible contribution to the debate and for his recognition of social, financial and funding reality. From his description of the interaction between the Govemment and the voluntary or non- Govemment sector, as the honourable member for Ipswich has suggested, the honourable member for Gympie has shown that he really understands and appreciates how our Government is supporting the voluntary sector. That support will continue. The honourable member for South Brisbane strayed from the subject-matter of the Bill when she referred to social issues such as housing, education and levels of income. She appeared to be unaware of the State Govenment's decision to enter into a jointly funded family support program which will provide funding to non-Government organisations providing services to support families under stress. The commencement of this program, which involves considerably expanded funds, will be jointly announced when my department hears back from the Commonwealth. Certain of her points regarding the abuse and neglect of children will be the subject of further legislation that I intend introducing later in the life of this Parliament. I thank the honourable member for Surfers Paradise and I congratulate him on his emphasis on value for the welfare dollar and the need for cultivating a climate of Family and Youth Services Bill 7 April 1987 1375

economic growth. I also congratulate him on having read and understood the BiU, which Opposition speakers do not seem to have done. The honourable member for Ashgrove told us that there has to be legislation, and there needs to be legislation, but then suggested that we put it off. The Govemment wants to get this legislation into operation so that its benefits can flow to our community. I agree with his views on the family, the importance of parents, and substitute parents such as foster-parents for children in care. I thank the honourable member for Condamine for his words of personal support to me. He drew the attention of the House to the new and very worthwhile provisions of the Bill which allow for arrangements to be made by parents under stress. This is a key new provision of the Bill which should be highlighted. The member for Bundaberg took a long time to discuss the Bill, and his contribution to this debate would have been more appropriate to an Estimates debate. In the cases of foster-parents who did not receive assistance and support from my department, I would be pleased to investigate each case if the honourable member brings them to my attention by letter. I will also investigate the merits of increased assistance with medical problems. I am not aware of the SCAN case to which the honourable member referred. However, should he wish to raise his concems regarding a child in the care of my department, I will be happy to have the case examined by senior officers. The honourable member for Mansfield also displayed a thorough and reasoned understanding of the terms of the Bill. He is obviously familiar with the support which a community can give the family. This is important to the Govemment, which is seeking to build self-sufficient and supportive communities. The member for Thuringowa repeated much that had already been said by other Opposition members. I again point out to him that there is no definition of "family" in the Bill; services are available to all. The specific programs are excluded because they are adequately monitored by the department that provides them with recurrent funding. I have noted the supporting remarks of the honourable member for Rockhampton for the Christian Family Centre and Careforce. I will take his representations into consideration when applications from those organisations are examined. I am aware of the contribution made by the honourable member for Redcliffe, along with other former Ministers, to the early development of this important legislation. I thank him for his support, and I have noted his comments about the voluntary sector and his acknowledgement of the efforts to free up more resources. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. Y. A. Chapman (Pine Rivers—Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr HAMILL (5.27 p.m.): The Opposition seeks to move two amendments to clause 4, which is the definitions clause of the Bill. The Opposition is concemed that the drafting of the Bill has led to a couple of unfortunate omissions in relation, firstly, to the definition of "Local Authority". The honourable member for Rockhampton has already canvassed the point that, given the Govemment's policy to vest local authority powers in Aboriginal and Islander communities, it is inappropriate that this legislation does not keep up with that policy. The second amendment that the Opposition seeks in relation to clause 4 relates to the definition of "premises". The Opposition is very concemed that the definition that is given in clause 4 for the term "premises" is merely "land or building". It excludes 1376 7 April 1987 Family and Youth Services Bill

the possibility of unscmpulous operators using vessels for this purpose. One needs only to look back into history to find that the first provision that was made in Queensland for the housing of juvenUe offenders was actually on a hulk on the Brisbane River. The Opposition does not wish to create circumstances in which an unscmpulous operator would be able to establish a centre, purporting to be a child-care centre of some Uk, on a vessel and therefore find an enormous, gaping loophole in this legislation which would not allow the Department of Children's Services to properly license and adequately police and supervise the regulations covering foster-care agencies, licensed premises and so on. I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 4, line 28, after '1986' add— 'or an Aboriginal CouncU constituted under the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984-1986 or an Island Council constituted under the Com­ munity Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984-1986.' " I wiU subsequently move the other amendment, unless the Minister is prepared to accept both amendments. I believe that it would be sensible for her to do so. Mrs CHAPMAN: The proposed amendment would place a statutory responsibility on Aboriginal or Islander councils to license child-care centres. Although I would be prepared to have the suggestion explored, I would not be prepared to place such a responsibility upon those bodies without prior consultation with them. Therefore, I do not support the amendment. Question—That the words proposed to be added be so added—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 28 NOES, 53 Ardill Ahem Katter Braddy Alison Knox Bums Austin Lane Campbell Beanland Lee Casey Beard Lester Comben Berghofer McCauley D'Arcy Bjelke-Petersen McPhie De Lacy Borbidge Menzel Eaton Burreket Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Nelson Goss Clauson Newton Hamill Cooper Powell Hayward Elliott Randell McEIligott Fraser Row Mackenroth Gately Schuntner Milliner Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock Palaszczuk Gilmore Sherrin Prest Glasson Simpson Shaw Gunn Slack Smith Gygar Stephan Smyth Harvey Stoneman Underwood Henderson Tenni Vaughan Hinton White Warburton Hinze Warner Hobbs Yewdale Tellers: Hynd Tellers: Davis Innes FitzGerald Wells Jennings Littleproud Resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! In accordance with the allocation of time-limit order agreed to by the House earlier today, I will now put the questions in conformity with that resolution. Clauses 4 to 43, as read, agreed to. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1377

Clause 44— Mrs CHAPMAN (5.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 23, line 7, omit— 'that Part' and substitute— 'Part IV'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 69, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Mrs CHAPMAN (5.40 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 39, Une 37, after ' "1982" ' insert— 'where secondly occurring'." Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mrs Chapman, read a third time. INDUSTRIAL (COMMERCIAL PRACTICES) ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time-limit Order Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (5.42 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "(a) That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill from passing through all its remaining stages at this day's sitting, all of its remaining stages to be passed by 10 p.m. (b) That, at the time so specified all remaining questions, if any, shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, without any further amendment or debate and, if applicable, remaining questions on the clauses of the Bill shall be put en bloc." Question put; and the House divided- AYES, 44 NOES, 38 Ahem Jennings Ardill Prest Alison Katter Beanland Schuntner Austin Lane Beard Shaw Berghofer Lester Braddy Sherlock Booth McCauley Bums Smith Borbidge McPhie Campbell Smyth Burreket Menzel Casey Underwood Chapman Muntz Comben Vaughan Clauson Nelson D'Arcy Warburton Cooper Newton De l^cy Warner Elliott Powell Eaton Wells Fraser Randell Gibbs, R. J. White Gately Row Goss Yewdale Gibbs, 1. J. Sherrin Hamill Gilmore Simpson Hayward Glasson Slack Innes Gunn Stephan Knox Harvey Stoneman Lee Henderson Tenni McEIligott Hinton Mackenroth Hinze Tellers: McLean Tellers: Hobbs FitzGerald Milliner Davis Hynd Littleproud Palaszczuk Gygar Resolved in the affirmative. 1378 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 7.30 p.m. Second Reading Debate resumed (see p. 1341). Mr McLEAN (BuUmba) (7.30 p.m.): I am not particularly proud to rise to speak in this debate. Once again the Govemment is scraping the bottom of the barrel in its prostitution of the democratic process in this State. Once again it has proved itself to be the political and industrial gangster that the Opposition has been alleging it to be for some time. The Bill is potentially the worst for democracy that this country has ever seen. It outlaws strikes of any nature and called for any reason. When the BiU becomes law, it will be Ulegal to strike in Queensland. I feel that is probably one of the worst attacks on the basic rights of workers and individuals ever faced by any State in this country. No free country in the world has had imposed on its citizens the same sort of restrictions for any period of time. Because this legislation cannot be accepted, the workers in this State will rise up against the Govemment. When everything is boiled down, the only thing a worker has is his right to withhold his labour. This Bill takes that away. The legislation is now before the House for the third time. On each occasion its passage through the House has been in similar circumstances. The House was not designed to be used in this manner. The way that the Govemment mns the business of the House displays an absolute contempt for decency and credibility. This is the third time the legislation has been debated, and on each occasion it has been shoved through the House in the same manner. That shows the Govemment's absolute contempt for the democratic system and democratic processes. It is an example of the "power at any price" mentality of the National Party in this State. I can only say that the pay-back is on. Obviously this piece of legislation is a pay­ back to the mad, fanatical Right Wing that is supporting the push by the Premier of this State to get to Canberra. Honourable members have seen the numbers used in this House on previous occasions, and, if my experience with industrial relations legislation is any guide, this will not be the last. In Australia the National Party now has the mantle as the radical party in politics. Its members are the militants and the revolutionaries. The legislation is an example of the mad Right in full flight. The legislation has a radical history. Mr Gately interjected. Mr Prest: The only time you worked was when you were a doorman at a brothel. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Curtis wiU withdraw that comment. Mr PREST: I withdraw. Mr McLEAN: I shall touch on a little of the history of this legislation. When it was first introduced on 24 October 1984, the Minister, Mr Lester, said that he was introducing it because the Federal Govemment was in the process of trying to remove sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act. The Bill then presented to the House was supposed to be a counter to that move. As history shows, the Federal Govemment's move to remove those sections was defeated in the Senate. To live up to the policies of the National Party, it pushed the Bill through the House with a sledge­ hammer. On 21 November 1984 the former Leader of the House, Mr Wharton, moved the following motion— "That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and the Sessional Orders, the following times be allotted for the remaining stages of the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1379

foUowing Bill, unless the remaining stages be concluded sooner on this day's sitting—". The conclusion of the second-reading debate was at that time moved for 9.15 p.m. and the report from Committee and third reading by 10.15 p.m. The motion stated further— "If the debate on any stage of the Bill be not included by the time so specified, Mr Speaker, or the Chairman, as the case may be, shall forthwith put the remaining questions on that Bill without any further amendment or debate." So a controversial BiU of this nature in the first instance was pushed through when there was absolutely no urgency and no need to push it through. The Govemment showed contempt. The Bill was pushed through in a matter of hours, with the Opposition having the opportunity to put forward only two speakers. In that debate the Opposition pointed out that the Bill would come back before the House within a short period because it was ill-conceived, ill thought out and unworkable in its form at that time. The Opposition was quite correct. On 28 March 1985 the Bill was brought back to the House to be amended. The motion stated— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the immediate presentation to the House of a Bill to amend the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984 in certain particulars; and the passing of such Bill through all its stages this day." On the second occasion that the Bill came before this House some of its provisions were tightened up. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "The Bill extends the operation of the act to cover, in addition to secondary boycotts, damage caused by three types of primary boycott, namely— (a) demarcation disputes; (b) strikes called without reasonable notice; (c) strikes called to enforce preference to members of a union. The BUI also extends the Act so as to include, within the scope of the persons protected, Govemment departments and State authorities. A definition of a strike is included to ensure that that word has the same meaning as it does in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act." Of course, the Minister went on to alter the definition of "strike" in that Act. It was not strong enough for the Govemment at the time, so the Govemment amended it by adding a heap of extra clauses so that any act at all by a person between rising in the moming and going to bed at night could possibly constitute a strike. The Minister thought that that would be enough. However, the legislation is back before the House again. It is back in a form that is probably the worst of any industrial relations legislation that this Government has put forward. The Govemment has certainly excelled itself Mr Davis: Reminiscent of Nazi Germany in '39. Mr McLEAN: Very similar to Nazi Germany. If the Govemment is allowed to go the way it is heading, that is the way things could end up. However, I can assure the Govemment that that will not happen, because the workers of this State will rebel at action of this type being taken by the Govemment. The way the Govemment is going in this State, no jobs are safe; working conditions are not safe. A worker could go to work in the moming and, by the stroke of a pen from this Govemment, have his working conditions changed. There is no longer job security in Queensland, and everyone knows what will be next. The Minister has tabled a Green Paper in this House containing flowery statements. All honourable members know what is contained in it. The next move of this Govemment 1380 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill wiU be to attack youth wages, penalty rates, holiday loadings, the 40 or 38-hour week, the eight-hour day, four weeks holiday, sick leave or any other condition that has been legitimately won over the years by workers through the proper and established channels of industrial relations in this country. Mr Casey: Long service leave. Mr McLEAN: Long service leave is another one. Any other conditions that honourable members wish to name will go when the contract system is introduced into Queensland by this Government. The Industrial Commission in this State is regarded by this Govemment as an inconvenience. The Govemment has continually by-passed the Industrial Commission through this legislation. Every piece of industrial legislation that has come before this House in recent times has been aimed at weakening the power of the Industrial Commission. The Government finds it so much easier to just legislate to enforce any changes that it desires. However, it is creating an instability in industry in this State that will take years to overcome. The Govemment has overridden the proper fomm. It has no basis in industrial relations, and it will suffer for it. This amendment outlaws strikes of any nature for any reason. After this legislation is passed, it will be illegal to strike. It is only five months since the election. I ask the Minister: why did he not include this in his policy when he went to the people? Mr Davis: I asked him to. Mr McLEAN: Yes, the honourable member for Brisbane Central did, and so did I. Why did the Minister not say that he was going to cut wages and conditions and attack penalty rates, holidays, holiday loadings, annual leave, sick pay, long-service leave and any other condition that workers have? Why did he not say that he was going to create a state of emergency in this State? Mr Davis: He is a political coward.

Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I find the words "political coward" offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Brisbane Central will withdraw the words. Mr DAVIS: In due deference to you Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Brisbane Central will just withdraw the words. Mr DAVIS: Right, I withdraw them.

Mr McLEAN: The Minister and the National Party in this State have a lot to answer for. The National Party fronted up to the people of Queensland to get a mandate to govem for the next three years, but not once did I hear it say that it was going to take these drastic measures. Not once did I hear it say that it was going to create a permanent state of emergency, which is exactly what this legislation does. Did the Minister say, "If I turn the clock back 100 years in regard to wages and conditions, will you vote for me?"? Did he say, "If we ensure that employers have the opportunity to legally employ your sons and daughters as slave labour, will you vote for me?"? No, he did not. Did he say, "If we smash the trade unions, will you give us your vote, or if we ensure that employers can legally exploit and mistreat workers, will you vote for us?"? No, he did not, and that was just five months ago. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1381

What he has done is typical of the attitude of his party and the fanatical Right Wing stooges that mn around exposing the policies of the mad Right Wing element within this country. It is typical of the hypocrisy of this Govemment and of the deceitful manner in which it has been goveming Queensland over the last few years. The Green Paper, which the Minister tabled in this House a few weeks ago, is probably the greatest con of all times. This piece of legislation has made that Green Paper virtually redundant. It is quite obvious and understandable why the legislation that is proposed in that Green Paper will not be going through this House during this sitting of Parliament. There is no need for it to go through. There is enough contained in the legislation that the House is debating tonight to make any other legislation look like a kindergarten story. I remember clearly some of the matters contained in that Green Paper, and I imagine that any other member who has read it would have noted the flowery explanations in it. It stated that what was proposed would create a better industrial environment, a better life for all, the enhancement of opportunities, fair dealing and progress in industry, flexibility Mr Vaughan: Job enrichment. Mr McLEAN: And, as the honourable member for Nudgee has stated, job enrich­ ment. In addition, there was to be a faster growth in wages. There were many flowery statements in the Green Paper. It was stated that it would provide for multiskiUed and flexible hours. The word "flexible" was used quite often throughout the document. Productivity bonuses, security of employment, job creation, fair opportunity, safeguards for workers, workplace co-operation, cash in lieu and maximum flexibUity were spoken of, in addition to many other matters. Now the document will sit on the table until the next sitting of this Parliament. This legislation, in its intent, will not of course do any one of the things that the Green Paper has promised. In fact it is another part of the progression of this Govemment towards the overall attack on organised labour in this State. I put it to the House that this Minister has the vital and proper task of overseeing a department that almost every day has consequences, in some way, on almost every Queenslander. I refer to employee protection, protection of working conditions, wages, protection against exploitation, safety in the work-place, workers' health, provision of jobs, training and apprenticeships, ensuring standards, control of prices, the control of workings hours, workers' compensation and consumer affairs, just to name a few. I do not have to point out to the House the importance of those responsibilities, but I do believe that those responsibilities should be carried out with absolute faimess to all and not just the privUeged few. I am afraid that that is not happening. This Bill is an example of that. It shows exactly what the Minister is about. He is a stooge for the New Right and big business. The Bill is designed to complement the New Right's anti-union and anti- worker policies and, as I said earlier, is part of the pay-back for the money that was put into the National Party campaign in this State at the last election and part of the pay­ back for the money that has been channelled into the push by the Premier of this State to go to Canberra. Mr Lester: He would do a better job than Bob Hawke. Mr McLEAN: He has made a nice mess of this State. Queensland is the unemployment capital of Australia; it is the bankruptcy capital of Australia; and it has many other titles. The Premier has a lot to answer for. An Opposition member: The highest AIDS. Mr McLEAN: The highest level of AIDS and the highest number of unwanted pregnancies. The Minister has failed in his responsibilities to represent fully all sections of our society. He has delivered the pay-back to the New Right. The pay-back is being made 1382 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

now. The Queensland Govemment has been bought. It is essential that the Bill be seen for what it is and in its proper context. Mr Comben: The best Govemment that money can buy. Mr McLEAN: Without a doubt. It is part of the overall attack on the trade union movement and workers' rights. The background to the climate which has been created and which has afforded the Minister the luxury of carrying on with this legislation has been the progression of problems and circumstances not only in Australia but in other countries throughout the world. From about the sixties, Australia has seen a progressive recession, high inflation, high unemployment and low growth. That has created the ideal cUmate for the type of activity in which the Minister and the mad Right are engaging now. When one adds to that the technological change of giant proportions that has occurred in Australia in the last few years, one sees that that ideal climate is improved even further. New economic theories are exposed on a daily basis. The words "free market", "privatisation", "dere­ gulation" and "labour market flexibility" are used on ever-increasing occasions. When I examine the BiU, I reaUse what "free market" means. It is certainly free for the big boys. It is certainly free for the big employers. It is a buyers' market because the jobs will go to the lowest bidder. There is no way in the world that the meaning of "free market" is not clear in my mind now. Those are all terms that have been used at an ever-increasing rate by the people who are exposing new economic theories. They come out with the statement that the road to economic growth is easy and that it is quite simple. They say that one has only to reduce wages and job security and, of course, minimise union influence. I must add that the Minister is not being original with the Bill. In fact, he would probably be the only person who does not know that it is designed to smash organised labour. Since World War II, union influence in America has declined to a large extent. Massive attacks have been made by the Govemment and employers in that country on the trade union movement. American legislation is very similar to the legislation that has been introduced in Queensland. In America there is legislation relating to ballots of employers before a union can be recognised and there are limitations on the right to strike, as weU as Govemments taking extreme measures that are similar to those being taken in Queensland. We have witnessed also the birth of anti-union consultancy services and the tactics of employers in dismissing activists, their prolonged litigation in the courts and their fierce anti-union propaganda, to the extent where plants and works are being transferred and works are being transferred from one State to another in order to exploit workers by paying them lower wages. When one compares the USA's attitude towards industrial relations with that of the Queensland Govemment, the similarities are more than noticeable. For some time the trade union movement in Britain has been declining. One of the major influences upon that decline has been the massive unemployment under the Thatcher Govemment. There has been a step-by-step approach to industrial relations by that Govemment, particulariy in relation to the employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 and the trade union Act in 1984. As many honourable members would recall also, I remember clearly the Premier's reaction, when he was overseas on one of his many trips, to Mrs Thatcher's industrial relations policies. A big strike was under way at that time. I clearly remember that the Premier overshadowed the Minister by sending regular telexes back to Australia. In fact, he sent the telex machines wild because of his joy at the actions of the Thatcher Govemment. If I remember correctly, the Premier spent 20 minutes speaking to the Minister on the telephone, during which time he set out the whole of the industrial relations strategy for the National Party. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1383

Mr Lester: We both overshadowed you. You didn't even get a mention in the rating the other day. Mr McLEAN: So what? I do not stand in front of a mirror practising elocution, as the Minister does. The more one considers this legislation, the more it becomes quite evident that there has been outside influence. That sort of statement made by the Minister is typical of the attitude of the National Party. The Minister is treating this legislation as a joke. I can assure the Minister that when the consequences of this legislation are experienced, and its effects are felt, it will take the smile right off his face. As I said earlier, the proposed legislation makes the Green Paper quite redundant. Although the end result of the Green paper will no doubt come before this House, it will not be an extremely important matter, because this is a most vicious piece of legislation. The worst part about it—and I touched upon this earlier—is that the debate has been confined to three hours. We will not reach the stage of debating the individual clauses. Mr Lester: If you sat down now, we would get to them. Mr McLEAN: That is the sort of remark that I would expect from you. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair. Mr McLEAN: I object to the fact that we will not be able to debate the clauses. We will have to go through them in a scattered manner. I am also aware that the Minister will not have time to reply. There are many questions that I wish to ask the Minister about this legislation. Mr Lester: If you sit down now, we will do the clauses. Mr McLEAN: That is typical of the Minister's attitude to this legislation. This is probably the worst industrial relations Bill that has ever come before any State Parliament in Australia. The Minister states that three hours is sufficient time in which to debate the Bill. The Minister put this Bill on the table of this House at 2.30 p.m. today. The Opposition had only a couple of hours to consider the legislation. Now the Minister is asking me to sit down. That is typical of the Minister's disregard for the parliamentary system of this State. Mr Prest: One feUow collected about $30,000 illegally. Mr McLEAN: When looked at from this angle, they probably are good examples of the National Party Cabinet. Mr Gunn: Get on with your speech. Mr McLEAN: How can I, with the stupid statements that are coming out of your mouth? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will stop their interjections. The honourable member for Bulimba will please speak through the Chair. Mr McLEAN: The definitions in some of the clauses are very wide and need explaining. Anyone who tries to read the amendments will be confused. Page 3 of the Bill refers to "research and development" as meaning— ". . . work undertaken with a view to— (a) acquiring or increasing knowledge of matters relevant to methods of carrying on any business;"— "activity" or "enterprise" would be included— (b) using knowledge to devise new methods of carrying on any business; (c) applying knowledge in the carrying on of any business; 1384 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

(d) introducing or changing mechanisation or technology in any business;". That needs quite a deal of explanation. That page of the BiU contains many provisions that need much explanation by the Govemment. Clause 5 (d) adds the following proposed subsection— "(2) For the purposes of this Act 'research and development' shall be deemed to be included within the expression 'trade or commerce'." Page 8 of the Bill states— "A project may be a project of research and development notwithstanding that no research and development work has commenced." The provision covers a wide area. There should be an explanation as to how far that clause can be extended. Even if work is not commenced, 20 years down the track the conditions of this oppressive legislation could still apply. The Minister has much to explain. I am sure that in the near future he will have his hands full, because the legislation will not be accepted. At page 4 of the Bill, preference in employment raises its ugly head again. Mr Lester: Soon you will be able to get preference for a private union. Mr McLEAN: Of course. A matter of concem to me on the same page is the provision which states— "... a strike shall be taken to have commenced without adequate notice unless notice thereof that conforms with the requirements of this subsection has been given. The requirements of a notice are— (a) the notice shall be of the day and the time when the strike is to commence; (b) the notice shall be in writing bearing the name of every person or association by whom it is given and signed by each such person or, in the case of an association, by its secretary or other officer; (c) the notice shall be given by— each employee who proposes to participate in the strike; or each association of employees who might participate in the strike; (d) the notice shall be given to— the Minister,

every person (other than such employer) who is likely to suffer loss or damage in his business by reason of the strike and who has, at any time before the time when the notice is by paragraph (e) required to be given, notified in writing one or more of the employees who might participate in the strike or an association of employees who might participate in the strike that he desires. . ." This Bill goes beyond the usual scope of what would be acceptable under anyone's idea of sensible industrial relations. One could try to read some intent into the Bill, but one would become more and more confused. The reason for the legislation is not confusing, of course; the Govemment has set out explicitly to take away the rights of workers to withhold their labour, as I said earlier. The Bill covers just about every situation. By reading it over the short period that honourable members had before the resumption of the debate, I do not believe I found that there is any area from which a worker in this State could legally withhold his labour. The Minister has probably been successful in achieving the Govemment's objective, but it will backfire. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1385

Before I conclude my speech, I must touch on one other area. The provisions of the Bill state that the Minister has given himself authorisation to grant to any person financial or other assistance, in such form and to such extent as the Minister thinks fit, in connection with the commencement of proceedings to be brought by that person or the conduct of proceedings brought by or against that person, whether the matter of the proceedings arises under this Act, any other Act or otherwise. I can see that this sort of a clause in any Bill would create only enormous problems for a Govemment. It will certainly open a Pandora's box. At any one time, I can envisage thousands of cases being brought before the courts. If I had children of school age, I would be coaching them very strenuously in a career in the legal profession because, once again, this legislation will be a dream for the legal profession. Clause 13 states as foUows— "The Crown, the Minister and any other person shall not incur any liability at law or for costs of the proceedings, in connexion with which assistance is given under the authority of this subsection, on account of the giving of such assistance." That part of the clause is very wide and its terms are broad. It is not difficult to see what its intent is. Someone in the community will always take the Government up on an issue such as this and will create the problems that the Govemment is after. The variation in the political and industrial environment among the States in Australia is enormous. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Westem Australia are all Labor States. In those States, the economic and industrial relations policies are showing results. The Labor Governments in all those States have taken a positive approach to promoting industrial development and creating jobs. Those Govemments have involved unions in dealing with the very serious issues of unemployment and promotion of industrial and economic development. There is a tremendously sharp contrast between those States and their attitudes towards industrial relations and the trade union movement and the attitude of this National Party State Govemment and the attitude and actions of the New Right. This Bill is designed to further weaken the powers of the Industrial Commission and to reduce wages and conditions. The eventual aim of this kind of legislation is to smash organised labour. The major political parties in Australia have never been so markedly different in their policies as they are in policies on industrial relations: whether it is a good or bad thing for the conservative side of politics, only time will teU. It may be politically popular to adopt that conservative line of approach now, but in the long term, I can assure this House that it will be detrimental to industry throughout the country. In Queensland, the people are suffering because industry needs stability—the kind of stability that is not evident in Queensland at present. Because of a lack of industrial development in this State, Queensland's economy has been slowly wrecked. Queensland has been left behind in the Australiawide recovery that is taking place. Unfortunately, the southem States are laughing all the way to the bank. I put it to the Minister that no industry would dare start operations in Queensland whUe this State Govemment maintains its present industrial attitudes. Because of the time that is left in this debate, I would like to end on the note that the Opposition deplores this Govemment's attitude to the whole industrial scene. With this Bill the Government has topped off its efforts. It is the worst piece of legislation that has been introduced into this House. The Opposition opposes it in the very strongest terms. Mr ALISON (Maryborough) (8.05 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate and support the Bill. I would like to comment on a couple of matters that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bulimba, referred to. He made the comment that we—that is, those of us on the Govemment side—are treating this legislation as a joke. I take offence at that. We are certainly not treating this legislation as a joke. I suggest that certain unions—the lawless unions—are the ones that are treating Australia and its laws as a joke. They are industrial thugs. Even though they are only in the minority, they still exist and they are supported by honourable members opposite.

75052—47 1386 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment BiU

Apparently honourable members opposite support that industrial thuggery, the complete disregard for law and order and disrespect for the laws of this land. I say to honourable members opposite: let Australia get back to work; put those union thugs where they should be; and let the honest workers who want to work—95 per cent of the workers of this country—get back to work and not be dictated to. Most times those workers are not even given a chance to vote on whether they want to strike or not. The honourable member for BuUmba also referred to the 17'/2 per cent loading, long-service leave and various other things being attacked. Really, those things have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill—absolutely nothing. The honourable member for BuUmba also referred to instabiUty in industry in this State. I suggest to honourable members opposite that the real instability in this country is not brought about by this legislation; it has been brought about by the industrial thugs to whom I have referred. They hold themselves above the law. They treat their members with utter disrespect and contempt. Nine times out of 10 they do not give their members the right to vote on whether they want to go on strike or not. They are told to strike. Over the years plenty of strikes have occurred in Maryborough. Because they have not been asked to vote on whether they want to go on strike or not, members of the meat-workers union and the railway unions have come to me wanting to know what to do about it. They have been told to go on strike. That is where the real instability is, not in this legislation. This legislation will bring stability. What about the Transport Workers Union? It is still holding owner-drivers in this country to ransom. It is still demanding that owner-drivers become members of the Transport Workers Union. Where do the honourable members opposite stand on that? Obviously they go quiet. They support this thuggery. They support this stand-and-deliver tactic whereby owner-drivers, who should not have to become members of any union let alone the Transport Workers Union, are made to become members of that union. Where do Hawke and Keating stand on that? Over the last 18 months an increasing number of union members have come into my electorate office seeking advice on ways and means of how to get out of a particular union. Members of the AWU, the ETU and the FEDFA have come into my electorate office in increasing numbers wanting information on how to get out of unions. They have not come in at my request; they have come to me to seek advice, whereupon I have passed their requests on to the honourable Minister's office and they have received advice. Why are those hard-working citizens of Maryborough wanting to know how to get out of unions? It is because they are sick and tired of the tactics of their union- leaders. That is what it is all about. What about the damage and loss to private citizens? Nothing was heard from the honourable member for Bulimba about the loss that is incurred by private citizens, small businesses, big businesses and farmers through the stand-and-deliver tactics of various union-leaders in this State and country. Honourable members opposite obviously stand up for thuggery and for union thugs; they do not give a damn about the hard-working citizens of this country. As a matter of fact, I hope that those honourable members opposite who speak to this debate will indicate to the House just whom it is that the ALP really stands up for—industrial thugs or the hard-working citizens of this State. The Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act was introduced in late 1984 to deal with conduct injurious to trade and business and the supply of goods. It has proven to be a most effective remedy to many forms of industrial action which adversely affect the community. At the time of its introduction, decisive legislative action by the Queensland Govemment was necessitated by the Federal Labor Govemment's plan to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. That was a massive sell-out by Hawke and Keating, who are supposed to represent the whole of Australia, not the minority group of union thugs. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1387

Those sections provide protection to businesses being adversely affected by militant union boycotts. The Queensland Act was intended to replace, or operate concurrently with, the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The Federal Govemment claimed at the time that statistics showed that this part of the Trade Practices Act was scarcely used and was industrially unnecessary; but statistics need not be a measure of the effectiveness of legislation. The mere existence of sections 45D and 45E in the Commonwealth legislation is a most usefiil deterrent to irresponsible union action. Fortunately for the rest of Australia, the Senate rejected the proposed repeal of sections 45D and 45E, with the result that employers retained a course of action against secondary boycotts, enabling such actions as those taken by the Mudginberri abattoir against the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. The Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act gives protection to Queensland employers and businesses affected directly or indirectly by strikes. It was further strengthened by amendment during the electricity dispute early in 1985. The evidence shows that this legislation has been extremely effective in bringing about speedy resolutions to industrial disputes. Often the mere threat of its use seems to have been enough to deter irresponsible union-leaders from taking hasty strike action or from harassing hard-pressed employers. Scarcely a day goes by without reports of union industrial action. The airlines, the waterfront, the coal-miners, the transport industry and the meat industry are regularly in the news because of union bans and strikes. The poor, long-suffering public are heartily sick and tired of being inconvenienced by the antics of trade unions and the power they wield without responsibility. Union militancy and sheer thuggery reached the depths of hell when the Builders Labourers Federation was on the rampage in southem States. Norm GaUagher and his henchmen, with their irresponsible actions, mined many builders. Mr Gately: And built seaside houses. Mr ALISON: Yes, that is correct. It was quite interesting how the seaside house was built. Many people thought that the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was unparalleled in its actions in this country, but the Builders Labourers Federation and Norm Gallagher finally went so far that even their mates in the Labor Party became worried and embarrassed and set out to deregister the union. Mr Henderson: They were a total disgrace. Mr ALISON: They were a disgrace. The Queensland Govemment is accused of passing tough anti-union laws but, when compared with the laws used to abolish the BLF, they are mild. The New South Wales Govemment passed a law requiring only the certificate of the Minister for Labour Relations to get rid of the State branch; yet the honourable member for Bulimba has castigated the Queensland Govemment for bringing this legislation before the House. I repeat that in New South Wales only the certificate of a Minister was required to get rid of a particular State branch of a union. Mr Gately: But they haven't got the intestinal fortitude to carry it through, have they? Mr ALISON: No, the New South Wales Govemment certainly has not. All it wants to do is get at private citizens. That is the same Govemment led by former trade union official Barrie Unsworth that recently introduced legislation to prevent civil actions on industrial matters coming before the courts. The Industrial Arbitration (Industrial Torts) Amendment Bill, which was passed by the New South Wales House of Assembly, provided that employers had to seek the approval of the Full Bench of the New South Wales Industrial Commission before taking civil action against unions. What a rort against employers! That was a 1388 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

gross intmsion on anyone's rights and would have left many employers hanging in mid­ air while unions continued to picket their premises with immunity. Fortunately the New South Wales Govemment bowed to public pressure and withdrew the Bill. It was a cave-in. Mr Gately: They were weak again. Mr ALISON: Yes, that Govemment was weak again. One of the most pubUcised cases involving section 45D of the Trade Practices Act was the Mudginberri dispute. I will examine that dispute. It involved a dreadful abuse of union power. The Mudginberri dispute began as a result of an award granted to Northem Territory meat-workers on 2 May 1985. That award enabled employees and employers to negotiate directly under a payment-by-results system which, of course, is anathema to certain union officials. Under the award employees eamed an agreed amount for killing a certain number of animals. The award supplanted the tally system, which the unions had exploited. The agreement for payment by results, which was then directly negotiated between the employers and the employees, suited both sides. However, it did not suit the union-leaders. Mr Hynd: It wasn't a go-slow. Mr ALISON: No, that is tme. It led to a dramatic increase in production. It gave Mudginberri workers high weekly pay, and the cost of slaughtering was reduced to less than a quarter of the cost at the Katherine abattoir. In an arrogant refusal to accept the verdict of the Federal Arbitration Commission, the AMIEU, the meat-workers' union, expelled the Mudginberri workers—so much for looking after the workers—and set up a picket line at the abattoir. When Federal meat inspectors refused to cross this picket line, the abattoir owner, Mr Jay Pendarvis, took action in the Federal Court under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The only people not satisfied by the agreement for payment by results, for reasons best known to themselves, were the troglodyte union-leaders. The Federal Court then granted injunctions against the AMIEU precluding further picketing at Mudginberri. Having ignored the Federal Arbitration Commission, the union then ignored the Federal Court's orders. In September 1985, after refusing to lift its pickets as ordered, the union was fined $100,000 for contempt of court. The AMIEU responded to those legal proceedings by calling a so-called sympathy strike throughout Australia. At this stage the foresight of the Queensland Govemment in introducing the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act was demonstrated to all. A Supreme Court injunction was obtained under that Act restraining Queensland meat-workers from taking part in this senseless strike. All the while the picketing action was going on, Mr Pendarvis was naturally incurring heavy financial losses because he was unable to fill substantial contracts for the supply of export buffalo meat. The loss was, of course, also Australia's loss. Fortunately, Mr Pendarvis was determined to make the fullest use of the Trade Practices Act, and in July last year he was ultimately successful in winning his damages claim against the AMIEU. The Federal Court ordered the union to pay Mudginberri $1.7m for damages caused by the picket line. Even this amount was not enough to cover all the losses and costs incurred by Mr Pendarvis during this whole very distasteful episode. Where would Jay Pendarvis have been but for those sections of the Trade Practices Act? Most people in the community naturally hailed the Mudginberri decision as a welcome demonstration that unions were not immune from the mle of law but rather could be held accountable for the consequences of their illegitimate actions. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1389

The need for the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and the Trade Practices Act has been demonstrated over and over again. Because of threats to services, the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act was used successfully in the long-mnning power industry dispute in 1985 not only against the Electrical Trades Union and the power operators but also against other unions. If the unions had had their way in that dispute, the lights in Queensland would stUl be flickering on and off at the orders of union officials. That disgraceful affair could not be allowed to continue, and the State Govemment took the appropriate action. The power dispute marked a tuming point in union militancy in this State. Once again Queensland led the way and showed how to handle that sort of situation. No-one will forget the blockade of Queensland during the power dispute by some Federal unions, organised by the ACTU—of which Mr Hawke was of course once the president—nor will anyone forget that the Hawke Govemment never lifted a finger to remove the blockade, even though it had power to do so. The Crimes Act, an Act of the Federal Parliament, gave the Federal Govemment ample power to move. Section 30J of the Crimes Act empowers the Federal Govemment to issue a proclamation where a serious industrial disturbance prejudices or threatens trade or commerce among the States. After the proclamation, offences arise for continuing industrial action. Section 30K of the Crimes Act creates offences for boycotts and for threats of boycotts and for obstmcting or hindering the transport of goods in trade and commerce among the States. The Hawke Govemment allowed this blockade to continue and had no intention of preventing the unions persisting with their unlawful acts. There is ample evidence to support the continued existence of the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act in Queensland. The measures that are now before the House will strengthen the Act and clarify some existing provisions. The extension of penalties against primary boycotts to interstate and intemational trade and research and development projects is necessary. If Queensland industry is to progress, research and development will be an integral part of that progress. Australia's response to the challenges imposed by the current economic situation calls for an ability to adapt speedily and flexibly to changing market demand. This in tum depends on applied research and the development of new technology and industrial processes. This vital research and development work must be aUowed to go on unhampered by unthinking and irresponsible industrial action. The Luddite mentality of much of Australia's union movement has been demonstrated all too frequently in its resistance to technological change. The country is indeed in a sorry state when legislation is required to protect the research and development that is vital to the nation's future. The only way the Australian economy will recover is by innovative technological change and industrial restmcturing. Mindless, militant unions should not be aUowed to hinder it in the protection of narrow and outdated notions of self-perceived interests. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa) (8.21 p.m.): I begin my short speech tonight by saying how much I regret that the gag has been applied to this legislation. As a new member in this House, I find it very disturbing indeed that such critical legislation as is before the House this evening is to be mshed through in two or three hours some time after 10 o'clock tonight when it is deserving of the greatest public scmtiny and a great deal of informed debate before it is passed. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BEARD: However, as the honourable member for Brisbane Central has said, the Liberal Party supports this legislation, but with very grave reservations about certain parts of it which would have been better debated at some length. I suspect that this may be part of the grand Joh show to get to Canberra in order to show Mr John Stone, his new financial adviser, that he is indeed made of stem stuff 1390 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill and will take firm action against the unions in this State before proceeding to the major scene. Mr Henderson: They already knew it. Mr BEARD: The honourable member for Mount Gravatt has said that they knew it; but if they knew it, they knew well. I have no disagreement in principle with moves to limit excessive union power, and if I could underiine whilst speaking, I would underiine the word "excessive". AustraUa is full of examples of it. For a start, compulsory unionism is excessive union power. In the 1980s we Uve in a democracy in which I find compulsion to do anything extremely disagreeable, and that includes Mr Campbell: You drive on the right-hand side of the road? Mr BEARD: I will drive on the correct side of the road to save my Ufe, but I resent and object to any coercion or force to get me to join any organisation that I do not wish to join. Mr McEIligott: Why don't you mn as an Independent? Mr BEARD: I am a Liberal member of Parliament, and that is the best I can do here in this State, because I am able to speak my mind within the confines of a philosophy with which I agree and not mn blindly behind a caucus or party instmction. I object to the lack of democracy within unions. I instance the secret ballot, and I need go no further than that. I object to the farcical work practices which have been inflicted on Australia by excessive union power. I could spend 20 minutes talking about farcical work practices, but I will instance just a couple. When a dragline-driver is not aUowed to push a reset button to start the dragline again, but an electrician and a trades assistant have to be sent out from the town to press that button, that is farcical. If an electrician from the town is sent for to come and have a look at an electrical fault on the plant, he receives a four-hour call-in for doing so. I have no objection to that. His private life has been disturbed because he must go out and do it. However, while he is there the plant personnel discover another electrical fault and say, "Look, Jack, while you are here, will you fix this?", that demands another four-hour call-in payment. I object to that because it is excessive union power. I object to the readiness of many unions to go on the grass immediately they have some small or imagined complaint and before negotiating, and to then "negotiate" holding a gun. I object strongly to the destmction of Australia's export markets by excessive union powers, where Australian products are being priced out of the world markets. In saying that I do not exclude the two Govemments of Queensland and Australia in the part they have played in this as well with the implementation of excessive freight rates disguised as Govemment charges and, in the Federal scene, the novel tax on costs rather than on profits, such as is exemplified by the fringe benefits tax. Not content with taxing the profits of enterprises, the Federal Govemment then decided to tax the costs of producing the goods. It did not have the guts to make the payee—the receiver of the benefit—pay the tax; it imposed the tax on the payer of the benefit. That is completely novel. I object to the undue political power that unions have in Australia. I believe that unions have gone far beyond the old mateship tradition. Nowadays, the mates of Australia do what they are told. The whole cake in Australia is much smaller. Everyone would like a bigger slice of the cake, but the cake is smaller. I think that we will have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We will have to take whatever slice we can get. Everyone has to face facts. Nowadays, the cake is smaller. Contrary to what the member for Bulimba said, I am not arguing about the right to withhold labour—the most basic right of all workers; I am arguing about the abuse of that right. I am not anti-union; I am anti-union abuse—the abuse of union power. I am not anti-business; I am anti-business abuse—the abuse of business power. In the last Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1391 few weeks that I have been in this Chamber, I have heard some reference to secret deals and so forth. Mr Davis: You're a man for all seasons. Mr BEARD: A man for all seasons indeed. The best example of the abuse of union power in the last year or two has already been given by the member for Maryborough, namely, the Mudginberri dispute. The employer was happy; the employees were happy; the product was going out; money was being made; wealth was being created; everyone was happy—except some unions that did not like someone by-passing them. The unions came in and tried to min the whole lot. They created no wealth; they just created strife. In principle, I believe that curbs on excessive union power are weU overdue, and to that extent I support the legislation. According to every poll that I have seen in the last year or two, 75 per cent of the people of Australia would agree with that statement. Blue-coUar workers are flocking to the conservative parties. That was evident in the election in my electorate and from many people around the State to whom I have spoken since. People who were once the traditional base of the Labor Party are deserting that party in droves, because nowadays many workers are far more interested in Govemments that will create employment and wealth, curb waste and foolish spending and encourage enterprises and business by creating incentives. Unfortunately, the word "profit" seems to have become a dirty word in today's world. I ask a couple of simple questions: why do people invest in enterprises? They invest in them to make a profit. What happens if they do not make a profit? They pull their money out and the enterprise goes to the wall. Profits have to be made. Workers get jobs from profits. Anything that attacks the principle of "incentivation"—there is the word; did anyone pick it up? I used it on purpose and I knew that the member for Roma, Mr Cooper, would be the first to hear it—and anything that curbs the incentive to create a profit or wealth in this country is not doing any of us, particularly the workers of the country, any good. Mr McEIligott: Why do you reckon Labor is in power in five Parliaments in Australia? Mr BEARD: If the honourable member waits a while, we will see what happens in the next year or two. Workers in Australia nowadays are far more concemed with finding and keeping jobs for themselves and their children. They are far more concemed about the interest rates that they are paying and about keys to houses being retumed as mortgages have to be redeemed. They are far more concemed with those things than they are in preserving farcical work practices or the particular perks of some celebrated union executives with houses at McLaughlin's Beach and other places such as that. Mr Gately: And all they know about labour is nine months after the wharfies' picnic. Mr BEARD: I was hoping that I could do without the honourable member's support; however, I thank him, at any rate. I refer to a famous quotation from the early seventies—"It's time". It is time for some constraints to be applied to the untrammelled power of some union-leaders. I now come to a "but", and it is a very big "but": why is a sledge-hammer being used to cmsh a walnut? If one prisoner must be shot, why are we shooting all the hostages? If one hut in the village is contaminated, why are we buming down the whole village? We have reversed the old saying "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". No person who pretends to love democracy can accept with equanimity the following statements in the Minister's second-reading speech— "In proving incitement or counselling it is sufficient to prove the substance of the speech or statement made without proving the actual words used. 1392 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

It is conclusive evidence in the absence of evidence to the contrary that proof of publication of any speech or statement attributed to any person on behalf of an association of employees in a newspaper or broadcast by radio or television is evidence that the speech or statement was made by the person to whom it was attributed. The Court is permitted to take judicial notice of every national and commercial broadcasting station and television station." I find that appalling, and I am indeed very sorry to see that that is included in this legislation, the principle of which I regard as quite sound. I caution the Govemment that, by this foolish overreaction, it will arouse the ire of many people in Queensland and Australia. I support the substance rather than the processes of this Bill. I remind all honourable members of a motion which has been on the notice paper since this Pariiament began. In fact, I believe that a similar motion has been on the notice paper of this Parliament for approximately four years. That motion is in the name of the member for Nundah, Sir William Knox, and it states— "That this House calls upon the Govemment to wholeheartedly support the principle of voluntary unionism and, in particular:— (1) To immediately cease requiring persons entering the Public Service or the employ of statutory authorities to join a union. (2) To immediately modify the usual terms of Government works or other contracts so that they no longer impose the obligation upon the contractor or the sub-contractors to employ a fully-unionised workforce on the worksite. (3) To repeal any legislation or regulations which require a show of union tickets as, for example, exists in the Queensland Railway Regulations. (4) To immediately amend State industrial relations legislation to outlaw compulsory unionism in any form including that achieved by the insertion of preference clauses in awards." This is easy! This does not require legislation. This is policy. It simply requires a decision to be made by the Govemment. The Govemment would be more fair dinkum if it dealt with that motion rather than this legislation. Mr COOPER (Roma) (8.32 p.m.): I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Mount Isa agrees with the basic thmst of the legislation. I suppose that he did try to have a bit both ways. However, I am aware that he knows what he is talking about. He certainly comes from a place where he is bound to leam it. The honourable member was a little mixed up in his comments about union- bashing, using a sledge-hammer to smash a kemel, and so on. I realise that my next comment will evoke some catcalls from the Opposition, but this Government does not believe in union-bashing. It is making a very determined effort to ensure that the people to whom the honourable member for Mount Isa is referring maintain their employment. That is what the Govemment is on about— maintaining employment as well as looking after the interests of the State, the country and the economy. No Govemment members receive any form of vindictive pleasure from legislation such as this. We know that it is responsible, necessary and overdue. In case Opposition members are not aware—they should be—this nation is going broke. It is almost broke. Paul Keating more or less alluded to that in his "banana republic" statement. We also know that businesses are going broke, and we know why. Our balance of trade figures are absolutely abysmal. We also know the reason for that. Australia has a massive overseas debt in excess of $100 biUion. That figure has been bandied around. The fact is that 36 per cent of Australia's income goes towards servicing that overseas debt. Both the present and future generations will have to pay. The Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1393

Govemment sees only one way out of the problem, namely to trade its way out of it. However, the Govemment must be permitted to trade. The unions have got to let it trade. The massive debt from which Australia is suffering has been created by the Federal Govemment during the past four years. Mr Campbell: No, it has not. Mr COOPER: The honourable member is aware that AustraUa's overseas debt has risen from $20 billion-odd to in excess of $100 billion. By 1990, the figure will be $160 billion. The Govemment wants to do something about that, and it is in a position to do something about it. It is not simply writing down resolutions on pieces of paper; it is actually introducing this legislation. Australia's standard of living has fallen drastically. I am talking about a matter of national survival, and that is why this Bill is absolutely vital. I said that I am not just union-bashing. I reiterate the point that 73 per cent of people involved in unions are totally opposed to compulsory unionism. Mr De Lacy: What nonsense. Mr COOPER: They are. The Labor Party's support level is falling away all the time. The situation is getting better for the workers and we are pleased about that. The Government will continue to attempt to help those people to speak and work for themselves and have the right to work when they want to work. The legislation is in support of trade, productivity, businesses large and small and most definitely in the national interest. The Govemment takes a responsible viewpoint. This legislation brings the unions back to basics, what they should be doing in the first place and what they started out to be doing, which is improving their members' work and pay conditions, not mnning the country. The Govemments of the day, be they State or Federal, are the ones elected to mn the country. That is exactly what this Govemment intends to do. The unions have brought this legislation on themselves. Most of the rank and file generaUy want to work for themselves. The Govemment is attempting to ensure the preservation of their jobs, amongst other things. If the Govemment does not bring in this sort of legislation and does not set up models for other States and the Commonwealth to follow, the nation's potential will never be realised. It has not been realised to this point. Mr De Lacy: What nonsense. Mr COOPER: It has not been realised to this point. Mr De Lacy: You just hate the worker. Mr COOPER: No, I do not. Mr De Lacy: It is obvious in everthing you say that you hate the worker. Mr COOPER: No. We support the worker and the rank and file. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Caims is interjecting from other than his proper seat. If he wishes to interject, he will have to sit in his proper seat. Mr COOPER: I do not mind him one little bit. The Govemment does support the rank and file. The only person that the Govem­ ment is against is the militant, irresponsible union-leader. After this legislation goes through—with more to follow—that is the type of person who will simply wither on the 1394 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill vine. Australia will have a far better economy without them. Industrial relations will be far better off. Trade is the life-line of this country. It is the life-line of most countries. Australia's market share has to be preserved. It has been greatly diminished. Australia will have to become a more reliable supplier. At the moment, it is not a reliable supplier. That unreUabiUty and the cost of the industrial action affects Australia's competitive edge. Something positive must be done to redress that. The cause of AustraUa's losing that competitive edge and productivity has been certainly Govemment inaction in the past. Govemments of aU political colours have not had the political will and intestinal fortitude to take on this type of legislation. I commend the Minister and the Govemment for setting an example and setting up models. Another cause has been employer weakness. It is obvious that employers have not been able to get together and bring the necessary strength to bear on the militant unions. Australia has suffered as a result. I tum now to union excesses and work practices that occur. They are well worth reading out. One occurs on the Melboume waterfront, and I dare say on most waterfronts. Mr Vaughan: Talk about Queensland. Mr COOPER: It is all right. I am talking about State and Federal issues. I am talking about exports. The honourable member should not forget it. One of the practices to which I refer is "job and finish". The men decide how much is a shift's work and the delegate informs the employer accordingly that so many containers will be filled or unfilled. When that number of containers has been completed, the men cease work and go home regardless of how much time is left in the shift or whether or not there is still work to be done. The men, of course, are paid for the whole shift. Another practice is called the "double-header", which is the substitution for overtime. A double-header is the practice of working two shifts straight. The practice has developed whereby, say, two hours' work or more is needed at the end of a shift to complete loading a ship. The men will refuse a call for overtime but will accept a second shift. They will work the required two hours and then go home. Of course, they are paid for the whole of the second shift on penalty rates; hence a man may be employed for seven hours on the first shift and work two hours extra, but will be paid for 14 hours—seven of them at penalty rates, with treble time paid for the untaken meal-break. It all equals 24 hours' pay for nine hours' work. That is another rort that is stiU going on. I know of another instance called drawing straws. The honourable member for Curmmbin might know a bit about this. Men on night shift frequently work for a short time and then draw straws to determine which one of them wiU remain till the end of the shift. Everyone else as well as the one who remains is clocked off so that they are all paid for a fiiU shift's work. This practice is fully known and is condoned by the employers, who should be condemned. It is condoned partly because the employers do not perceive that they can do anything to stop it; but it is possible—just possible—that the employers condone it because they do not see anything wrong with it. Those employers are almost as culpable as the people who engage in this practice. The whole fraudulent business is totally immoral, but the employers' perception is that there is no effective deterrent and that is, at least, their excuse for the collusion. This is why Govemments such as the Queensland Govemment bring in legislation of a kind that is currently before the House—to give employers a bit of help and a bit of backbone so that things can be put back on the rails where they should have been in the first place. Anyone can see that, because of these practices, it is more expensive to ship cargo from South Australia to the port of Melboume than it is to ship the same cargo from South Australia to Europe. I have given the reasons. That situation is a disgrace. It is Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1395

also understandable that Australian shipping is considered to be a disaster when measured against intemational standards. It is, too. Anyone can see the difficulties that exporters face in getting their commodities to world markets at competitive prices. This is what the Queensland Govemment is on about. Anyone can see why labour relations and industrial management are critical—absolutely critical—to the economic performance of this nation. Earlier I referred to Australia's Federal Treasurer, who coined the phrase "banana republic". Obviously, he realises the danger, but, being part of the ALP Federal Govemment, he simply permits these work practices to continue. The mining and agricultural industries are of major importance. Witness the Robe River dispute, in which an absolutely vital industry was trying to make itself more efficient and more competitive by wiping out some of these ridiculous work practices. For their efforts, the company directors were called economic lunatics and troglodytes by—guess who? The Prime Minister himself The company was simply trying to do something about improving its economic position and Australia's balance of trade. Look at what it got for its efforts. Mr Gately: The Prime Minister—remember when he was the ACTU leader? He almost fainted when the farmers were going out and unloading the tmcks themselves in Melboume. Do you remember that? Mr COOPER: I do remember. I remember also that the farmers actually loaded those sheep. Another industry was saved because they did. I would like to make a few comparisons between the present Prime Minister and Ben Chifley, who was Prime Minister during the coal-miners' strike. This was a period when Chifley took on the communist-led mining unions. As we all know, it was a Labor Govemment that outlawed the strike. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr COOPER: No way. I said that I am comparing the present Prime Minister with a Prime Minister who, back in 1949, had some credibility. Chifley had guts. He froze union funds and he gaoled the mining union-leaders; he mobilised the armed forces to produce coal and organised its transportation to powerhouses and to ports for shipment around the Australian coast. I remind members of the Opposition that Chifley was one of their lot. Chifley's arguments were simple. He believed that the mining of coal was essential for power generation because power generation govemed the operation of industry. In tum, the operations of industry guaranteed continuity of employment. That is exactly the kind of thing that the Queensland Govemment is on about, except that it does not go around gaoling union-leaders and freezing union fixnds. The Queensland Govemment does not carry on in that manner—it leaves that to the Labor Party people. Chifley believed that he had a primary duty to safeguard the common good of the community and he certainly was not prepared to cede that right to a handful of unions and their officials; nor is this Govemment. As everyone knows, the coal strike had paralysed industry; unemployment was widespread; people were suffering; without doubt, chaos was in sight. The Govemment felt that it had to act, and it did. As a result, the coal strike was broken and the Govemment re-established the supremacy of Parliament over the attempt made by the union-leaders to control an essential industry. Again, that is what this Govemment is about—simply to be the leader and have the control, and not leave it in the hands of unelected people who seem to think that they can mn the country whereas the Govemment is the body which has been elected to do so. The 1949 coal strike had drawn attention to what for many was a hallowed political principle, that is, the right to strike. A common—but, I believe, a quite mistaken—view is that that right is an absolute right which the law is bound to uphold. However, like any other right, it is a right limited, by responsibilities, since its exercise can inflict widespread damage. The damage that it can inflict not only on an employer but also on the general community and the economic welfare of the nation as a whole is known. 1396 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

That is a factor. Hence this legislation is more about bringing unions to account under the common law, and that is the law which at present all Australians are responsible to. Another problem that faces Australia and is affecting its exports and balance of trade is the unpredictability of strike action. I reiterate that within a five-year period up to 1980, Australia accounted for 43 per cent of intemational insurance claims arising from industrial disputes. The next was a country named Iran, which chalked up 14 per cent. During that same period, Australian cargoes amounted to only 10 per cent of total intemational shipping. In order to maintain and improve our intemational competitiveness, work practices have to be combated, poor performances have to be improved and our overall competitiveness has to improve. That is exactly what this legislation sets out to do. It is a pity that the other States do not follow Queensland's lead in introducing this type of legislation. However, I believe that eventually they will, and in time Queensland's legislation will be a model for them to follow. It has been heard before that the ALP claims a special affinity with unions. To my way of thinking, that is an absolute myth. As an example, I will indicate what is happening at the moment in New South Wales because of the Workers Compensation Act that was introduced by that State's Labor Govemment. Incidentally, in New South Wales the workers' compensation bill to employers is more than $lm a year. Mr Austin: The Labor Party is not interested in the debate. Mr COOPER: I think it realises the horrible tmth. However, the Govemment is certainly justifying what it is doing, and I know it certainly can justify it. In New South Wales, the strike over the workers' compensation legislation involves not only one or two unions but the whole of the building industry, the manufacturing industry, the maritime industry, bus-drivers, train-drivers, postal workers, teachers, printers and so on. The secretary of the New South Wales Labor Council, Mr McBean, himself said that those unions are declaring war on the New South Wales Govemment. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible or more selfish—or, in fact, more bloody- minded. Yet it is the members opposite who condemn this Govemment for taking action against exactly the same sort of thing as is occurring in New South Wales, which is just blatant lawlessness. Mr Austin interjected. Mr COOPER: I would like to know whether the Opposition supports that union anarchy in New South Wales. As far as the problem in New South Wales is concemed, the unions are really not satisfied with all of the dismptions that they have caused at the moment and intend to cause, so they have said. They have said that they have declared war. They also want the Federal Government to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. I know very weU that the Federal Govemment would dearly love to accommodate them, and if it ever introduces or implements the Hancock report, that is exactly what will happen. Nothing is, and nothing would be, a greater disaster to this country. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr COOPER: Yes, absolutely. I must admit that recently in the New South Wales Parliament that was withdrawn. An illustration of the stark contrast between what happens in Queensland and New South Wales is that in 1985, even though the Mudginberri dispute was in the Northem Territory, the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act facilitated the means by which an injunction could be taken out to prevent Queensland meat-workers from going out in sympathy with their colleagues who were picketing at Mudginberri. That is an example of the effectiveness of the legislation brought in by the Govemment. A hell of a lot of the people in those unions do not want to go out on strike. They have famiUes, mortgages Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1397

to pay and other debts. The do not want to be called out on strike, they simply want to work and the Queensland Government is trying to let them do so. Another example occurred last year when some American naval ships berthed in Brisbane. The unions threatened to ban their berthing but the invoking of the provisions of that legislation prevented any ban. The ongoing dispute with the Queensland Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union over employers' providing superannuation benefits under the BUS Scheme has meant that dismption has continued for a very long time. Recently that union was found guilty of contempt of court and was fined for breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The reason the Federal judge imposed that fine was wilful defiance of a court order. That is even more evidence that this sort of decisive action is absolutely necessary against those militants, and against them only. In Febmary this year the Govemment initiated proceedings under the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act against the coal industry unions for calling that unpredictable, wildcat strike. Those unions were fined for the breach of the seven-day notice provision. Damages for pecuniary penalties were sought from the four unions involved, the Queensland ColUery Employees Union, the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the ETU and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association and their federally registered counterparts. All were subjected to penalties of $250,000. The action taken by the Govemment is absolutely in the interests of industrial peace and in continued production. It has been proven that it is working and is vital for the State and national economies. There is no reason on earth why the Govemment should not go further and do something that also takes into account the exports from this State and nation, which are absolutely vital to our survival. The Febmary strike by the coal industry unions, which was of only 48 hours' duration, prevented the extraction of 1.2 million tonnes of black coal at a value of $65m. A Japanese trade delegation was in the country at the very time. Mr Alison: It is a very good example. Mr COOPER: It is a shocking example. It shows the complete lack of interest in, and lack of care for, the Australian community. There is no doubt that coal-miners are amongst the very best paid workers in the country. Even Bill Kelty of the ACTU agrees with that. I think he has just about had enough, too. Secretly I think he is very pleased that the Govemment has produced this legislation. Secretly, in the interests of the nation, I am sure the ACTU would like to see more industrial peace and harmony. That dispute in Febmary was the latest in a series of similar actions. In June 1986, when the Coal Industry Tribunal awarded aU Australian coal-miners very lucrative increases, in retum the unions promised two years of stability. Since that time throughout Australia that union has been out on strike more than 200 times. All I can say is: some promise. Mr Davis: You promised me last year that there would be no more briefs. Mr COOPER: No, this is mine. Mr Davis: From the Minister. Mr COOPER: No, no fear. This is a very interesting topic, one which I enjoy. I get no enjoyment out of being vindictive. The Govemment simply wants to do something that is responsible. It now has an opportunity to do something that is in the best interests of all concemed. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, since the SEQEB dispute, Queensland's industrial relations record has improved, in spite of the problems in the coal industry. Mr Yewdale: You are still kicking them. Mr COOPER: No, we want to make it better. The Govemment has improved it to the point where this State's record is better than that of other States and will continue to get better. 1398 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

I believe—and I think that it is a fact—that some union-leaders believe that Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier is in jeopardy and that that is a very important factor. One of the those people is the assistant secretary of the ACTU, Mr Mansfield. He certainly acknowledges that that is a factor. I am pleased to see those sorts of acknowledgements because it does show a certain degree of responsibility. That is what this legislation is about. It will assist responsible union-leaders to keep these militants under control. The intent of the legislation is to provide a more constmctive and peaceful industrial scene. Really, up till now the industrial scene has been far from peaceful, and the Govemment must continue to do something about it. I will cite some more figures that I think are extremely interesting. In 1986 in Queensland 173 400 working days were lost as a result of industrial disputes. 104 200 days, or 60 per cent of that total, was in the coal industry. They are fairly stark and devastating figures. It is quite evident that something fairly severe has to be done. The employees involved in the coal industry represent only 1 per cent of total Queensland employment. The amount of damage that 1 per cent can do is incredible. At the national level, the coal industry accounted for one-third of the time lost as a result of industrial disputes in Australia, and that is 50 times greater than the average of all Australian industries. If people cannot see that something severe has to be done, then I am afraid that they really cannot be helped. If one excluded the coal employees from the Queensland figures, the number of days lost per thousand would have fallen to 92. This legislation is quite obviously justified. I will cite some more ABS figures that were only released on Thursday. Queensland is the only State to improve its industrial performance. The performance of other States has decreased quite substantially. In 1986 in Queensland days lost as a result of strikes were 204 per thousand employees. In 1985, it was 417 days. From 417 in 1985 to 204 days in 1986 is a vast improvement. In 1985 in New South Wales 209 days were lost per 1 000 employees; in 1986, it was 305. That is an increase. The number of days lost in Westem Australia is up from 190 to 282, and in Victoria it is up from 239 to 249. The position in Queensland is improving, but that is only because the Govemment is taking this sort of action. What the Govemment is about—and I have already alluded to it—is trying to give businesses a chance not only to succeed and prosper but also to have some redress when unions take such drastic action against them. When the export trade is affected and businesses are affected, they will be able to take their problems to the courts. It is only fit and proper that businesses be given an opportunity to do so. All the Govemment is asking is that the unions stop and think before taking such drastic action. The Govemment is also addressing the matter of research and development, which I think is a very important issue. I will use the meat industry as an example. For years the meat industry has tried to become more efficient, more competitive and more effective by bringing in cost-saving measures. Yet often the unions are concemed that automation wiU take over and that jobs will be lost. It is not that at all. What business is trying to do is become more competitive in this country or overseas, and it must not be penalised by the unions for doing so. So industry also wiU be given some teeth, some strength, in order to be able to continue to come up with new ideas, new inventions and so on to make industry more competitive, more efficient and more cost-effective. No-one can blame industry for that. It must be allowed to do it, and this Govemment is giving it the strength to be able to do it. I sincerely hope that industry takes advantage of that opportunity. This Bill demonstrates the Govemment's recognition of the importance of the export industries to Australia as a whole. This Govemment is not just about Queensland; it is about Australia as a whole. This Govemment is trying to set an example to the rest of Australia. It is also trying to give business the opportunity, the wherewithal, to be able Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1399 to plan ahead so that it can protect itself, and so that it can seek redress. I beUeve that not just any select group but the vast bulk of Australian people wiU certainly be the beneficiaries through increased productivity. I most certainly commend the Bill to the House. Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (9 p.m.): The legislation that is before this House tonight has not been brought on by accident. It was planned back in 1984 when the Industrial Commercial Practices Bill was first introduced. This legislation has been planned by the Govemment for some time. It was waiting for a catalyst to be brought in, and here it is tonight. On about 5 Febmary this year the Minister for Employment, SmaU Business and Industrial Affairs foreshadowed that this legislation would be brought before the ParUa- ment. He referred to circumstances that existed at that particular time in the coal-mining industry. In actual fact, I believe that he was only looking for an excuse. The legislation is part of a long-range plan to suppress trade unions and workers in this State. Everyone has seen what happened to the SEQEB workers in 1985 when the Govemment moved on the power industry. There is no denying that in that instance the Govemment cmshed the SEQEB workers. The Govemment was not satisfied with just winning that dispute: it also pursued the workers, their wives and famUies to the end. Mr Davis: That was done by the real Christians over here. Mr VAUGHAN: It was a tme Christian attitude that the Govemment exhibited to the workers and their families on that particular occasion! Those workers lost tens of thousands of dollars in superannuation and were given no quarter by the Govemment. Back in Febmary the Minister indicated that he would take the coal unions to court. The Govemment has issued writs against the coal-mining unions because the unions allegedly did not give seven days' notice of their intention to participate in a dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act that is the subject of debate this evening. That has shown the Govemment's hand. Under this legislation huge fines can be implemented, and the Govemment has no qualms about using this legislation in an attempt to cmsh the trade unions and the workers of this State. Unfortunately the Govemment has picked on the wrong industry in its vendetta. Admittedly, because of a particular situation that exists in the coal-mining industry things have not been all that good in that industry. However, I completely reject the statements that have been made by speakers on the other side of the House about the effects that the disputes in that industry have been having on Australia's export markets. The previous speakers have referred to Australia's exports. In his second-reading speech, the Minister alluded to the fact that in his opinion one of the main purposes of this legislation is to ensure that Australia's export industries are protected. Let us face facts. With monotonous regularity the Minister for Mines and Energy and his predecessors have made statements in this House in regard to the coal production in this State. I repeat that the coal-mining industry has been selected as the catalyst for the introduction of this legislation, yet with monotonous regularity the statements made by the Minister for Mines and Energy refer to record production in the coal-mining industry. How in the name of Heaven can one have record production in the industry if in fact there are terrific disputes and Australia's exports are being prejudiced? In addition, there have been record exports of Australian coal. I do not recall ever having heard the Japanese—even though they may murmur from time to time that they are concemed—validly complain about how the exports of Australian coal have been affected. Mr FitzGerald: That is bunkum. Have you even been over and spoken to them? Mr VAUGHAN: No, I have not had the pleasure, but I do know that the Premier of this State goes over to Japan, and the last time he was over there he sabotaged this State and this country. He betrayed his country by talking about industrial relations in 1400 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill this State. During negotiations with our coal-exporters, he agreed with the Japanese that industrial relations could adversely affect Australia's exports and its markets. Mr Hamill: A Wall Street joumalist referred to him as the odd-ball politician who wants to lead Australia. Mr VAUGHAN: Of course, he does this State and nation no credit at all by going to Japan and playing into the hands of the Japanese. On previous occasions I have been very vocal on that matter. I tum now to Queensland's coal exports for 1985-86. Because this legislation was brought on at such short notice, I do not have the up-to-date figures. Figures produced by the Queensland Coal Board show that production and exports in the coal-mining industry are at record levels. For the year ended 30 June 1986, coal production was 63.9 million tonnes, which was 9.7 million tonnes more than production for the previous financial year. The Minister is using the coal-mining industry as an excuse to introduce this legislation. Queensland's coal exports were 50.7 million tonnes, 5.2 million tonnes more than the previous financial year. So much for what the Minister has to say about excuses for the introduction of this legislation. The Minister will not be game to show his face on the coal-mining fields in the near future. If he goes back to them, he will be in for a real shock. Admittedly, his electorate has been divested of the coal-mining areas. He does not now live in his electorate; he has deserted the area completely. In view of what he has said about the coal-mining industry and what he is doing to it, he ought to be very careful if he retums to the coal-mining areas of Queensland. Mr R. J. Gibbs inteijected. Mr VAUGHAN: He did all right out of his house at Clermont. The legislation, which was introduced in 1984, was widened in 1985 to cover demarcation disputes and preference. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the legislation has been used sparingly since its introduction. The fact is that it has been hanging over the heads of the trade unions and workers of this State like a sledge-hammer. The Minister is supposedly attacking the situation that allegedly exists in the coal-mining industry. While he is doing that, the Minister has imposed a complete burden on every worker in the State. The legislation before the House virtually prohibits every working person in this State from doing anything to improve his working conditions. Mr FitzGerald: That's bunkum, and you know it. Mr VAUGHAN: It is not. If time permits, I will go through the legislation with the honourable member. I have already referred to the Minister's main comments about Australia's reputation as a reliable trading nation. He said that it is in question. I have already pointed out the record production of the coal-mining industry and the record tonnages that have been sent overseas. I have pointed out how much Australia's trading reputation is at stake. The Minister referred to "unfulfilled and delayed contracts". I challenge the Minister in his reply to tell honourable members where there have been "unfulfilled and delayed contracts". Of course, from time to time the Japanese say, "We are concemed about not getting our contract tonnages on time." I do not know of any problems. A few ships may have been tied up at ports for 24 hours or so because of a particular dispute. To my knowledge, Queensland has never had unfulfilled or delayed contracts. I have had personal experience of disputes being created on purpose in the coal-mining industry. When I was associated with the coal-mining industry, I used to say that, by the size of the stockpiles at the ports, one could judge the way in which disputes would be handled by the coal-mining companies. When the stockpiles were high, they adopted a very hard stance in negotiations with the unions. When the stockpiles were low, the unions could Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1401

negotiate with the companies. This legislation gives the employers—the coal-mine owners—a terrific sledge-hammer to hold over the heads of working people in this State. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to "the Australian syndrome of strike now and think later" and stated that it "must be replaced by a responsibility from all concemed with trade and commerce." Again, I question the Minister. Some Govemment members have admitted that the record of industrial disputation has improved over the years. Following the SEQEB dispute, the power industry has virtually been brought to its knees. Many people within that industry have expressed concem to me about the way in which they are being pressured by the employers and how the various electricity authorities in the State are squeezing people. Those authorities can subjugate the working people of this State and nation only for so long. I believe that this legislation will backfire. I have said previously in relation to the essential services legislation, which was introduced in 1979, and I wiU say it again: if one suppresses people and takes away their safety valve, which people must have— namely, the ability to let off steam at a particular time—something else wiU happen. Honourable members have witnessed what has happened in other countries when that safety valve has been removed. If that safety valve is taken away from the workers of this State, we will also see what happens. One of the hidden issues in this legislation is the reference to research and development, to which the previous Govemment speaker referred. Because research and development are defined in the Bill, the Govemment must have something in mind in relation to the penalties that are to be imposed in order to control particular situations that may arise. I will deal with that aspect at a later stage. The Minister also referred to the fact that notification of a dispute must be given in writing. All honourable members are aware that this legislation, which was introduced in 1984 and amended in 1985, requires unions to give seven clear days' notice of intention to stop work. The amending Bill imposes a completely impossible requirement on workers. Whether the Minister likes it or not, if workers—whether or not they are members of a union—are upset about wages, conditions or a particular situation, they will do something. They will let off steam. It will not be practicable for unions or associations of workers to comply with the provisions of this legislation, particularly in relation to notice. The Bill states that notice of intention to stop work shall be given to— "... the Minister; the employer of each employee who is to be called upon to participate in the strike; every person (other than such employer) who is likely to suffer loss or damage in his business by reason of the strike and who has, at any time before the time when the notice is by paragraph (e) required to be given ..." It elaborates upon the notice that may be given. That is an impossible requirement. I believe that the Govemment is aware that, when a dispute arises, notice cannot be given and, therefore, the workers or the unions that may be involved in that dispute will be in breach of the Act and will give the Govemment the ammunition to enable it to proceed in pursuance of that breach. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to— "Clarification of the law with regard to proceedings without a jury unless the court determines otherwise." It is a shocking state of affairs when litigation is initiated as a result of the contents of this legislation, particulariy with huge fines of $50,000 and $250,000, which cannot be determined by a jury. One of the most obnoxious parts of the legislation is the fact that— "The Minister is authorised to grant to any person financial or other assistance, in such form and to such extent as the Minister thinks fit, in connection with the commencement of proceedings . . ." 1402 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

The position now is that out of consolidated revenue the Govemment will finance proceedings under the provisions of this Bill. Workers on the job or unions that proceed to take industrial action and do not give the required notice as spelt out by the legislation will be faced with legal proceedings that will be financed by the Govemment. Of course, honourable members know that the Govemment financed the Queensland Power Workers Association. Mr Casey: It is a scab union. Mr VAUGHAN: It is a scab union. The Government financed it in its move to enter the power industry. It is an unregistered organisation. As soon as the Queensland Power Workers Association has served its purpose, the Govemment and the powers that be in SEQEB will discard it and throw it on the scrap heap. However, at present the Queensland Power Workers Association is of use to the Govemment and to SEQEB and it is receiving considerable financial assistance. Mr Davis: A company union. Mr VAUGHAN: It is a company union. Under legislation that wiU be introduced later this week, supposedly as a resuh of the Green Paper, there will be more encour­ agement of company unions or company associations. In the BiU, the Minister has widened the ambit of the Act to cover conduct directed at an employer to give preference in employment. I believe in compulsory unionism. I do not say that because I am on this side of the House. I say it because our arbitration system, whether it be the Commonwealth arbitration system or the State industrial conciliation and arbitration system, is founded on the fact that (a) workers are members of their respective unions and (b) employers are members of their respective employers' organisations. Without that arrangement, an industrial concUiation and arbitration system could not exist. The industrial conciliation and arbitration system has stood the test of time—until the Govemment and this Minister attempted to destroy it, as they are attempting to destroy it tonight. I repeat that I firmly beUeve in compulsory unionism, as exists in the public service. As my colleague, the honourable member for Rockhampton told me tonight, compulsory unionism occurs in the legal fratemity. A person cannot practice law in this State unless he is a member of the Queensland Law Society. Mr Casey: In the cane-growers' association. Mr VAUGHAN: There are numerous organisations, which is the way it should be. There should be organisations of employees, organisations of employers and an arbitration system to which one party makes an application and the other party has the right to oppose or support that application. Without the system that exists, which the Minister will attempt to break down with legislation that may be coming on at a later date, this State wiU be in chaos. I will deal more with that when I debate that particular legislation. The Minister went on to say— "The amendments proposed to be made to the Industrial Act are aimed at strengthening the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction"— mark the word "strengthening"— "in dealing with awards covering research and development projects." Previously, I mentioned the inclusion of "research and development" in this legislation. I suspect that the Govemment has something up its sleeve in relation to projects that may be proposed. All honourable members are aware of legislation that has been passed by the House but only subsequently has the real motive of the Govemment been discovered. I would say that, ultimately, honourable members will realise the motives that are behind the inclusion in the Bill of research and development projects. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1403

At page 7 of the BiU reference is made to amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The side heading of the proposed new section is— "Awards in respect of research and development Projects". It is significant that, when the Industrial Commission is hearing applications for awards to cover research and development projects, it "shall not be bound by custom or practice, previous decisions or precedents; or be required to have regard to provisions in other awards of the Commission or of any other industrial tribunal". I ask: what is going to happen? What is the commission to pay due regard to, if it cannot have regard to custom or practice? After all, the decisions that are made by the Industrial Commission are steeped in history and are based on custom and practice, previous decisions or precedents. Will the position be that, when an award is sought for research and development projects, the Industrial Commission will improve on existing provisions contained in awards? I very much doubt that. I suspect that what the Govemment is really about is reducing the existing provisions contained in awards. As has been mentioned earlier by previous Opposition speakers, the provisions of the Bill refer to research and development projects; and a project, according to the provisions of the Bill, "may be a project of research and development notwithstanding that no research and development work has commenced." The legislation presently before the House provides that the Industrial Commission can take certain action in relation to awards when in actual fact those research and development projects may not have even commenced. I believe that this legislation will rebound on the Govemment because it will completely suppress the working people of this State. I do not know whether the Govemment has realised that. I believe that its industrial advisers would have advised it accordingly. Because the legislation is so far-reaching, no working person, irrespective of whether he belongs to a union or not, can do anything about his working conditions if he is not happy with them. He just has to grin and bear it. The Govemment is trying to suppress every working person. I cannot overemphasise that point. It does not matter where a person works—whether he works in a factory, in an office or in this building. This legislation prohibits him from doing anything to improve his conditions—except, of course, by making application to the Industrial Commission. I would like to hear the Minister explain how this legislation would otherwise operate. If he believes that the scenario I have described is not what is contained in this legislation, I would like him to come out and say so. As I understand it, from my reading of the Bill, it completely suppresses every working person in this State. Talk about previous legislation being draconian! This legislation takes the cake! No similar legislation exists in this State, in any other State or in the Commonwealth. I doubt that legislation of this kind exists anywhere else in the world—except, perhaps, in some of those countries that are govemed by a dictator, where legislation of this kind would not be needed, because dictators mle by the power of the gun. I go further and say that the ramifications of this type of legislation and the extent of its provisions will be disastrous. Let Govemment members who do not believe me wait and see. They should not say that I did not tell them so. I believe that the extent of this legislation will operate to completely suppress every working person. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know what happens when a country or State suppresses working people? Suppressed working people have only one altemative; they have only one course to follow. If working people are not able to let off steam and are not able to do things by the book, they do things in another way. I certainly do not want to see that happen in this State. However, this Govemment is leading this State down that very treacherous path. Mr Stephan: Wouldn't you say that a lot of Queensland workers really want to work and be productive? 1404 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

Mr VAUGHAN: What the honourable member knows about workers in any industry could be written on the back of a postage stamp. What he does not know, one could write volumes about. I will deal with some of the comments that were made by previous speakers. The member for Maryborough went to great lengths to refer to industrial thugs. He said that they had complete disregard for law and order. Certainly, there are people in industry and on the job throughout the length and breadth of this State and this nation who do not abide by industrial laws. The country will always have those people. In the community there are people who are criminals and who break the law every day; so there are bound to be people who do not abide by the industrial laws. However, with monotonous regularity, members on the other side of the House blame union officials. I can say that, in the majority of cases, union officials spend more time trying to keep workers on the job than they do trying to get fellows out the gate. It is a different ball game. If an industrial dispute arises, the union official tries to resolve it on the job, because the people that he represents—after all, they are paying him—will be least adversely affected. However, there will always be hotheads. In my time, I have addressed many mass meetings at which the rank and file—the so-called rank and file that members opposite talk about—have decided to take the law into their own hands. Over the years that has been encouraged by the Government. It has encouraged people on the job to take the law into their own hands and to disregard the advice of their elected officials. As a result, situations have arisen where that position could not be controlled. If the Gov­ emment proceeds with the industrial legislation that is currently before the House and which we aU know will be passed at 10 o'clock tonight, and other legislation in relation to voluntary agreements or labour contracts, workers' wages and conditions will be broken down and the award system will be destroyed. If the Govemment does that, it is heading for disaster in this State. That legislation will not go beyond this State, because fortunately Tasmania has the only other non-Labor Govemment. I wam the Govemment that it is courting disaster and playing with fire. I do not believe that it understands completely what it is about. The member for Maryborough referred to AWU and ETU members who wanted to get out of unions. Of course there are people who do not want to be in unions. Mr Davis: They hate paying. Mr VAUGHAN: There are people who do not want to pay their taxes and there are people who do not want to be in Medicare. There are people who do not want to have any medical coverage at all. But when those people get into trouble, they aU know where to go; they all know where to mn. All members on the other side of the House, as well as those on this side, would have people coming into their offices complaining about the way in which they have been dudded by their employers. There are hundreds of them every day. Everyone saw what happened down at the Gold Coast. An award system is supposed to operate so that minimum wages and conditions apply in this State. Recently the president of the Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce boasted about the fact that employers on the coast—those who are involved in the precious tourist industry of this State—do not pay award wages or provide award conditions. They boasted about it. They have a poUcy of, "That's what we offer. You take it or leave it." Mr R, J. Gibbs: Do you know why? Because they send Mr Gately around to break their legs if they don't. Mr VAUGHAN: I understand he is very accomplished in that regard. That is what it is aU about. If Mr Lester's industrial inspectors were allowed to travel round the State and check the wages books and find out the way in which employees are not being paid their correct award wages or working under correct award conditions, proceedings in the Magistrates Court for arrears of wages would continue for years and years. Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1405

The member for Mount Isa said that the members of the Liberal Party will support the legislation. Of course they will. I wonder how the member for Mount Isa will live with himself when he retums there. Even though tonight he had a few bob each way, I wonder how he will live with many of the people who voted for him when they see what this legislation will do to them and how this will restrict them in their fiiture negotiations. Whether the Govemment and the Liberal Party like it or not, employers will hide behind this legislation. That will be to the detriment of the working people of this State. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.31 p.m.): I have much pleasure in joining the debate. Now that I have listened to the member for Nudgee, I wonder if when he was addressing mass meetings he answered the questions that were asked of him. By way of inteijection I asked him a couple of questions but all he did was abuse me and direct insults at this side of the House. However, he did not answer the interjections. The question I asked was: does he encourage people to go to work and to be employed? All I received for my trouble was a barrage claiming that I did not know what I was talking about. All I could conclude from that was that really he was not prepared to answer the question and that he was not prepared to support employment, the improvement of productivity and the right to work, which is so vital and so necessary and for which people are crying out in this State at present. As much as anybody else in country areas I have the general public asking me for the right to work. Sure, they want the right to strike, but they also want to be able to get out and do a bit where and when they can. More and more people are waking up to this aspect and are demanding action along the lines provided in the legislation now before the House. This legislation is really directed not at employees but at bringing union representatives to account and trying to ensure that they carry out the will and wishes of their members. The member for Nudgee claimed that his main objective, and that of unions, was to keep people on the job. That is precisely what the Bill tries to do, to keep people on the job, to keep them employed and allow them to work in the way in which they wish. That is very important. In many instances union demands and requirements are costing jobs. What is required at the moment is for people to be reasonable and realistic, particularly when Australia is losing its reputation as a reliable trading nation. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, this aspect is in question. Last year in the House I made the point that fmit and vegetables destined for export were held on a wharf for four or five days by union bans. What do honourable members opposite think that did to the commodity? What effect do they think that had on the importer who wanted the goods to arrive in a reasonable condition? I remind the House that a few years ago a quantity of beef for export was delayed and the refrigerated containers had to be mn for weeks on end. Even beef can be kept by refrigeration for only so long. After what happened to it on that occasion it was not worth exporting. The importer did not want beef of such a poor quality. He did not want to try to sell low-quality produce that had been held up on the wharf for weeks on end. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I know that the honourable member for Brisbane Central gets very upset about these matters and I know that members of the Opposition get carried away with the idea that all they have to do is put their hands out and employers wiU be in a position to pay for improved working conditions. That is irrespective of whether they are able to compete financially and irrespective of whether they are able to get the product on the market on time. I believe that this is very important if Australia is to be competitive not only in this country but also in countries to which we export goods. Why is it that Australia is importing so many manufactured goods? Why is it that the great motor car industry in this country has to be propped up? That would not be necessary if Australia was able to compete in price and quality with Europe and Asia. 1406 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

As the Minister said, the Australian syndrome is, "Strike now, think later." That must be replaced by responsibility from all concemed with trade and commerce. As I have said, our export trade and the ability to introduce new means of productivity are of paramount importance to this country's future well-being. The Act already provides that seven clear days' notice of a strike is to be given by an employee. Why should that not be the case? Why should there be wildcat strikes? When a cement wall, for example, cannot be poured when the pourers actually require it, and it is held up for no particular reason, there is no way in the world that a quality article will be obtained. Mr Simpson: It mins the building. Mr STEPHAN: It mins the building. It adds to the cost and it does nothing for the finished article. It cannot be completed in the expected time. It is a pity that Govemments in other States have not shown a similar resolve in dealing with irresponsible trade unions for the good of the general public. I know that some moves have been made. However, some of these Govemments have got themselves into a bit of difficulty and are having problems with the general public, the unions themselves and the employees. Labor Govemments claim they have a special affinity with unions and suggest that industrial action will diminish when they are in power. What a joke! What a myth that is when one looks at what has happened. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: Those Govemments have tried to shift the responsibility but they have not been able to overcome the problem. They have not been able to negotiate in any way with any sense of responsibility. Mr Davis: What about the difference between the Hawke Govemment and the Fraser Govemment? Mr STEPHAN: The Hawke Govemment has not got a very good record. Mr Hawke had a record of coming in when the strike was almost finished to negotiate terms and conditions when he knew quite well that the negotiations were almost complete. He came and said, "Look at this. I'm a good boy. They are going to go back to work." He did that time and time again. That is his record. If that is a record that Opposition members want to stand on, I feel sorry for them. An Opposition member: Who gave you that brief? Mr STEPHAN: Who gave me the brief on Mr Hawke? I think that Mr Hawke is one of the honourable member's friends. The honourable member is one of his supporters. However, that has not helped the final product, has it? Last week, for example, the New South Wales trade union movement declared that there will be a week of Statewide industrial action over the Workers' Compensation Act. The New South Wales Workers' Compensation Act is in a terrible mess. It now costs employers in that State almost $ 1,000m per annum. In New South Wales the union movement has threatened strikes in the building industry. Mr Davis: You know why. Mr STEPHAN: Workers' compensation is costing a great deal more in New South Wales than it costs in Queensland. A comparison of the cost of workers' compensation in New South Wales with the cost in Queensland reveals how great the difference is. I know whose side the member for Brisbane Central would be on when it comes to the employer and the employee. Never mind whose fault it is; I know what the answer would be. As I said, the New South Wales union movement has threatened strikes in the building industry and in the manufacturing and maritime sectors. There will be strikes Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1407

by bus-drivers, train-drivers, postal employees, painters, schoolteachers and workers in every other affiliated union. Within a very short space of time those people wiU take some form of industrial action. The New South Wales Government has vowed to push ahead with changes to workers' compensation in a desperate declaration of war. The Sydney Morning Herald of 4 April, only a couple of days ago, stated— "The Premier, Mr Unsworth, said yesterday the Govemment has made up its mind on the legislative reforms and would not back down. It plans to have a new scheme in place by July 1. Mr Unsworth stated the unions had a 'perfect right to register their protest' but the govemment could not change direction." So far as changing direction and their ability to make their position felt is concemed, that is accepted; but it does not change the attitude of the State Govemment in that regard. The article further states— "Yesterday, the NSW Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr HUls, vowed that he will not back down on the decision." Both of them have come out strongly on this point of view. He went on to say— "I don't think there is any intention of the Govemment to change its general attitude about these major reforms." Mr McEIligott: Would you describe the Queensland workers' compensation scheme as a sociaUst scheme? Mr STEPHAN: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the honovu^able member for Thuringowa. Mr HUls further stated— "It's absolutely essential that we do it. We are losing a substantial number of jobs from NSW. Employers are refusing to take on additional employees because of the high rate of workers' compensation." Here is a point of view on the problem that the workers' compensation costs are high, together with other costs, and employers are refusing to take on extra workers and employees. This is a problem that exists in many areas. People are being forced out of work not because the work is not there but because of the productivity and viabUity of that particular industry. If Australia is to continue along this track, it will go further and fiirther downhill. As one of my coUeagues has pointed out, Australia's ability to compete and look after itself on the world markets is of great importance. This point cannot and must not be lost sight of Mr John McBean, the secretary of the New South Wales Labour CouncU, said, "This is a declaration of war." Opposition members are ready to condemn this Gov­ emment in its actions against destmctive union power, but not a lot has been said by the members of the Opposition in confirmation of the threatened state of anarchy in New South Wales. I have heard no mention of this in any of the comments made by the honourable member for Brisbane Central. He is very silent about his colleagues in New South Wales. Mr Simpson: Victoria is even worse. Mr STEPHAN: Yes, Victoria is worse. The Victorians do not have anything to be thankful for, and I notice that Mr Cain was keen to point to the food and cane industries and to how those industries are organising themselves in a very responsible way. Mr Cain was prepared to move against the milk industry and the dairy-farmers in Victoria when they took action in that State to try to put their point of view across. He was not backward under those conditions to point out what he thought should be happening. Did the honourable member for Brisbane Central condemn him? Did he point out that 1408 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

Mr Cain's attitude is different from his? The honourable member for Brisbane Central did not say a word. He should be a bit more consistent in what he does say, and he should work out that his friends are not helping him very much, either. For many months now the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union has been conducting a campaign for wage increases of over $70 a week. This claim is outside the wage fixation guide-lines of the industrial tribunal and has been condemned by the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. I suppose that members of the Opposition have heard of Mr Willis. I notice again that they are silent on that particular point. Mr Willis sees this claim as a threat to the much-vaunted Wages and Incomes Accord made between the Labor Party and the ACTU. Recently the plumbers' union was fined $280,000 by the Federal court for contempt because it defied the orders of the court to lift bans on the key building sites in Sydney. The union also faced fines of $140,000 a day if it continued to fail to comply with the injunction orders issued by Mr Justice Wilcox. This matter is reported in the Age dated 4 April, which is very recent. The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union was behind the defiance of the court order to lift the bans on the Sydney building sites. That will continue until the workers return to work. A tremendous amount of productivity is being lost. As I pointed out earlier, and as the Minister said in his second-reading speech, Australia is losing its reputation as a reliable trading nation. The Federal Court judge, Mr Justice Wilcox, said that he imposed the fine because of the union's wilful defiance of the three-week-old court order that workers lift bans at 14 Sydney building sites worth several hundred million dollars. An enormous amount of money is tied up in projects without any retum at all. The $280,000 fine was imposed on the union under section 45D of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. These boycotts have continued for months in different parts of Australia and have caused losses of many millions of dollars to employers because of work delays. Mr Simpson: Mudginberri is an example of that. Mr STEPHAN: Mudginberri was a very good example of that. The results of that particular decision will be remembered for a long time. Battles have been fought over a long period. The general public has contributed with a great deal of finance and moral support. Under such circumstances, the general public will continue to give its support to retain some continuity of work. Mr Simpson: They want their kids to have a job. Mr STEPHAN: As the member for Cooroora said, they want their kids to have a job. They want to have a job themselves and they want to have a country that will go forwards, not backwards. What is remarkable about the decision in the plumbers and gasfitters' case is the attitude now taken by other unions to the lawlessness of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union. They seem to think that unions should be above the law. They beUeve that there should be a common law for others but not for themselves. The union defies the court and the people who support the unions. Mr Davis interiected. Mr STEPHAN: I know that the honourable member does not want me to continue. I know that I am annoying him again. That is his problem, not mine. It is a pity that he should be sitting in his present position with a funny look on his face. However, he will have to cop it for a little bit longer. Mr Simpson: He's like the strikers; he'd try to stop you speaking. Mr STEPHAN: He would put a time-limit on this side of the House and think that he could go on and on without any controls at aU. Recently, 15 Federal and State unions called on the ACTU to co-ordinate a national industry campaign to protest against the Federal Court's decision. The unions included Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1409

the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association, the Building Workers Industrial Union, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the New South Wales Nurses Federation. What have they got to do with the plumbers? The unions were trying to get involved in somebody else's problems. They were trying to get involved in an action that had nothing whatsoever to do with them. So many sick and young people are affected because of the attitude of a few people using a secondary boycott and putting forward a point of view that is not going to be of any benefit to anybody in this country. Not satisfied with the industrial campaign, the unions are again calling on the Federal Government to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, and there is every indication that the Federal Labor Government would like to help them. I have no doubt that that is so. Although they are trying to help their friends, they are forgetting about their friends Mr Davis: What are you trying to do? Mr STEPHAN: Trying to help the people who are looking after the working people in this country. I am trying to make sure that we will have a future that we can look forward to. Mr McLean: $25m a week. Mr STEPHAN: The member for Mount Isa said that the blue-collar workers, who used to be the honourable member for Bulimba's supporters and his friends, are deserting him and going to someone else who will help them. They realise that they will receive no help from members of the Opposition. It has taken them a while, but at least they are beginning to reaUse who their friends are and who is going to give them the most assistance. The situation in Queensland stands in stark contrast to that of New South Wales. The key element in the Queensland Govemment's successful approach to industrial law and order has been the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act. That is not surprising when one considers the attitudes towards this Govemment and its record. Over a long period, the Government has been criticised for its actions. Although it is criticised, the Govemment is prepared to stand up and be counted where and when required. Mr Simpson: The public want the lights on. Mr STEPHAN: The public had the lights on. During the past 12 months I have noticed that the public have, in fact, had the lights on with constant regularity. The public have been pleased with the results of the action that the Govemment took a couple of years ago. One of the occasions on which the Act has been successfully implemented was in September 1985 when an injunction that was granted by the Supreme Court had the effect of preventing Queensland meat-workers from striking—as I mentioned before— over the Mudginberri issue. Last year, this legislation also ensured that the American naval ships visiting the port of Brisbane were berthed without hindrance, although the maritime unions had threatened to ban them. Mr Lester: There were five nations of the world held to ransom by their attitude. Mr STEPHAN: That is so tme. The defence of Australia and other countries would have been hindered under those conditions. However, that is of no consequence to the Labor Party in this State. The Labor Party tends to think that it can do what it likes and that the rest of the world will come to it and beg it for assistance in looking after them. That is not reality. It is not what occurs in the real world. It is high time that the Labor Party realised and appreciated the tme value of responsibility. 1410 7 April 1987 Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

Another example of the need for this legislation is the current case against the Queensland branch of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union over its long­ standing campaign to force employers to provide superannuation benefits under the BUS Scheme. I am going back a couple of years, but that is an example of a forced situation— an unnecessary situation. Last week, in separate proceedings, the plumbers' union was found guilty of contempt of court and fined for breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The Federal Court judge said that he had imposed the fine because of the union's wilful defiance of a court order. That is further irrefutable evidence—not that it is required—of the need for decisive action against militant union-leaders, who are making decisions on behalf of people with whom they have no contact or communication. In Febmary of this year the Queensland Govemment also initiated legal proceedings under the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act against the coal industry unions over a snap 48-hour strike that began at midnight on 5 Febmary 1987. The proceedings initiated in the Queensland Supreme Court are based upon an alleged breach of the provision requiring seven days' notice of a strike. Orders are being sought for pecuniary penalties and damages from the unions involved, namely the State-registered Queensland Colliery Employees Union, the Amal­ gamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association and their federally registered counterparts. Under the provisions of the Act, those unions are subject to penalties of up to $250,000. Did the honourable member for Brisbane Central hear that—$250,000? In case he was not listening, I repeated that figure. Mr Comben is waving his hand. I am not sure if he is in favour of that particular point of view. Perhaps he is just getting carried away with himself The unions have also been informed that, if there is further illegal conduct, injunctions will be sought. This action was taken in the interests of industrial peace and continued production in an export industry that is vital to the State and the national economy. That 48-hour strike alone prevented extraction of 1.2m tonnes of black coal valued at $65m at the very time that a Japanese trade delegation was visiting Australia. What a recommendation! It is a contradiction of what Australia is trying to achieve and is in contradiction to the expectations of Japanese or other importers visiting Australia of doing business in a reliable and reasonable way. Coal-miners are hardly down-trodden and exploited workers. Their wages and conditions are among the best in the country—a fact that even the secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty, acknowledged last week. I have not heard any objection to Mr Kelty's point of view. That dispute was the latest in a series of industrial actions dismpting the coal industry. In June 1986, after a protracted dispute, the Coal Industry Tribunal awarded Australian coal-miners even more lucrative working conditions than they already enjoyed, at a considerable cost to the industry. At the time, the mining unions promised two years of industrial stability. Two years of industrial stability was promised, yet they carried on with that sort of instability. Since the decision, for example, there have been more than 200 strikes in the coal industry across Australia. It is encouraging to see that despite the activities of unions in the coal-mining industry, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released last week have shown that last year industrial relations in Queensland improved dramatically. I notice that the Opposition has made no comment about that. When the figures were bad, the Opposition was keen to point them out. It is also encouraging to see that in recent years on a national level the scale of industrial disputation has declined. There are even signs that some trade union leaders are at last recognising the fact that such dismption has harmed Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier. It is a pity that members of the Labor Opposition have not Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and Another Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1411 recognised that fact. If they had, they would not have attempted to dismpt Govemment members who have spoken on the Bill. The assistant secretary of the ACTU, Mr Mansfield, made this point when he addressed the Japanese investment mission in Canberra earlier this year. He acknowledged that trade unions had a responsibility for this problem and said— "Trade unions in Australia are changing and recognising more clearly the importance of a stable industrial relations system." He went on to say— "We recognise that our reputation has not been satisfactory with some customers and steps to overcome our past inadequacies will continue." I did not hear anyone ridicule those statements. Members of the Labor Party have tunnel hearing. They only listen to what they want to hear. The legislation now being considered by the House will assist the responsible people in the trade union movement to keep some restraint on the militant irresponsible section and hopefully provide for a more constmctive and peaceful industrial scene. The Government is looking for a more constmctive and peaceful industrial scene. If Opposition members want to support peace and harmony in the industry, I suggest that they support this legislation and give some encouragement to Govemment members who are working to achieve that particular end. However, the facts are that our reputation will not improve while we have some trade union leaders who persist with their present arrogant head-in-the-sand approach. One only has to look at the situation in the coal-mining industry. In 1986, of the 173 400 working days lost due to industrial disputes in Queensland, 104 200 days, or approximately 60 per cent, were in the coal industry. Yet employees in the coal industry only represent approximately 1 per cent of the total employment in Queensland. Is that any sort of responsible attitude? A small number of workers were responsible for approximately 60 per cent of the working days lost due to industrial disputes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under the provisions of the allocation of time-limit order agreed to by the House this day, the time for debate has now expired. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 54 NOES, 29 Ahem Katter Ardill Alison Knox Braddy Austin Lane Bums Beanland Lee Campbell Beard Lester Casey Berghofer McCauley Comben Booth McKechnie D'Arcy Borbidge McPhie De Lacy Burreket Menzel Eaton Chapman Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Clauson Neal Goss Cooper Nelson Hamill Elliott Newton Hayward Fraser Powell McEIligott Gately Randell Mackenroth Gibbs, I. J. Row McLean Gilmore Sherlock Milliner Glasson Sherrin Palaszczuk Gunn Simpson Shaw Gygar Slack Smith Harvey Stephan Smyth Henderson Stoneman Underwood Hinton Tenni Vaughan Hinze White Warburton Hobbs Warner Hynd Tellers: Wells Tellers: Innes Littleproud Yewdale Davis Jennings FitzGerald Prest Resolved in the affirmative. 1412 7 April 1987 Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill

Committee Question—That clauses 1 to 17, as read, stand part of the Bill- -put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 53 NOES, 29 Ahem Knox Ardill Austin Lane Braddy Beanland Lee Bums Beard Lester Campbell Berghofer McCauley Casey Booth McKechnie Comben Borbidge McPhie D'Arcy Burreket Menzel De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill Fraser Powell Hayward Gately Randell McEIligott Gibbs, I. J. Row Mackenroth Gilmore Sherlock McLean Glasson Sherrin Milliner Gunn Simpson Palaszczuk Gygar Slack Shaw Harvey Stephan Smith Henderson Stoneman Smyth Hinton Tenni Underwood Hinze White Vaughan Hobbs Warburton Hynd Warner Innes Tellers: Wells Tellers: Jennings Littleproud Yewdale Davis Katter FitzGerald Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Lester, read a third time.

SURVEY CO-ORDINATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 March (see p. 955). Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (10.16 p.m.): There are a few things that the Opposition would like to bring to the notice of the House. The Opposition knows that we have to keep up with technology, particularly in regard to land, and it knows the important role that the land databank and computerisation will play in all avenues of keeping Govem­ ment records. There is one area of concern. The Opposition believes that with the technology and science that is available to the Government, this would be a good opportunity to Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will those honourable members who are leaving the Chamber do so immediately. Mr EATON: As I said, with the central computerisation of the land databank, the Opposition feels that this would be a great opportunity for the Govemment to implement a land-ownership register system. That would give the Govemment, the Opposition and the people of Queensland an opportunity to find out who owns Queensland. The Opposition has been asking for the introduction of a foreign ownership register in Queensland for a long time. The Opposition believes that this is a great opportunity for the Govemment to implement such a register. Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1413

The Govemment does not Uke the Opposition to raise this matter continually. However, the Opposition believes that many people in the community require this information. While the Govemment is introducing modem technology, it would be a great opportunity to incorporate a foreign land-ownership register in the system. The system will cover the rights, obligations and duties of public authorities. It will deal not only with the obligations and duties of the Surveyor-General but also with the obligations and duties of other authorities. They can work in together. The Opposition believes that Queensland as a whole will benefit from the Bill. The Opposition agrees to the text of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is pleased that there was no division on it. The reason for that is that the Opposition is in agreement with the Bill and with the permanent marks and aerial photography library that will be kept in Queensland. The public will have access to these. I am sure that not only the Minister and officers of his department but also other authorities in Queensland wiU be very pleased to have the opportunity to have access to the information that will be stored in the databank. As I said, the Opposition would like to see the incorporation in the databank of a foreign land-ownership register in the initial stages. The Opposition believes that it is something that could be done. This is something new, and it should be no problem at all to incorporate that register. I tum to the marking of land, the permanent marks and so on. In the past, various means have been used to record those marks. Disputes arise between Govemment and lease-holders. Disputes are often dealt with in the courts, in which companies and private individuals take action against one another. Now there is a system whereby such disputes can be settled not only without doubt but also more cheaply. People can call on the information that is available. It is permanent, and it is recognised by law. I am sure that not only the plaintiffs but also the defendants in the case will find that this is something that has long been required in this State. A great deal of legal action has not been taken, not because of the justice system, but because of the cost involved. The legal system is supposed to be unbiased, but, because of the cost involved in the legal system, a person may find that not only can he afford not to take the action, but also that he cannot afford to take the action. Quite often the case can move on to a higher court, and there are many instances in which people have won the case in the lower court, but have lost it in the higher court. Mr Comben interiected. Mr EATON: That's right, the Govemment will change the Act, as was recently seen in relation to the Sugar Acquisition Act, which does not come under this Minister's portfolio. That was an example of how the Govemment can destroy a statutory body and the credibility of that statutory body. The Govemment has destroyed a statutory body by an Act of Parliament. I am referring here to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. No cane-farmer here in Queensland has any confidence that the decisions of the board will be carried out. The farmers know that the board is above back-door politics and outside influence and cannot be interfered with, but that if the board makes a just decision, the Govemment, by Act of Parliament, can strip the board of all credibility. To retum to the Bill that is now before this House—the Opposition agrees in general terms with it and is not opposed to it. Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (10.22 p.m.): I had prepared a fairly long speech on this Bill, but as the House has been told that the Opposition is in favour of the legislation, there is not a great need for a long speech. It is good to see that when a reasonable piece of legislation comes before this House, the Opposition will support it. This Bill takes up the tremendous capability of the new high-technology facilities to record the various pieces of information from the Department of Mapping and Surveying, to minimise duplication and place all the information onto computer so that it is readily available to everyone. There are various areas of responsibility and the 1414 7 April 1987 Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill

Department of Mapping and Surveying is responsible for mapping and cadastral infor­ mation to be held in a central land information system, while the Surveyor-General himself is responsible for compiling and correlating mapping and surveying data. When one looks at it Statewide there is a mass of information coming from a whole multitude of sources. I believe there are over 1 800 people and 14 State departments who are directly involved in correlating and recording all this information. Apart from the Govemment departments, there are a host of local authorities involved. In fact, I believe that the whole 134 local authorities are involved. Semi-Government bodies and Commonwealth agencies, as well as a massive private sector, are involved. The Bill is designed to utilise the capacity and capability of computers and modem technology and to update and consolidate information into one readily avaUable source Statewide. This is a progressive move and one that perhaps could even be said to be long overdue. The Minister gave a good example of what was involved when he talked of the present system where all the information and copies of plans have to go to a central plan office. There is a central plan register and both the register and the office are fairly old. There is manual recording of all this information and duplication of effort and information. It is very manpower intensive and a large amount of money is required. This can be eliminated very easily by the new high technology and use of computers. From what the Minister said, the interesting thing is that the central plan office receives very few requests for information, because much of this information is readily available from the local authorities. The Bill discontinues the old-fashioned—if I could use that term—method of storing this vast amount of data. In the future it will be stored in a readily available system in the State's land information system. Over the past three years, work has been going on to digitise the Queensland land boundary information and place it into the digital cadastral database, which will be a computerised record of all State boundaries and form the basis for the compilation of a fully integrated land information system for all of Queensland. For a specific block of land to be located promptly, all people need to know are the lot and plan numbers of the land. That is a tremendous advance on the old methods that have been in use in this State for such a long time. It is a foremnner of what was suggested this week by the Association of Consulting Surveyors. With all freehold, leasehold and mining information amalgamated from all State offices on the one digital data base, information on land transactions would be avaUable immediately and could be easily updated. With desk-top terminals anywhere in the State, at the press of a button, one could almost produce data on demand on title particulars, planning schemes, rates and land tax information, water, sewerage, drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, roads and easement details. Everything would be available. That is what the Queensland Govemment is all about—updating and modemising all the records throughout the State. One of the best examples of usage of the new information that wiU be available is in the property search area. A person will be able to obtain information immediately instead of carrying out long, costly and time-consuming searches. I pay special tribute to the officers of Sunmap. Sunmap is an organisation that is of great credit to the Govemment, the Minister, the Surveyor-General and the officers of the Department of Mapping and Surveying. Satellite information and remote sensing facilities are used with pinpoint accuracy. The old system of pegs and marks on trees and posts will be replaced. Those practices were time-consuming and often it was very difficult to find the starting point in any survey. Sunmap uses high-tech information. I have already referred to satellite information and remote sensing. Queensland has 35 Sunmap centres in Queensland. Sales of its maps have increased steadily. Sunmap produces useful and popular maps. The maps cover almost everything about which a person would need information. One can obtain maps on electoral information, floods, cyclone surges and offshore areas. Parish, town, local authority, street and road maps are available. One can obtain charts on harbours Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1415

and marine matters. Mines Department, cadastral, topographical, orthophoto and satellite maps are also available. The vast number of maps available include maps of State forests and national parks. Tourist and recreation maps have been very popular and useful. A total of 22 special tourist maps have been produced by Sunmap. In 1986, Sunmap centres sold 955 000 tourist maps. Sunmap is supporting tourism, which is Queensland's greatest growth industry. Sunmap has even co-operated with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in producing special maps relative to the Barrier Reef areas. I am sure that the BiU is the start of a new era. I note that the Bill legalises, one might say, the use of aerial photographs in courts. At present, boundaries can be determined by photogrammetric methods, but they are not acceptable in courts. One of the provisions in the Bill will amend the Act to validate the use of aerial photographs in courts. I congratulate the Minister on the BiU. I congratulate the Surveyor-General, Kevin Davies, and his staff. The Bill is a progressive move forward. I am sure that the Minister and his staff will continue their good work as matters progress. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.29 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. It is particularly gratifying to see that, as a result of a decision made by a former Minister, Mr Hewitt, in 1982, steps have been taken to achieve the development of a land information system. The development of a land information system is of great importance because it can achieve a tremendous saving to the people who have to do business in buying, selling and developing land. The plans and surveys themselves have no intrinsic use except in establishing title and verifying areas of land for the purpose of sale, subdivision, easements and so on. It is totally appropriate to have a single system that shows the survey information, the impediments on title, relevant zoning and whether the land is affected by tenements, such as mining tenements. That information should be avaUable through computers on the desks of a variety of offices—whether it be a real estate agent's office, a valuer's office or a solicitor's office. Systems such as those operating in New South Wales should be developed. In that State, dealings up to 5 p.m. the previous day can be obtained from the Registrar of Titles the next day. People are required to pay an access fee for up-to-date information. That prevents all the hassles that are involved with sending an articled clerk to the Titles Office to do manual searching, which involves delays and fmstrations. It is a smart idea in terms of using modem technology and saving people money. Because aU of those aspects of information are generally used together, they should be available together. The Liberal Party not only supports but welcomes also anything that benefits the provisions relating to the recognition of digital information as part of a plan in terms of the Act. A system that is totally modemised, which allows those people whose business involves land deals to verify or give other people assurances about title, should be supported. The information is also related to another vexed question. Controversy has been raised both within the National Party and other parties about access to land information in an endeavour to discover what is happening to the ownership of this State or this country. I believe that the president of the National Party is on record as saying that he wants a land-information system which reveals and discloses who owns Queensland. I believe that, for a variety of reasons, there is some benefit in knowing that sort of information. It becomes relevant in relation to the types of controversies that have arisen recently in regard to the titles and holdings of offshore islands. It becomes conceivably relevant—at some time in the future, perhaps—in relation to matters of national security. When one considers the information that it has been found necessary to acquire in order to fight organised crime, it also becomes relevant. 1416 7 April 1987 Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill

Despite the fact that America is the home of free enterprise and that it has great traditional constitutional regard for private rights, a recent provision that has been introduced into the American legislation requires that people are obliged to disclose information such as a cash transaction of $10,000 or more. Only through a network of information has it been found that, with the modem sophistication of organised crime, a picture can be obtained about people which allows anomalies in their behaviour or extraordinary or sudden acquisitions of wealth to be detected. Accordingly, the law can be enforced to protect revenue as well as doing a variety of other things. I do not believe that anyone with a landholding should be ashamed of it. For a number of reasons, many people wish to disguise the fact. Some might be legitimate and commercial; others might be illegitimate and may be intended to lead people to believe things that are other than the tmth—nominee holders or whatever. The land-information system should be as complete as possible. A centralised system would be of enormous benefit to many people. A system such as that enables people to monitor what is happening both in this State and throughout Australia. The Liberal Party supports such a system. The Liberal Party accepts that the people who have the best information on the accuracy of modern survey techniques are likely to be our own experts in the Department of Mapping and Surveying. Therefore, we will have to accept their statements of assurance as to the accuracy of modem equipment. I understand those statements to be tme. It is therefore proper that the method of recording, and our central repository of information, should reflect the latest in accurate technology. No doubt, we still have to go back to monuments and physical survey to some extent in relation to a suburban, small land-holding. Everybody who owns a small 24- perch, 32-perch or 40-perch block of land knows the animosity that can arise over a fence being 6 inches out of line, realises that there is still room for the old manual methods of surveying and that there is still a need to preserve the monuments and the techniques that allow those verifications to take place. In the case of larger land-holdings, it would seem to be the only reasonable method of operating in a modem world to keep the costs down, including survey costs. The Liberal Party totally supports the use of aerial photographs. It seems to be modem and appropriate, because of the accuracy of the equipment, that there be the aerial photography library, and that should be given judicial recognition. The Liberal Party is opposed to duplication as being expensive. Therefore, it supports the amendments and reforms proposed there. There is nothing additional except some minor details. In the broad, staying with the times, reducing costs, the Liberal Party urges the Govemment to accelerate its commitment and pursue vigorously the ultimate development of a total land system. It has pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (10.37 p.m.): In speaking to the Survey Co­ ordination Act Amendment Bill, I make a call for the long-overdue reform of job safety and job protection for surveyors. In doing so, I call for a full-scale professional investigation and reporting to the industry and the devising of a stmcture to be put in place in the case of injury or death being caused to surveyors working on the roads and other road-workers. I suggest that something similar to what exists in the air transport industry could be set up. I refer in particular to the death of Anthony Nugent, a young man from the Ipswich area who was killed earlier this year when a member of a surveying team working on the Helidon by-pass. It was a very tragic circumstance indeed. Anthony Nugent was a graduate of the Queensland Institute of Technology. Even though recently graduating, he had 2'/? years' experience working on the roads in survey teams and knew the roads well and the dangers on the roads. Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1417

In summary, the circumstances of his death are something like this. Mr Nugent and his partner were surveying on the road by-pass that was currently being constmcted. He was mn over and cmshed by a reversing track that was loaded with materials that were to be deposited in a road-making machine that was working nearby and making a loud noise. The local Helidon police carried out an investigation, the result of which I am unaware. To date, no inquest into that death has been called. The whole circumstance is one that concems me. From information given to the family of Anthony Nugent by various people involved in the inquiry and in firms at the work site, it appears that the blame is being placed on the deceased and therefore being neatly tucked away. I suspect that in a sleepy hoUow such as Helidon it would be easy to class it as an open-and-shut case. I put it to the House and the Minister this evening that it is not an open-and-shut case. In tragic accidents that occur when people are working in a situation in which their lives are on the knife-edge, such as in the aircraft transport industry, and in which there is a very small margin of error between life and death or serious injury, the matter should not be just put aside as an accident and left at that. Not only am I talking about a person who has died or been seriously injured, I am talking also about the future of others working in very dangerous situations. I made inquiries of two organisations of professional surveyors, which revealed that those organisations were unaware that this person had even been killed. I think that illustrates that something is wrong and that a reform of investigation techniques and of the method of passing on information to the profession is necessary so that these tragic circumstances never arise again. Tonight, I call for more safety procedures to protect people who are working on the roads. I asked the executive officers of the two professional organisations of surveyors and academics at the University of Queensland about work practices. I asked what the safety codes were. I asked whether there was a system of accident-reporting and investigation for these types of occurrences. I asked about the standards of management on site and about people working on the sites. The answers that were given were to the effect either that there was none or that nothing had been definitely set down. In these days of high technology, when time-scales are very important in determining whether or not a contractor makes a financial success of the project or goes bust, and when people work in the vicinity of large and high-speed vehicles, working on the roads is a life that is much more dangerous than it ever was before. A system of safety codes is long overdue. A system of accident-reporting and investigation should also be set up. I realise that police officers or other responsible persons can be instmmental in giving advice as to whether or not an inquest will be held to investigate the circumstances of an accident. In this particular tragic incident—the death of Anthony Nugent—I strongly suspect that an investigation will not be recommended. Although I reaUse that the Minister is not the Minister responsible for that matter, I nevertheless make the caU for an investigation. At least an investigation should be held and at least a system of investigation should be established in law. I want something more than that. I want these people to be protected as weU as people who work in the airline industry are protected. This incident is not the only recent tragedy that demonstrates how close to the edge the lives of people are being placed when they work in these dangerous situations on the road. One only has to reflect upon the tragic accident that occurred on the Centenary Highway. Workmen were killed when the door of a passing track flew open and knocked several of them over. I seem to remember that one or two were killed and perhaps others were seriously injured. The lives of those people should never have been placed at risk. I remember driving past the site on the Centenary Highway and seeing that row of witches' hats. Apparently, the men walked between that row and the edge of the bridge. At the time, I thought that walking in that narrow strip was quite hair-raising because the traffic was whizzing past. It is sadly the case that a tragic incident occurred. I repeat that those men should never have been placed in that dangerous position.

75052—48 1418 7 April 1987 Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill

Lessons must be leamed from history and from those tragic incidents. A system of investigation and reporting—both to the industry and to the public—should be put in place so that unsafe work practices and procedures and unsafe management practices can be changed. That can only be done by investigating mistakes that have occurred, tragic though they are. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying to start an immediate inquiry to establish how such a system may be set up. Professional organisations should take note of these occurrences and should do something about them. I realise that because such organisations are not highly bureaucratised, they do not have large numbers of full-time officials and massive amounts of money available. As a professional group, surveyors are a relative minority. Tragic incidents should be taken note of, and action should be taken to ensure that they never happen again. I say that if it is good enough for the airline industry, it is good enough for people who work on the roads. Other questions arise out of this accident in which Anthony Nugent was killed. I have seen two of the statements that were made to police about this accident. In a couple of parts, the information contained in them is vague. Whether that is deliberate or otherwise, I do not know and I will not pass judgment on that at this stage. The whole question of negligence is in issue. It is no good saying, as has been indicated to the parents, and to which I alluded earlier, that the young fellow was at fault. It is easy to blame that young fellow and say that it was his own silly fault because he should have got out of the road of the track. The fact of the matter is that he was standing very close to a very noisy road-making machine and the track was reversing. In that situation the track was relatively quiet in that it could not combat the noise from the road-making machine. The track backed over him and in a moment he was dead. It is not good enough to say that it was his own siUy fault and that he was to blame for being killed. I do not want to apportion blame; I want the situation to be sorted out so that something like this never arises again. I want the name of this young man cleared. He was a professional and a man of long experience in the field. The family perceived that the message that was delivered to them was that no-one cares about how or why their son died. I am sure that the fact that other people's sons and daughters could die in similar circumstances is not acceptable to the Minister or anyone else. I would say to the Minister and the House that this matter needs urgent attention. An inquiry must be held into this particular case. A system of inquiry and reporting to the profession, and thereby to the public, should be set up to cover further accidents both of a serious and minor nature. I ask the Minister to attend urgently to that matter, in particular in relation to Anthony Nugent and also any other accidents that occur in the future. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (10.47 p.m.), in reply: I thank members from both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, and, indeed, the member for Toowoomba North, who have lent their generous support to the Bill. They indicated that the principles encompassed in the Bill are such that their support was almost automatic. I refer to the fact that in this technological day and age, with the aid of the ever-increasing capability of satellites, information can be put into cadastral form or into computer form which is readily avaUable to the community at large and particularly to local govemment and other instramentalities. As I said, credit has been given to the Surveyor-General and in fact to all of those who have worked in the surveying industry. A great debt of gratitude is owed to those people who have really opened up this great State of ours. I wiU comment on some of the things said by the Opposition spokesman on mapping and surveying, the member for Mourilyan, Mr Eaton. He said that the State Govemment, or indeed, the Lands Department should take steps to set up a land register. That has been a debatable point. In fact, just recently in this House in response to a question by the member for Mackay, Mr Casey, I said that Queensland did not have a foreign land register or a land register Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1419

as such. It is interesting to note that in either the Telegraph that aftemoon or in the Courier-Mail or Daily Sun the following day the comment was made that the State of Queensland did not have a land register. What the article omitted to say was that no other mainland State within the Commonwealth of Australia—and they are all Labor States—nor the Commonwealth has a land register either. If any honourable members opposite desire to find out the title of any piece of land within this State, be it leasehold or freehold, I will guarantee to get them the information within 10 minutes. Therefore it is a pathetic ploy, a gimmick on behalf of the Opposition, to try to ram down the neck of this Govemment the fact that it should have a land register. The greatest foreign ownership of land of any State within the Commonwealth of Australia is in the State of New South Wales. I stress that I refer not to the area of land, but the fact that the value of foreign-owned land is significantly higher in New South Wales than in other States. I draw the attention of the House to my answer to a question asked by the member for Mackay on whether I knew it was a fact that Mr Holmes a Court may have purchased an island off the coast of Queensland and to the pathetic contribution of the Liberal Party to the legislation dealing with the freeholding of islands which show the lack of understanding by members on that side of the House of what is involved in an application for freeholding. However, that is not the point that I wish to raise here. Mr Holmes a Court is a Westem Australian and a person of some prominence and some note. The only thing that the Opposition could hold against him is that in a very short period of time he has amassed a quite considerable fortune. That is a sin. In the eyes of Opposition members, that is a shame. In their eyes, no man can be successful except by doing something devious or illegal. I wish the media would be honest and come out and tell the public the tmth about Double Island, which is the island in question. I said that I have heard ramours that a contract has been entered into by Mr Holmes a Court or one of his representatives for the .purchase of Double Island. Does anybody know who currently owns that island? Does anybody care? Indeed, it is foreign- owned. Finally, an Australian intends to buy it. What a sin it is that Mr Holmes a Court should do that. Because he may use it for a retreat or a place to hold conferences, in the eyes of some people there is something sinister and wrong. I regret to say that, because of the deceit and deception that was evidenced during the passage of a Bill through the House, it is now easy to see why it would be impractical and unjust to have a foreign land register detailing the ownership of every piece of land in the State. That would bring about a great deal of persecution, particularly from honourable members opposite. If anybody on the other side of the House or anybody anywhere wants to know the ownership of any parcel of land, that can be easily established in half an hour. Until I realised what was involved, I was probably one of the greatest advocates for a land ownership register. When the member for Mackay recently asked me a question about the ownership of that island, in my reply I informed him that only two copies of the relevant document were held in the State of Queensland. When I had a photostat made and delivered it to the honourable member, he could not believe that that was the type of document that I was talking about. No such register is worth its salt unless it is up to date. To upgrade such a document and do the necessary company searches would be quite impracticable, particularly from the point of view of the cost and time involved. However, if anyone so desires, it is quite easy to find out the ownership of any land within the State of Queensland or even the Commonwealth of Australia. If the piece of land is owned by a company, it is very simple to do a search of the Corporate Affairs Office to find out who are the partners of the company. I am pleased that all sides of the House agree with the Bill in principle. The BiU will enable the use of present technology to place in computers data which, by virtue of the use of satellites, is changing almost hourly so that it can be dissected for the benefit of all people. That is a very forward step that has been taken by no other Govemment. With its technology of land information that is now on computer in 1420 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill

cadastral form for the benefit of all Queenslanders and all Australians, Queensland is leading not only the other States and the Commonwealth of AustraUa but also most countries in the world. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 20, as read, agreed to. BUI reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Glasson, by leave, read a third time.

VALUATION OF LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 March (see p. 777). Mr SHAW (Manly) (10.57 p.m.): The Opposition does not intend to oppose this BUI. That is not to say that the Opposition is happy with the present valuation system; rather it says that it accepts the worth of the amendments that have been proposed. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take this opportunity to mention some of the problems that the Opposition sees with the valuation system. I begin by saying that the Opposition appreciates the Minister's second-reading speech, which was fairly concise and gave a good outUne of what is included in the BiU. However, in his second-reading speech, the Minister claimed that acceptance of the annual valuations has been very good because fewer objections have been received than were received previously under general valuations, which were taking place every eight years, I think it was. I dispute that. I think that the reason why the number of objections decreased was that the public felt a sense of futiUty and that it was a waste of time to lodge objections because they would not have much effect, anyway. Mr Burns: They would be ignored. Mr SHAW: As the member for Lytton says, they would be ignored or at best they would receive a smaU change to the valuation, but nowhere near that which the house­ holder felt was warranted. The public were left with a feeling that nothing was going to change anyway, so they might as well just grin and bear it. I might say that I have had some personal experience of that. Recently I received my own valuation, which I believe is in excess of today's market value. To date I have failed to lodge an objection because I also believe that it would be a waste of time. At the height of the valuation debate, when the Lord Mayor and others urged people to submit their objection to the valuations, they are really practising a little bit of psychology. What they are really doing is encouraging people to do something at the moment and to give the council time. By the time he or she receives a reply from the department and a raling to say that the objection has been considered and that it will remain the same, the owner has more or less accepted the valuation and lets the matter rest there. It gives people a feeling that at least they have done something. Really, dealing with all those objections, which generally lead to no change being made, must involve the department in a great waste of money. I reject the claim that the valuation system is a success. The valuation system is urgently in need of review. I believe that it is an inappropriate method of deciding the share of the rate burden to a particular council that a particular property-owner should bear. It continues only because of the obvious difficulties in trying to find a more appropriate system. It is handy for the Govemment to have a system that can be applied to the collection of land taxes. Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1421

In 1985, following a particularly strong bout of objections to the valuations, the Govemment decided to adopt a system of annual valuations and to move valuations in Une with tme market value. Honourable members will recall that at that time it was an accepted fact that valuations for rate purposes bore very little resemblance to the market value. Whether it was because of the need to impose land tax or to have a valuation system that was of assistance in imposing land tax, or whether the Govemment felt it was a means of overcoming the tremendous debate that ensued every time valuations were announced, at that time it was decided to introduce annual valuations and to move the valuations into line with tme market values. This certainly has not ended the criticisms, and I do not beUeve that it has resulted in a more appropriate method of collecting rates. The situation still exists in which, over a period of years, the same property-owner can be called upon to make a very widely different contribution towards the collection of rates. I fail to see how anyone can argue that a property owned by the same owner and used for the same purpose, because the area becomes very fashionable or the market demands are such that the value of land in that area has increased, rises in value to such an extent that the owner should be called upon to pay a higher proportion of the rate biU. That is illogical, and a more appropriate system is required. Such a system would involve taking into account the demand that the property made on the council's services, such as on the roads, sewerage and water that were supplied and the maintenance of the area. As well, consideration should be given to the ability of the property-owner to pay. While the present situation exists, in which the rates are based on market values alone, the unfortunate position is that property-owners, particularly elderly people who have lived in their family home for a large number of years, are forced to sell and move to a strange area simply because they are rated off their property as a result of an increase in the market value of the land. I am sure that no member present would support that kind of thing or wish to see it happening. I do not believe that it is inevitable, and this Govemment should be looking for a system which avoids it. The current revaluations that have been sent out, particularly in the Brisbane area, have in many cases resulted in quite an horrendous situation. I do not believe that the number of objections that will be received will be any indication of the kind of problem that has resulted in the general community and the kind of concem expressed by a number of people that they will be faced with having to sell their property because throughout the years their rate bill will become much greater than they can possibly afford. I note that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane has announced that she is seeking permission from the Minister for Local Govemment to use the old valuations for the council's current budget. I support her in this. It makes a lot of sense, because obviously there is insufficient time between now and the coming financial year for the Brisbane City CouncU to put together a differential rating scheme and to iron out all the accompanying problems in order to proceed with the new valuations. These new valuations will have obvious inequalities and some of the rate rises that people will be subjected to as a result will be quite horrendous. Some people have said that it is a matter of doing some simple arithmetic and saying that, because valuations have increased by 100 per cent, rates will increase by 100 per cent. All honourable members know that that is not tme. Those people who have seen their valuations exceed the average increase by 400 or 500 per cent are certainly looking at a very large increase in their rate bills next year. I believe that what the Lord Mayor suggested has a great deal of merit. The position is further complicated by the fact that the objections to the current Brisbane valuations will not be finalised by the time that the Brisbane City Council and other councils prepare their budgets. I repeat that the practice of using the old valuations or a formula based on the old valuations, as has been done previously, is well worth considering. 1422 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill

Valuations based on market value should be scrapped as a means of determining rates. A move needs to be made urgently towards a fairer taxing system. I do not pretend that it is an easy system to find. Aithough it will be very difficult, that should be done as a matter of urgency. I do not accept that the market-value system adopted by the Govemment is the one that should apply. Perhaps the Minister could let me know when the investigations that arrived at the valuations that were recently sent out—for example, in Brisbane— were carried out. I think that I wiU be told that those investigations were conducted over some years. Having looked at current land prices in some areas, I doubt very much whether they reflect today's market value. I admit that property values have been depressed or are levelling off. Market values in many areas have certainly decreased. That drop in value has not been reflected in the valuations that have been sent out. Many valuations have been based on the very buoyant conditions that existed a few years ago. That raises the very interesting point as to how the annual valuations, which will be the rale, will reflect market fluctuations. It seems to me that there will be little time for investigations of particular properties to be carried out. One is likely to see the use of computers and average percentage increases. Those averages wiU be imposed on properties in a general area. That will lead to particular properties being disadvantaged in areas that have not experienced an improvement in market value. Even if the present system of market values were retained—I do not think it should be retained—a large number of anomalies would still exist. The BiU supports my argument that account should be taken of the ability of properties to cam income and the different uses to which the person in control or the owner can put the properties. That is exactly what we are doing here tonight. Honourable members are taking into account that some properties do not have the same potential as others. So we are saying that it is unfair for those properties to be rated on market value. I support that view. I think that it is a good argument. However, I also suggest that it bears out exactly what I have been saying, that is, that other citizens should be receiving that same benefit. Mr COOPER (Roma) (11.10 p.m.): The present system might be described as the worst system of valuing that one can find, except for all the others. Many astute people have exercised their minds in an endeavour to come up with an accurate system of valuing. However, no-one seems to be able to reach a stage at which he can say, "Here is something that is better than what we have got." Honourable members often hear a lot of scaremongering following valuations. Generally, it is the responsibility of a shire council to strike its rates. Shire councils have the capacity to strike a certain rate in the dollar. Their main requirement is to bring in sufficient money to conduct their affairs. In relation to annual valuations—I have had first-hand experience in my shire of Bendemere. People wondered whether annual valuations would work, and they were looking for anomalies. With the introduction of any new system, one has to wait and see what the anomalies are and what actually occurs. I am pleased to say that in Bendemere the valuations actuaUy went down by 2.83 per cent. That gave the people of Bendemere confidence in the system. Seasonal and market factors, as well as sales, are taken into account in annual valuations. When annual valuations were proposed, people expressed the fear that valuations would automatically rise with CPI increases. That was certainly not the case. I am pleased to say that the system has been successful. One problem that is stUl experienced, particularly in the more isolated regions of my electorate, concems the circulation of valuation notices. After the system has been given a chance to work, it may not be necessary. However, I am aware that the Minister has a great deal of sympathy for those people in isolated areas who would prefer to receive their valuation notices through the mail, as well as the present system of valuation comparisons being available on display in shire offices round the ridges. That system Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1423 has proved to be very successful. It is very easy for people to attend at shire offices and compare their valuations with those of their neighbours who have similar land-holdings. The Government welcomes that and believes that the system is working very well. I have had nothing but good reports about it from my constituents. The Govemment has received excellent co-operation from the district valuer, Athol Backhouse, and his staff, who have bent over backwards to ensure that the system works. Like Mr Trickett, they explain the system in language that is easily understood. Matters relating to valuations often tend to be difficult to understand. I believe that the petroleum leases legislation is innovative. The legislation has been introduced following representations by shire councils to the Minister because of the damage to roads that has been caused by petroleum companies going about their business of exploration, development and so on. This legislation is certainly not against the petroleum companies. I have had first­ hand experience of them and have found them to be very co-operative. The legislation provides a safety net for shires so that they can bring in sufficient funds to maintain roads and provide services. The legislation applies throughout Queensland. My particular area of interest is the south-westem region of Queensland, where 32 petroleum leases cover a number of shires, including four within my own electorate. Although local authorities have been affected by this development, I wish to make it clear that the oil and gas companies are certainly welcome. Their development and the jobs that are created from it are necessary. Australia's total self-sufficiency in gas and its 70 per cent self-sufficiency in oil is certainly essential to a favourable balance of payments. Petroleum leases have not previously been valued by the Valuer-General. As a result of representations to the Minister by local authorities, legal opinion was sought. It was found that those petroleum leases are rateable. They are similar to mining tenements and, therefore, should be valued. Following the introduction of this legislation, local authorities will apply a rate similar to the raral rate or to a value that is equal to six times the present value of the rent, which since 1982 has stood at 20c per hectare. Prior to that it was variable, but whichever is the lesser amount. For example, the town of Roma is covered by two petroleum leases. The area of those leases is approximately 1 210 hectares. If one multiplies that figure by $1.20 one obtains a figure of approximately $1,450. That may not sound like a lot of money; but, through the use of differential rating, the Roma Council can bring in a sufficient amount to cope with problems created by damage to roads. The surrounding shires could apply the raral rate at whatever the rate in the dollar happens to be. If that does not bring in enough money to maintain the roads and keep other services in good repair, they too can apply differential rating by requesting the Valuer-General to identify and categorise and then rate at a certain amount in the dollar in order to bring in enough money to do the job. The legislation is certainly not intended to take unfair advantage of petroleum companies. In the Bendemere Shire, three companies have put in substantial developinent, to a value of $20m. Previously, they were paying $20 each in rates. Under differential rating, the shire now collects $15,000 from those three companies, compared with $60 previously. Bendemere was one of the first shires to rate differentiaUy. Those companies did not object. They realised that the shire needs to cater for the heavy use of roads. A very amicable arrangement has been arrived at. In that shire, a company carts condensate in tankers up and dowai a particular road. That company pays a variable amount per litre. The shire receives up to $20,000 a year. The beauty of this legislation is that the shire can now rate petroleum leases. It can differentially rate, if necessary, to bring in the required sum of money. It will no longer be a hit-and-miss operation. The money is certain, and shires can budget accordingly. 1424 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill

Following this legislation, the shires will be legaUy required to rate. However, they can come to an arrangement with a company to offset the rating. As I said, Bendemere Shire had very amicable arrangements with the companies and I am sure that, if shires have discussions initially, they will limit the problems that might be envisaged. The legislation ensures income to the shire over an extended period. A shire cannot enter into a loan if it does not know from one year to the next how much it will receive to pay off the interest and redemption or if the amount is to vary quite substantially. I do not believe that differential rating is very well understood at present. I think it will be eventually. The Bendemere Shire Council has understood it purely through circumstances. Other shires will consider it down the track. Like anything else that is new, it takes some understanding. It is certainly a step in the right direction. The rating of petroleum leases involves a similar principle. Both pieces of legislation are very progressive. I commend the Minister and the Govemment for employing them, provided they are used by the shires with common sense without attempting to do damage to the petroleum companies. On the one hand, the shire has certain needs, which are fully understood; on the other hand, shires must bear in mind the capacity of the petroleum companies to pay. Both parties need to be considered. When I discuss the issue with any shires, I recommend that they attempt to enter into negotiations with the companies and reach an understanding first so that no ill-feeling is caused. I am sure that most of the petroleum companies are only too willing to enter into discussions. I certainly congratulate the Minister. He has taken to his portfolio like a duck to water. I wish him well for the future. I also thank the Valuer-General, John Trickett. He is a person who can explain things so that a person such as me can begin to understand them and then explain them to the shires. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.19 p.m.): Valuations throughout the State relate to two matters: local authority rating and land tax. One of the previous speakers referred to the fact that, although the system of valuations in operation at the moment may not be perfect, nevertheless it is similar to what Winston Churchill said about democracy— "We live in an imperfect world. We have these imperfect systems. For all their shortcomings, no-one has come up with something better." I think that is probably appropriately said about valuations. It is certainly a subject of great concem throughout the community. There is always a great deal of discussion about whether or not some other system ought to be introduced for local authorities and for land tax purposes. At this stage, I wish to congratulate the Valuer-General's Department on performing what I believe is generally an excellent job. It is not always an easy job. Officers of that department have an onerous task which puts them in line for a fair amount of abuse. They can probably never do the right thing by the community at large. Over a period of many years, I have had a great deal to do with the department. Following the last revaluation, many people came to me as an alderman of the Brisbane City Council, because they believed that the council was responsible for the increase in valuations. Of course, that is always on. In recent times, that belief was once again brought home because, after the valuation notices were received, most people telephoned the local council. I know that this happened to local authorities other than the Brisbane City Council. Inevitably, inquiries about valuations are referred to a council. I know of some people in Govemment who are actually referring people to the council, as though the council were responsible for the new valuations. As honourable members would be aware, that is not so. A number of delays occurred in the process of setting the new valuations. The valuations were to be issued some months earlier, but for some unknown reason—I say "unknown" because cynical people in the community would say that it had something Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 AprU 1987 1425

to do with the State election that was held on 1 November, but I presume that it was for some other reason—the valuations did not come out at the expected time. They were supposed to be sent out somewhat earlier to give the council plenty of time to gear up its rating system to take into account the new valuations. Not only do the valuations have to go out, but also notices have to be sent out in time to enable people to lodge an objection if they wish. Sufficient time must be made available to enable the Valuer- General to hear the objectors. From memory,, the notices were sent out in late November. The period for lodgment of appeal was 60 days, which expired on 24 January. All that took place over the Christmas period, when so many people were away on holidays, were proposing to go away on holidays or were in the process of preparing for Christmas. I can assure the House that many people were not impressed. The revaluation was not a very nice Christmas present for them. Although they were informed that the value of their land had increased, they found that their valuations had gone up not by 100 per cent or 163 per cent, but by 200, 240, 300 per cent and, in some cases, 600 per cent. That is not what one might call a very nice Christmas present from the Govemment! Many of these people received that great shock as they were about to depart on Christmas holidays. Others who received their notices looked at them and put them aside. They did not lodge an objection because they were preparing for the Christmas festivities. Some people got such a shock that they preferred not to refer to the notice to find out exactly what the increase was. I tmst that, when the annual valuations become operative, the department, the Minister or the Government will see to it that they are not sent out over the Christmas period. The method used last time certainly left a very sour taste in the mouths of people in the community who were concemed about what the new valuations might be. I was very surprised to hear the honourable member for Manly, Mr Shaw, say that it was a waste of money for people to object. At least, I think that is what he said. Over a period, again I found that not to be the case. In 1979 many people objected, and hundreds of those objections were allowed. Perhaps the people who objected did not get the reduction that they sought, but they certainly received reduced valuations. Many amounted to thousands of dollars, which made a considerable difference. Mr Tenni: Valuations have nothing to do with rating. Mr BEANLAND: If the Minister thinks that valuations have nothing to do with rating and that the two are not linked in some way, he had better find out what local govemment does, what it is all about and what the community is concemed about. I am sure that he does not really mean that. Whilst it is known that local authorities set the rating in the dollar, the amount that people pay is determined by the amount that the local authority sets across the board, or if a differential rating system operates, the amount is still determined by the local authority. The local authority cannot go round and pick out one after the other and start applying different rates to them. That means that valuation plays a very important role in the rates that people pay. As I say, because the local authority sets the rating in the dollar, the amount of rates paid is determined by the valuation that is given by the Valuer-General's Department. Valuations are a very important aspect of rating. As I say, I have found from experience that if people have a particular point to make, it is worth while for them to object. Many people do that. It is very difficult for valuers to be aware of all the shortcomings of unimproved value of property around the city and the State. Things such as hollows, humps, slopes, pipes and drains mnning through properties affect the valuation put on the property by the Valuer-General. The last time revaluations occurred, there were on-site conferences to allow members of the public to go and discuss those various aspects. Officers of the Valuer-General's Department came out to the site and had discussions with the public. Unfortunately, at this time it is found that on-site conferences are more or less a thing of the past. I notice that the 1426 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill

Valuer-General's Department is now asking people to come into the department to have meetings there. As weU, in some cases, telephone discussions have taken place between the department and members of the public. Some sort of link-up arrangement has been introduced. I do not go along with the arrangement of link-up discussions on telephones. I do not beUeve that all the various aspects that need to be discussed can be discussed properly on the telephone. However, I can understand that, with costs as they are, staff commitments and so on, and with the many hundreds of thousands of people who object, it is becoming more difficult to have on-site conferences. I would hope and tmst that, in some cases in which the valuations are important, the department would agree to that occurring. I acknowledge that, although the Act does not mention on-site conferences, over the years it has been a practice of the department to allow them to occur. The new valuations have caused a great deal of concem and alarm. I am indeed pleased to have the support of the Labor Party and the honourable member for Manly in asking the Govemment to delay the implementation of the new valuations, here in Brisbane at least, because the council is very concemed that, although the valuations were done at 30 June 1985, it took so long for those valuations to reach the public— the property-owners. Now the council has to look at appropriate methods of how it will rate on the new valuations. That is a process that it will have to go through. Because of the sky-rocketing valuations that occurred last time, the Govemment, by amending the Act, allowed for an average rateable value to be implemented. The average rateable value was worked out by adding together the old value and the new value in 1979 and dividing by two. Of course, that evened out the increases in valuations, which meant that many people who would have paid a good deal more did not do so because of the evening-out process—the levelling process—that occurred with the new average rating system that was introduced at that time. However, this time that is not there to fall back on. Because of the short time that is available, the Govemment ought to consider the proposition of postponing the release of the new valuations, and thus the rate increases, by amending the Act to allow the Brisbane City Council a further 12 months to review the various aspects of how it will rate on the new valuations. If that does not occur, many people will pay significantly more, even though the Lord Mayor of the city, SaUyanne Atkinson, has clearly indicated that she wishes to freeze rate revenue across the board. Nevertheless, she and the council generally will be placed in the position of not having sufficient time to work out a process that enables the council to even out the increases that some people would otherwise pay as a result of the huge increases in valuations. It is clear that the Government will be responsible for many of the huge increases that could occur even with an across the board freezing of rate revenue. If the Govemment is not prepared to postpone the new valuations, which would require an amendment to the Act, when many people, including pensioners, get their new valuations they will find that they will have to pay significantly higher rates. Since the last valuations, the Govemment has introduced differential rating for Brisbane and for other shires, towns and cities. The Brisbane City CouncU and other councils are considering at the moment how they can best introduce differential rating, whether it is feasible and the many other aspects that have to be taken into account. Councils have to consider whether to increase considerably the rates for commercial and industrial areas and at the same time reduce the rates for residential areas, or whether they should take an across the board look at the various zones in which people are situated. In the light of the new valuations that have been released not only in Brisbane but also on the Gold Coast, a great deal of investigation will need to be undertaken to see how things will work out. A great deal of work will be required before any change can be introduced. Therefore, if differential rating or any other system is to be introduced, it wUl require deferral, for a further 12 months, of the bringing in of rating based oil Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1427 the new valuations. Councils would have appreciated it more had the new valuations been released 12 months or more ago. One of the things that I am very pleased to see in the Bill is the provision that allows rates to be levied on the basis of valuations on undertakings on raUway leases. In recent times quite a number of commercial operations have been established above railway facilities. Among those are developments at Branswick Street Station, Roma Street Station, Central Station—the Sheraton Hotel—and Toowong Station. There is talk of the establishment of shopping centres and other developments above many other railway stations round the State. It has always been a great bone of contention that it was only after a long period of time that local authorities were allowed to levy rates in those cases. The Valuer- General's Department finally gave a valuation on these properties so that rates could be levied on them as with other commercial undertakings. However, I understand that it is only with the introduction of the amendments contained in the Bill before the House that the determining of valuations in such cases has become mandatory across the board. Local authorities generally will gain significantly through that. Why should not the Govemment's commercial undertakings, such as those on railway properties, pay rates to local authorities? Those operations, as part of their ongoing costs, ought to be subject to the payment of rates the moment they are constmcted, not several years down the track after a long tussle by the relevant local authority with the Valuer-General's Department to try to get a valuation out of it. Of course, I can understand that Govemments are reluctant to do that, because it makes for greater income and for cheaper rents and a generally cheaper operation if an undertaking or a business in a particular centre does not have to pay local authority rates. Of course, thousands of dollars would be involved in various local authority areas right across the State. One matter to which I want to refer is land tax. As I mentioned at the outset, valuations relate to rates and to land tax. I am very disappointed to see that at this stage of proceedings the Govemment has not introduced a Bill to do something about land tax, because under the new valuations many unsuspecting people will be in the position of having to pay land tax for the first time. The Bill has not been amended, and with the horrific increases in valuations not only in Brisbane but also on the Gold Coast, thousands of people will have to pay land tax for the first time. I understand that under the new arrangements the Govemment now has all of its records on computer. Of course, with the computer the Govemment should be able to track down who should and who should not be paying land tax. I understand that perhaps it has been somewhat difficult to do that in the past. However, that will not be the case in the future. There are many acreage blocks around Brisbane, the Gold Coast and south-east Queensland generally. Unless considerable amendments to the Act are introduced, in many shires property-owners who have a house on more than 1.05 hectares will find that they will be paying land tax for the first time. If a property-owner has investment property valued at more than $65,334, likewise those properties will make the owner liable to pay land tax. It is interesting to note from the schedule on land tax that land tax mns on a sliding scale, starting from 0.3 per cent at $4,000. It goes up to $12 plus 0.6 per cent for the amount in excess of $4,000, flattening out at 2.1 per cent for $400,000 or more. It would seem to me that in this State where a great deal is heard from the Premier and the Government about flat taxes, there should be a flat rate for land tax. Yet there seems to be silence when it comes to land tax in this State. Perhaps it is a case of do as I say, not do as I do. Concem is building up in the community in regard to land tax. The Govemment owes it to the community to do something very promptly about land tax. It does not 1428 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill seem to be a problem to introduce BiUs and process them in a matter of two or three hours. However, when it comes to a matter that affects people in every walk of life in the community, very little concem is expressed about it. In fact very little has been said by the Govemment at all. Perhaps the Govemment believes that this will enable it to obtain a windfall profit from the unsuspecting tax-payer. I can assure all Govemment members and Ministers that the public is becoming very alarmed about it. Over the next few months, as 30 September draws near, the public will become very noisy and speak up about it. Under the new valuations the land tax is implemented from 1 July and the retums have to be in by 30 September. There is little time in which to amend the Act to overcome what otherwise will be horrific amounts of land tax that the community will have to pay. Annual valuations wiU certainly overcome some of the problems which the Department of the Valuer-General discovers every time it does valuations. I am very pleased to see them being implemented, because, whilst there may be a few hiccups in the first instance, with the computerisation and technology that the department now has they will soon sort themselves out. For the first time that I can recoUect, some valuations will reduce and some will increase. Everyone knows that at the moment the property market is very depressed. Around 30 June 1985 when the new valuations were done it was on a high, but since then the "world's greatest Treasurer" has managed to wreck the Australian economy a little bit more and over recent months the property market has become even more depressed. The "world's greatest Treasurer" cannot even remember to put in his tax retum on time. In the coming 12 months, and certainly on 30 June 1987, many valuations will decrease. In closing, I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to aUowing local authorities— not only in Brisbane, but also on the Gold Coast and in other areas—that have been affected by these new valuations that were posted out only very recently, another 12 months to review the situation in order for them to come up with what I believe will be a much better system of rating. Many people face large increases in rates because of the huge increases in valuations and not because of the huge increase in rates. In Brisbane the Lord Mayor has quite clearly indicated that she wants to freeze rates, as I know aU local authorities would like to do. An extension wiU ensure that the increase in rates is kept to a minimum. I appeal to the Minister to be kind to local authorities and give them an extension of 12 months. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (11.44 p.m.): I rise to support this BiU, which amends the Valuation of Land Act. This amendment relates to three sections— (1) appeals to annual valuations; (2) the valuation of occupation licences, permits to occupy and railway leases; and (3) the valuation of petroleum leases. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the Valuer-General on the foresight and thought that have gone into these amendments, which will benefit many people across a wide range. Since 1985 the Valuer-General has undertaken a system of annual valuations in addition to the long-standing system of general valuations. The new annual valuation system appears to have gained acceptance in those areas where it was first introduced, and it has been found to need further adjustment to bring it into line with the right of appeal to the Registrar of the Land Court. Each system, as it now stands, provides land-holders with right of objection against valuations made by the Valuer-General. However, the appeals provisions which apply to the two systems have been drafted at different times and are in separate parts of the Valuation of Land Act. It can be seen from this that separate powers given to the Registrar of the court and to the Land Court itself need to be brought into line for the two systems. Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1429

As the Act stands at present, the Registrar of the Land Court is required to issue notices and requisitions to an appellant where an appeal against a general valuation is lodged late or is defective in certain particulars. The purpose is to give an appellant the opportunity to explain that his appeal was late because of undue delay in the course of post, or to rectify a defective appeal. However, in the case of an appeal against an annual valuation, the Registrar has no such powers. Instead, the Land Court itself has been given discretionary powers to grant an appellant leave to lodge a late appeal or to amend a defective appeal. This obviously has caused some problems for the Land Court, which would prefer to have the law relating to appeals against general valuations and appeals against annual valuations operating under the same set of procedures. The system, as it is—under the general valuation for appeals—has worked successfully for many years, and the Govemment wishes to use this accepted method under the new annual valuations system. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the hearing of an appeal proceeds without disadvantage to either party and without undue delay. As I have mentioned eariier, the annual valuations system has gained acceptance. It gives the opportunity to the land-holder and the Valuer-General to use up-to-date figures and to monitor fluctuations and the ability to implement such fluctuations annuaUy. We have seen in previous years, under the general valuations Act, land that has been valued in a slump period. We have then seen that land go through a boom period, then into the next slump. The second valuation has been done in between the two slump periods when the land is just on the downhill slide into the second slump. The end result of this, of course, is that we have land being valued going into a downhill phase, but being valued at he boom rate. This naturally frastrated the land-ovmer because he was seeing his valuations increase dramatically when he is, in fact, looking down the barrel of industry recession or down-tum. I support the concept of regular valuations. However, under the present annual system, land-owners, particularly in raral areas, are disadvantaged because the valuation notice is not sent by post. I can accept that postage is a large cost on the department. However, if taken to the full extent, much more cost is put on the raral land-holder in traveUing costs. We must also take into account the inconvenience placed on those people who, in some cases, would not go to the town where the valuations are to be displayed. In other words, their service town is not always their valuation district town. There are many more examples of how land-owners are disadvantaged by postage of valuations, but time does not permit me to expand more on this issue at this time. The amendment dealing with petroleum leases is long overdue and wiU give local authorities the power to collect revenue from these leases. Local authorities with Umited resources have been faced with great financial hardship because of the concentration of heavy transport over council and main roads. My electorate of Warrego is a vast one with major oU companies working in the far west in the Jackson and Eromanga fields. Some 1 400 barrels a day are transported right through to the eastem boundary and on to Moonie. Somewhere along the Une someone has to pay for repair and upgrading of these fast-deteriorating roads. In some cases, the oil companies have come forward and supported road maintenance and constraction in some shires. This amendment will ensure a fair and reasonable contribution will be made by major road users. The local authorities wiU have the abiUty to rate, in most cases, the largest businesses in the shire, which in some cases in the past were paying very little for the facilities provided. I support the Bill. Hon. D. McC. NEAL (Balonne—Minister for Corrective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation) (11.50 p.m.), in reply: The honourable member for Manly does not oppose the Bill. He referred to the recent revaluation and said that, because of a sense of futility in objecting, there were few objections. I assure the honourable member that that is not so. People objected to their general valuations because of large increases 1430 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill and the sharp changes in relativity that accompanied the system of general valuations. Those valuations were made over a period of between five and eight years. The honourable member criticised the valuation system, which he claims is inappropriate. I inform him that, in spite of many inquiries over quite a number of years, it stUl remains the best and most appropriate system for the distribution of rates. The honourable member referred also to the recent revaluations within the city of Brisbane. He said that those revaluations were horrendous and would force people from their homes. The honourable member should be aware that the Valuer-General's task is to apply the unimproved value in accordance with the sales of comparable land. Following the introduction of new differential rating powers, the city council is able to strike different rates for various areas, if it so desires. I assure the honourable member that his fears about the annual valuation system are groundless and that, by closely monitoring the market, the Valuer-General will be able to foUow the trend in land values—whether they go up or down. The Valuer- General also gives objectors a fair hearing. Land-holders must accept that their valuations should represent fair market values. If for any reason the valuations need to be adjusted following the owners' objections, the Valuer-General has no hesitation in reducing the valuations. The Valuer-General is presently hearing and determining objections from within the Brisbane city area, as well as from other areas. It is expected that most determinations in the Brisbane area wiU be made by the end of May of this year. The first decisions were issued in March. Others will progressively be issued over the next three months. The honourable member suggested also that valuations should be based upon services provided. However, valuations on such a basis would lead to land-holders of poorer blocks of land paying more in rates than they do under the present system, while wealthier land-holders of more valuable land, whose valuations would be reduced, would pay less. The honourable member for Roma spoke in favour of the Bill. He has had first­ hand experience with annual valuations within his electorate. He recognises the benefits of the new system. A number of petroleum leases are situated within his electorate. The honourable member recognises the benefits of the proposed legislation, which will require lessees to pay their fair share of rates to local authorities, although they will not receive unreasonably high valuations. I commend the honourable member for Roma for his remarks. He demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the new valuation initiatives that have been taken by the Govemment. I thank the honourable member for Toowong for his remarks about the Valuer- General's Department, particularly in view of his experience as a former alderman with the Brisbane City Council. As to the date of issue of valuations for the city of Brisbane—I assure the honourable member that those valuations were issued as soon as they were completed. There is never a suitable occasion on which to receive an increase in one's valuation, whether it be Christmas or any other time. Because the previous method of hearing objections on site required people to take time off work to attend such conferences, it was not successful. They often had to wait for quite some time before the officers of the Valuer-General's Department called on them. The Valuer-General is now attempting to hear objections by more appropriate means. There is no point in postponing the new valuations, as the honourable member suggested, because the purpose of an annual valuation system is to revalue every year. Any postponement of a valuation would defeat the whole purpose of the system. I wonder whether the postponement requested by the Brisbane City Council has anything to do with the local govemment elections due early next year. The honourable member criticised the Govemment for not amending the Land Tax Act. However, he should be aware that the Honourable the Deputy Premier has stated Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1431 that he proposed to review the land tax provisions following the recent increase in valuations in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and other areas. The member for Toowong referred also to the railway leases. I point out that the Valuer-General has always been required to value railway leases. All the legislation does is make the Valuer-General take into account any limitations or restrictions imposed upon the terms of those leases. The honourable member for Warrego, as chairman of one of the westem shires, has a thorough knowledge of the valuation and rating system. I thank him for his support of the BiU. He appreciates the great advantage of the new system of annual valuations. If such a system had been in force in the 1970s, the Valuer-General could have been able to follow the market down during the sheep and cattle recessions at that time. I note also his comments on posting notices to raral land-holders. I assure the honourable member that I am looking closely at that matter. I am sure that he appreciates that that is a budgetary matter. In the instance of general valuations, the Valuer-General sent out about 200 000 notices a year. However, with an annual valuation, he wiU be faced with sending out a million notices a year. That does have financial implications, but it is something that I certainly take on board. I appreciate that the member for Warrego is concemed about that. I have received a number of expressions of concem. I assure the honourable member that that is one thing that will be looked at. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. D. McC. Neal (Balonne—Minister for Corrective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr PREST (11.59 p.m.): Clause 5 relates to appeals. Lately, Gladstone city has been revalued and there have been large increases in the valuation of some residential properties. The appeals system is such that, if the appeal is to receive any weight or serious consideration at all, a majority of people must appeal. Normally, the officer will tell the person who has appealed that only a very low percentage of people have appealed against the valuation, and those people virtually withdraw their appeal from that time. On 31 March, Alderman Brown of the Gladstone City Council said that, although rates would be difficult to equalise this year, they would not increase by much. Although the Minister said that valuations increased only by 3.1 per cent, when the whole area of revaluation is taken into account, the difference in the increases becomes obvious. Some residential areas in particular have increased very dramatically. When the 1979 valuation was carried out, Queensland had experienced a boom period. There was great demand for residential and industrial land. Because the boom period has long since passed, prosperity has levelled out and many bankraptcies have been recorded. There is also a high rate of unemployment and no demand whatsoever exists for residential and industrial land. It is difficult to understand how the Valuer-General can decide that since the boom period has passed, industrial and commercial areas of the city should be downgraded in value while residential blocks should be increased by anything between 5 per cent— although it was 50 per cent in some areas—and 2 850 per cent for NorthcUffe since the 1979 valuations were carried out. The highest increase was not just an increase but an outlandish and dramatic increase. Of course, the residents of that area would have been told that because they were a minority, they would be wasting their time lodging an appeal. As I say, this is what it is all about. People who are interested in lodging an appeal are sometimes told, "Don't do it because your rates won't go up very much." When they receive their residential rate notice and compare it with rates for industrial and commercial areas, they realise that the people who own property in residential areas 1432 7 April 1987 Valuation of Land Act Amendment Bill wiU have to carry the burden of raising revenue for the local authority. That is a matter that honourable members should be very concemed about. My property has been increased in value from $11,000 to $13,800, which represents approximately a 20 per cent increase. A moment ago, honourable members heard the Minister for Water Resources say that valuations do not have any bearing on rates. That is absolutely ridiculous because the amount paid in rates is based on the value of the property. The rate in the dollar is strack by the council or the local authority. Mr De Lacy: He should take a few lessons on the rating principle. Mr PREST: Yes, the Minister should. He has been around long enough now. I suppose it is one of those things: one could say that he will never leam. I am concemed that the system of valuation is not fair and equitable. I see no reason why an area should be assigned a valuation in a boom period and, when a slack period occurs, the valuation is either maintained or increased. I believe that the appeal system should be made as easy as possible not only for the majority of the people but also so that any person who wishes to object should be able to do so without fear and should be able to receive fair judgment. I have no objections to the amendments that are proposed, but I do say that the Valuer-General's officers who carry out the function of valuations should leam by experience and should take note of people in authority who know what is happening in certain areas. I wish to quote from an article pubUshed in the Real Estate Journal in December 1986. The president of the Real Estate Institute in Gladstone, Mr Clive Dahl, stated the following— "Prices have been down on properties sold 18 months to two years ago but this does not necessarily mean that properties are now selling below value. Rather, the unrealistic prices obtained during the high industrial development period have levelled out." Mr Edgar Allen from Ray White Real Estate in Gladstone said that he could not understand why the Valuer-General had valued residential land in some areas so highly. In fact, he said he could not see why residential land in Gladstone should have risen at all. He said— "I can say with no fear of contradiction that residential land values in Gladstone during recent years have steadily gone down." Mr Jeff Lloyd-Jones of L. J. Hooker agreed and said that the reductions reflected the downtum in the demand for such property. When there is a downtum in individual development and the economy, and with so many people unemployed and with so many businesses going bankmpt, there must be a lesser demand for land within an area. That has been the case. As I say, the Opposition supports the Bill. It sincerely hopes that the Valuer-General takes note of what has been said in relation to the city of Gladstone and that at all times those people who are appealing against their valuations are given fair and just treatment. Mr NEAL: I think the honourable member for Port Curtis has mistaken the objection procedure for the appeals procedure. He spoke in some detail about the revaluation of land in the city of Gladstone and he feared that some of the people up there will be talked out of objecting or appealing. I can assure the honourable member that no-one should be afraid to lodge an objection if he feels that his valuation is wrong. Anybody who does so will be treated with courtesy by the Valuer-General's officers and will be given a full explanation of the way in which the valuation was made. The honourable member referred also to land being valued in a boom period and then being "kinged" in the downtum period—I think that was the word that he used. Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1433

If he had listened to my previous reference to the member for Manly, he would have known that annual valuations will take care of that particular problem. Annual valuations are responsive to market value. They will respond to an increase in the market and, likewise, a downtum in the market. That is what valuations are designed to do. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Neal, by leave, read a third time.

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 April (see p. 1292). Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.09 a.m.): Bad planning or no planning at all in years gone by has forced families in my electorate to live for years with foul and rotten odours that have threatened their health, stopped them entertaining in their homes, stopped them enjoying their own back yards and finally destroyed their property values. The Valuation of Land Act has just been debated, so I might point out that a large number of local people have complained to the Valuer- General about property values. As far as valuations are concemed, he does not seem to have taken much notice of pollution as a problem. Having visited the area, the Minister would know that the foul and rotten odours from those plants in the area can really depreciate the value of homes. Some of the areas that I am talking about look right out over the city and the bay, but because of the foul and rotten odours that have come from those factories, the property values are down very substantially. Polluting factories and industries have no place next door to people's homes. Noxious, hazardous and offensive industries, because of their very description, should not be encouraged to establish next door to existing residential suburbs. I might make the point that in his speech the Minister spoke of A.J. Bush and Sons coming to the area in 1971. Most of the Murarrie residential area was there before the company. The residential area was built in the 1945 to 1950 era after the war. It was only that little area on the top of the hill near the school that grew as A.J. Bush grew. I have represented that area since 1972, and I can assure the Minister that the houses did not creep up on A.J. Bush; it crept up on the houses. During 29 years of National Party Govemment there has been positive discrimination against the home-owner in favour of the polluters, who in Queensland are given a licence to pollute. In the 24 years since the Act was passed there have been only nine prosecutions for breaches of the Act. Since 1983 there have been no prosecutions. Before the Clean Air Act was put before the House for discussion, polluting industries were on record through the Confederation of Industry as demanding and obtaining a watering-down of its provisions. Other laws passed by this Govemment are enforced by an army of police and inspectors working round the clock, but the State's pollution laws are treated quite differently, with a 9 to 5 inspectorate, divisions of responsibility and an Act with no teeth. In free-enterprise Queensland, factories and shops inspectors vvork through week­ ends to catch stores opening on Saturday aftemoons and Sundays, but industries can wilfully and deliberately pollute the air we breathe at night and on week-ends, free in the knowledge that no inspector will be on duty to catch them because this National Party Government refuses to provide a 24-hour service. Can honourable members imagine what it would be like if all police and police stations closed at 5 p.m. on Fridays? I know that the police are short staffed and that many stations with skeleton staffs close at 8 or 9 o'clock at night, but, with the enforcement of air pollution control, everything closes down from 5 or 6 o'clock Firday night until Monday moming. The reality is that foul pollution spills into the air on Friday nights 1434 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill and all day on Saturdays. When the inspectors are contacted at 9 a.m. on Monday, although they call out to the plant, there is no evidence of the pollution, as it has all wafted away on the evening and moming breezes. Even though residents pin-point the time, the type of smell, other descriptions of the pollution and the wind direction, industries claim they are not responsible and the department says that nothing can be done. When a positive answer is received, it is to report that there was a plant failure or break-down. It is amazing how polluters' machinery always breaks down at 5 p.m. on weekdays or at week-ends. The advent of town-planning in Queensland provided some hope that buffer zones between industry and homes and proper planning techniques would be implemented, but very little progress was made. Local progress associations, action groups and residents have been forced to call public meetings to organise massive petitions and even go to the Local Govemment Court to protect homes and families. The Murarrie Progress Association spent many thousands of dollars in going to the Local Govemment Court. Other groups are the Bayside Action Group, the River Mouth Action Group and the Hemmant Action Group, which all had to be set up because people were sure that the Govemment had failed in its responsibility to protect them from the poUuting industries that were creeping up on their homes. The Brisbane City Council, in the days of the Labor administration, recognised the problem and established a special river mouth development control plan that provided for buffers of open space and light and general industry zones between homes and the noxious, hazardous and offensive industries. At that time, the Minister in charge of this Bill was the Minister responsible for commercial and industrial development. In co­ operation with the Liberal council, he arranged for that river mouth control plan to be thrown out. I am interested to see the new little document that has been published by the Department of Industry Development and describes the Lytton industrial estate and depicts people on merry-go-rounds and swings, jogging and fishing. In reaUty, at present that is a dirty old industrial swamp. That area came under the river mouth control plan, which was thrown out by the Liberal administration of SaUyanne Atkinson in co­ operation with the Govemment. I understand that moves may even be made to restore it to the town plan along with its new zones. I hope that the Minister agrees to that proposal. I hope that down in that swamp where the Government has depicted people on swings and merry-go-rounds an ICI chlorine plant is not constmcted. Both industry and residents would have known exactly what could and should have been allowed had that river mouth control plan been retained, but, as I said, the Liberal councU and the National Party Minister for Local Govemment, Mr Hinze, combined to throw that protection out the window by rejecting the river mouth control plan. Since then almost 5 000 submissions against towoi plan proposals at Hemmant and Tingalpa have brought a better response from the Liberal council and the Minister. Both the Liberal council and the Minister for Local Govemment have agreed that the locals are right and their objections have been upheld. So there is finally provision in the town plan to keep some industries away from local houses. The National Party Govemment does not worry about the town plan at all. On the day of the 1985 city council election, when everyone was busy at the polls, the Queensland Government Gazette recorded the National Party Govemment's decision to remove from the town plan a number of Govemment industrial estates, so that the right of objection by citizens was lost. The Government could then do what it liked without fear of city council planners or locals exercising their rights under the objections provisions of the town plan. These State Govemment industrial estates are all along the south bank of the Brisbane River. The prevailing breezes blow pollution not only over nearby homes but also over large areas of Brisbane. The town plan contains provision for noxious and offensive industries to be lumped with hazardous industries—a concept that I find impossible to believe—on the doorstep of major private and State schools, church and Govemment nursing homes and residential suburbs. Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1435

That was not enough for this Govemment. Without making any public statement, the Govemment removed the few citizens' rights available under the town plan, virtually saying that locals could go jump as the Govemment would do what it liked. With an Air Pollution Council that locals perceive as a joke and no town-planning protection whatsoever, south side residents have been forced to put up with industry that pollutes their homes—and I mean pollutes! I mean pollutes so much that kids have been sick in their homes. I mean pollutes so much that people who suffer from asthma and breathing problems have been forced to sell and leave the area. I mean pollutes so much that doctors in the immediate area have recommended to people that if they have children with any sort of breathing problem at all, they should not stay there, that they should sell out and move away. That should have happened in the Dark Ages; it should not be happening in 1987- 88. I can tell the Govemment this: the people who live in that area are angry and frastrated. As I say, a number of action groups have been established, and those groups will not be ignored. The way in which the Air Pollution Council has handled the years of foul and rotten pollution from A. J. Bush has left residents with no altemative but to tell industry that they will not cop it any more. I must say that many of the industries are quite responsible and are prepared to talk to people beforehand. However, as I have said, people have made it clear to polluting industry that they will not cop it any more. For example, all A. J. Bush directors live in Sydney, and they rarely visit the Brisbane plant. The local management was not interested in pollution control. Not once did the local management show any concem for the locals. When one telephoned that company, it always had an excuse. Maintenance was non-existent and maintenance supervision was abysmal. The local management spoke one word only to the staff: save, save, save. The company would not spend money on anything. It never did anything unless it really had to. For example, in the summer, which is the most difficult time for pollution from the factory, the manager was aware that for months the large exhaust fan that extracts all escaping odours in the cooking area was failing. Nothing substantial was done. When it collapsed and failed, it took at least two months to repair and replace it. During that time, the foul air escaped through the dilapidated building. The scrabber system was collapsing. The chemical system was never balanced properly. Instead of being separated, liquids were mixing through leaks. There was no back-up pump to handle all the floor washings, the oils, the fats, the bits of bones and the feathers. When it broke down, all this poUuted water and so on poured into the storm-water drain for days. On top of the boilerhouse there is a 4-inch pipe. When the boiler attendant sees a build-up, he releases it under pressure. Steam and hot water shoot across the railway line, trees are cooked, grass is cooked. Pity help any poor railwayman passing on a train! That is just what is done at A. J. Bush. One can see the patch where the vegetation has been bumt. No waming is given, and a high-pressure discharge can last at least five minutes. The non-edible area had holes in the roof and the walls. I must say that something is being done about it now. I am talking about what it used to be like. The area from the gut tip to the blood and the chicken cookers is the main problem area. Whatever smells escape should, in theory, be sucked up by the exhaust fan into the scmbbers and escape as clean air. However, for months the fan did not work and the scrabber area was falling apart. Other air from the chicken cookers should, in theory, go through oil- fired after-burners, but that depends on who is around. It is cheaper to feed it out through the coal-fired boiler stack. The moist air and water caused heavy black smoke emissions from the stack. All this time people were telephoning air pollution inspectors, and the inspectors were telling the people that nothing was wrong. Time after time excuses were being given by the management and others saying that everything was hunky-dory. 1436 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

People put up with this for 15 years. Property values were reducing; kids were being sick at home and at school. The town-planner, the bloke who designed the Queensland Cultural Centre across the river, Gibson, said that this land was the most valuable residential land in Brisbane, yet it is situated beside a rendering-down plant and cooker, and the Govemment could not be forced to implement its own Clean Air Act. I can state that money is now being spent there. New walls have gone in and a roof is over the top, and there is talk about the new engineer who wiU do all sorts of things to improve the plant. I accept the Minister's assurance that 95 per cent of it wiU be cleaned up by the end of April. This was the statement the Minister made after he had visited the plant. I think the company is hoping that as winter approaches and the winds change, the complaints will drop off and it will be left alone. I see the Minister is shaking his head. I have to make this point: every Christmas this problem has arisen, because that is when the north-easterly breezes blow the smell back not only over Murarrie and Cannon Hill, but also right back to Sunnybank, Carina and other areas. I accept the Minister's assurance, but the company's performance prior to his visit to the factory does not give me much faith in it. I remind the Minister of what the company did prior to his visit. From what I could see, about half the work-force swarmed over the yard and the area that was to be visited, washing it down with caustic soda. They were like ants around the site because the Minister was coming. The orders were out: no rabbish in the pits; no storage; and keep the tracks away. Knowing that the Minister was unaware that A. J. Bush and Sons now owned the Hortico building, the company shifted literally tonnes of rotten material into that building, and as soon as the Minister had left it was shifted back onto the site. Mr Yewdale: They conned him. Mr BURNS: I do not say the company conned him, but it set out to make the site look 100 per cent better than it had been for years before. Mr Ahern: Tom, we've got our blokes out there. I'm getting a weekly report on progress. Mr BURNS: I hope that those blokes do better, because, when he was the Minister, Bill Hewitt used to say that to me in this Parliament, and he has not been here for years, A. J. Bush and Sons needs to understand that it is time Mr Ahem: I have done it—in writing. Mr BURNS: Right. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Bulimba, Mr McLean, who has inherited the area from me and who has led major deputations on behalf of the people, will be interested in that kind of an assurance, because this company has gone far enough. It is not entitled to get any more chances. Mr Ahern: It will be a big issue down there in the by-election. Mr BURNS: What by-election? Is Ronnie not ranning for his seat? The Wynnum residents who recognise the employment created by the Ampol refinery are becoming more vocal and are demanding that the regular outbreaks of greasy, oUy, noisy, foul-smelling black smoke from the refinery be eliminated. They do not want to lose jobs, but they believe that the time has come for action. The local people are aware of the way that refinery profits have been spent elsewhere in the past, and I can put it on record that they expect Ampol to be a far better neighbour than it has been. I repeat that that is the next estabUshment that should be looked at; the greasy, oily fall-out that has been coming from Ampol for some years has been blowing back over the city. Anyone who goes out in the bay on a boat and looks back over Brisbane in the moming at the level of smog that builds up around the back in the westem suburbs Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1437

from the bayside polluting industries would realise that there is a problem. One only has to get out into the bay and one can see the clean air and compare it with the brown, thick smoggy patch, especially in the winter months when the air does not rise as quickly. It is worth while going down the bay, and, if the Minister wishes, I wiU take him out onto the bay. He can hop on the boat, come out, do a bit of crabbing on the way, dig for a few worms, and I will show him where the pollution problems are in our city. The Opposition is saying that really what is required is a good neighbour Act. The Clean Air Act and all the other Acts associated with pollution are all to do with being good neighbours. In all the years that I have represented the electorate of Lytton, I have said that the area welcomes industry and the jobs and benefits that accrae from it, but the community asks that people are good neighbours. When it demands that industry be good neighbours, that means that good neighbours do not dump their rabbish over the fence into other people's yards; good neighbours do not dump their smeUy refuse into the street outside or into the schools and nursing homes. A good industry neighbour does not do those things, either. Many fine industries have operated in that area for many years and have been good neighbours. There is always the fellow who thinks that it is easier to tip his muck into the creek, to tum old Bulimba Creek green and to put a hard caking of muck on the top of it ovemight. Those sorts of people have been in the area for years. They have had an advantage over the fellow who complies with the Act and meets its requirements. The residents know that more and more industries must establish themselves in the area because of the massive port development and the accessibility created by the Gateway Bridge, but they do not want a repetition of the mistakes of the past. The thousands of signatures demanding that A. J. Bush be removed to another location— the petition was presented by Ron McLean—is an indication that the residents are sick of excuses. They are sick of being told that, once an industry has been established, nothing can be done. They watch sand-blasting in open areas adjacent to a caravan park that was there long before the sand-blaster decided to set up business and to pollute their caravans. They remember the pollution from the abattoirs; the dead cattle bumt in the paddocks; and the foul settling ponds that were deliberately leaked into Bulimba Creek until the creek was so poUuted that it recorded zero oxygen levels. The fish were killed. Silverware in the homes of residents tumed green ovemight. A fight took place to relocate the sewage plant. The residents remember the aircraft noise and the faU-out. I could go on, but I think that I have made the point that the people want action—no more false promises and no more deals to allow industry to establish on our doorstep and threaten our health and our life-styles. That is why there is a near-unanimous bayside revolt against the proposed ICI chlorine plant. Locals are not against ICI; they are against the State Govemment's decision to locate this hazardous plant close to lona College, Nazareth House, Pleasantville, Moreton Bay Nursing Care Unit, Wynnum North and Lindum State Schools and pre-schools, and their homes. Mr McKechnie: Tom, there's been no decision. Mr BURNS: But the Minister offered them the land there. I know that the Minister has not made a decision on the impact assessment statement. A decision was made by the department to offer the company a block of land down there. Mr McKechnie: If you listen—there's been no decision. Mr BURNS: I think that the Minister should accept Dave Underwood's offer and shift it to Karrabin and put it next to the railway line up there out of the way. Mr McKechnie: We will wait for the public response. Mr BURNS: We will have a public meeting on Saturday, and the Minister will receive an indication of the public response. 1438 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

Thousands of schoolchildren and hundreds of nursing-home residents demand that the Govemment reconsider this dangerous location. When chlorine plants are mentioned, one immediately thinks of Bhopal and the horrendous spill that resulted in death for many Indian citizens and prolonged pain and suffering for many, many more. One could say that that is overseas. ICI has been responsible in its attitude. The company came and saw us. I sent the company representatives around to all of the groups in the area. They talked to everybody. However, within a few weeks of their doing that, newspapers told of three separate chemical spill accidents in Australian plants in southem States. ICI was involved in at least two of them. In January 1987, a cloud of sulphuric and nitric acid gas leaked from a container at the ICI plant in Melboume. In October 1986, in Adelaide, a major chlorine spill produced a large poisonous cloud of gas. Even though ICI acted responsibly and came around and saw the residents in my electorate, the people were saying to themselves, "No-one can suggest that these plants are foolproof No-one can suggest that, even though ICI is a very responsible company, we should accept this sort of plant close to so many nursing homes and schools in the area." The public meeting this week-end will be held at lona College, which is attended by 1 200 students. Without doubt, the headmaster and all of the staff of that school will be leading the fight to have the plant shifted from its proposed site. Mr Hinze came down to look at the town-planning problem in the area. We took him to the school and stood him on the hill and showed him the proposed site for the plant. The Minister suggested that it was too close to the school and that it should be shifted. He went in and sat down with Father Sherman, of lona College, and agreed with him that the plant should be moved away. I think that the Minister in charge of industrial development should take note from one of his colleagues about the problem, because Mr Hinze could clearly appreciate the concem that was expressed. The location of the plant in the area is against the interests not only of the people who live in the electorate of Lytton but of all the people who live along the south bank of the river. If anything went wrong, and a south-easterly or north-easterly wind was blowing, the pollution would be blown back towards the city. If a major spill of chlorine, which is a low heavy gas, occurred and if a westerly was blowing, it would blow back over the Ampol oil refinery and all the key staff would have to be taken from that plant while the problem was solved. Imagine what could happen. Just imagine what would happen if anything went wrong at Ampol at a time when chlorine gas has been blown in by the westerly wind and the staff had been removed. It is a one in a million chance, but that is the sort of chance that occurs with spills. It is the one in a million chance that kills people—for example, at Chemobyl. The authorities always claim that it is human error or a one in a million accident. The proposed site for the chlorine plant is not a good location for such a plant. I hope that the Govemment will adopt a positive attitude and consider the opposition that has been put forward. Without exception, every responsible local citizen and organisation has opposed the location of the chlorine plant on the proposed site. I believe that the stage has been reached at which people are not even considering the assessment study that has been made. They have made up their minds that they do not want it and that it would not make any difference what the assessment study has found. Those people have simply said, "We don't want it here. We have accepted all sorts of industries down here." People are aware that industries will continue to locate in that area. A port and associated industries are already established in the area. The people of the area have accepted that development. They have accepted also the new idea that has come from the Minister's department—rezoning the area which was previously zoned noxious and hazardous industries into a number of zones. That will be helpful in the long term. However, the Govemment should take cognisance of what the local people are saying and should not locate a chemical plant such as that in that area. Not only would it bring discredit to Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1439

the Govemment; I believe also that, if I was a director of ICI, I would not like the PR backlash that would foUow the location of that plant in that area. I believe that ICI should locate the plant at the Karrabin site where it is being welcomed, compared with the proposed site where already approximately 7 000 to 8 000 people have signed petitions and more are flowing in every day. The honourable member for Ipswich West has suggested that, instead of a port site to allow the shipment of salt to the plant, the plant should obtain its salt by rail. A siding could be constmcted at the Karrabin industrial estate. That would solve that problem. I do not want to pass this industry onto other people. I do not suggest that ICI should locate in another residential area. I believe that the prevaiUng breezes in the Karrabin area should blow the fumes from the plant away from the residential area. Mr McKechnie: There are houses nearby. Mr BURNS: I believe that the number of nearby houses is limited. This moming I spoke to Mr Jack Hegarty from Karrabin. He is opposed to the plant being located within his area. He told me that there are not many houses in the vicinity. The point is that prevailing breezes would blow the fumes away from nearby houses. Mr McKechnie: You take my point, that everybody is important, whether it is one or 100? Mr BURNS: That is tme. However, the Govemment wiU have to make a decision sooner or later because there will eventually be a value decision as to whether the Govemment has 7 000, 700 or 7 people against the proposal, or whatever the figure might be. I beUeve that the Minister agrees that the chlorine plant should be sited on a location that will cause the least inconvenience to people. Once a chlorine plant such as the one proposed by ICI is established within an area, more chemical plants will be established around that plant. The decision that the Govemment must make now is similar to the decision that was made in relation to the meatworks. Southside residents have lived with the growth of meat-processing, hide and skin works, etc, in their area because of a decision that was made years ago to locate a meatworks in that area. Working on that same basis, a hazardous chemical works wiU only be the start of it. To have these potentially dangerous industries in the city's wind corridor from the bay is, in the eyes of my community, stupid. The chlorine plant is not wanted in Lytton. If the Govemment will not shift it to a location in the westem suburbs industrial estates where it will not be a danger to local residents, ICI should make the move itself After years of experience in an electorate in which industry claims that it was there first—and local residents can quite rightly point to homes that were established years before industry arrived on the scene—I have a few recommendations. They include: town-planners must have regard for rapid growth in residential areas; industry zones should have clear buffers of trees and open space between industry and houses; industrial estates should be planned so that warehousing and light industry provide additional buffers between heavy and polluting industries and residential suburbs; hazardous industries should be located in special zones and locations; noxious and offensive industries should only be established on estates where prevailing winds will not carry spillages or the results of break-down over nearby residents; and heavy penalties should be strictly enforced for industries that regularly pollute, such as A. J. Bush. I am not asking for them to be fined the first time, but a firm that does it time and time again, year in and year out for years and years, should start to feel the penalty. 1440 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

A 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week inspectorate is required. People need to be able to ring up when the pollution is occurring and at least get to an inspector who can come and do something about it. There should be no advice to industry before an inspector calls. It is no good ringing the company up and saying, "I'll be out at 9 o'clock." I was in the air force. I can remember those AOC's inspections. There should be no ministerial rezonings in these key areas. All Govemment industrial estates should be covered by the town plan. Class actions should be allowed so that groups of citizens can take legal action against polluters. If a class action law had existed in this State, A. J. Bush would have been in the court well before this. The Govemment should institute a policy in which the polluters pay. Years ago, councils and Governments made decisions siting industries on some of the best riverfront residential land in Brisbane. This city and its citizens have paid and will pay for that mistake for years to come. Moreton Bay and its surrounding suburbs, so close to the city, should be a major residential area, not a mix of foul-smelling industry and homes. In years to come, citizens will judge us on what steps we take now to provide a pollution-free future for this city. The National Party Government, through Govemment industrial estates at Colmslie, Gibson Island, Lytton, Wynnum and the port of Brisbane at Fisherman Islands, can sentence Brisbane residents to years of pollution or years of clean air. Brisbane residents will watch this Govemment's every move with fear and trepidation because of the National Party Govemment's 29-year record of putting the polluters first. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa) (12.37 a.m.): I have listened to a couple of horrifying stories about pollution gone mad from the member for Lytton and the member for Mirani, where people are living in absolutely intolerable conditions owing to the failure of the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. I would like to contrast that with a happy story of an enlightened company, which, with Govemment co-operation, has prevented any of those things from happening in very similar situations. Two smelters were established in Mount Isa in its very early days—that is one smelter because the copper smelter was built later on in 1953. They are in the city of Mount Isa, yet the general ambient air in Mount Isa is better than that in Queen Street and certainly compares favourably with that in most cities in Queensland. Lead and copper smelting operations produce a large variety of very unpleasant particulates and gases. It would be most unwise indeed for people to live anywhere near one of those smelters without enforcement of clean air provisions. In Mount Isa, the company that owns the two smelters, has anticipated public awareness of what is happening and Govemment action. It has spent a great deal of money in making sure that the air that the people breathe is quite suitable. I commend it to all honourable members. I suggest that when they visit Mount Isa they include a tour of the air quality control station in their itinerary. They will see that a meteorologist, employed with tremendous difficulty, is on staff. Meteorologists are very hard to get in Australia and are expensive; however, he is on staff. The city has a closed loop air control system that was evolved in the early 1970s and was in place by 1973. It has on-Une computers with constant feed-back to a central control from 10 stations around the city. Mr Burns said that at Murarrie there was no-one to complain to and that no-one will come and inspect the premises. At Mount Isa, that is all on line. The data fed into the control stations is integrated with direct meteorological data from the bureau, and readings from MIM's wind stations and remote stations up to 50 kilometres away. The whole series of data is analysed and co-ordinated with visual observations from the Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1441 operator at the station, which will indicate potential and actual trouble-spots. The air quality controllers have the power to immediately restrict or close down the operations of one or both smelters and to keep them closed down, at great cost to the company, until conditions change. Public reaction is catered for by phone numbers being made available to all members of the public, who can ring the company and complain, just in case they feel that the controllers are not picking up what is happening in the air. Omitting some bad peaks, which are quickly dealt Avith, the ambient standards of air quality at Mount Isa compare more than favourably with those in Brisbane. Those two smelters, with a combined production of over 330 000 tonnes of metal per year, are actually in the city. That is quite apart from tall stacks that are built to carry any discharged gases hundreds of miles away from any population before they fall, scmbbers, cleaners and precipitators which ensure that anything that goes up the stack is pretty clean at any rate. The answer nowadays, of course, is planning. The central Queensland coal towns are built well away from the plants so that those problems tend not to arise nowadays. Planning will always beat ad hockery. Never again should stories similar to those told by residents who live near the Murarrie rendering plant or stories told by residents who live near the Dalrymple Bay or Hay Point loading facilities in central Queensland be heard. Last week when the honourable member for Moggill spoke about this legislation, he said that in future, noxious industries should be placed in accordance with proper planning procedures, that they be buffered off and that the buffer zones be adhered to. That would do far more for the quality of life enjoyed by Queenslanders than changing the spelling of "license", changing the date to clarify when a year ends or worrying about a quomm. Nevertheless, in so far as these amendments are necessary, the Liberal Party supports them. I wanted to draw to the attention of the House the fact that if an organisation is prepared to spend money and react to public needs, the complaints that have been mentioned in the House can and should be beaten. Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (12.41 a.m.): Although the amendments before the House are quite minor, the legislation does allow honourable members an opportunity to speak about major issues that are covered by the provisions of the Bill. In his second-reading speech, the Minister mentioned very serious air pollution problems that exist in my electorate. I refer, of course, to the putrid stench that for far too long has been part of the way of life for residents who live in the vicinity of the Murarrie rendering company, A. J. Bush and Sons. For years, this company has been allowed to pollute the air, which has seriously affected the living conditions and health of thousands of families. In the Murarrie district, there is a 15-year history of misery and discomfort as well as untold health problems, 15 years of lies and deceit by the company and 15 years of inaction and disregard on the part of this Government up till the present. I find it difficult to understand how, over a period of 15 years, a company can show such disregard for the environment and the health and well-being of a community that is located within a 5 to 6 kilometre radius of the plant. I find it hard to believe also that a Government could sit back for so long and watch major breaches of the Act on a regular basis without mention ever being made of a fine or some other kind of reprisal. How can honourable members justify the existence of the Air Pollution Council when a problem of this kind can take 15 years to reach the point at which the company is told to get its act together? A succession of Ministers of this Govemment have sat back and ignored the problem. In 1984-85 report of the Air PoUution CouncU of Queensland, the former Minister responsible for this matter, Mr Tenni, stated that the Air Pollution Council had the task of ensuring that excessive emissions from industries 1442 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

were avoided. The purpose of the provisions of the Clean Air Act were stated in the report to be as follows— "The purpose of the Act is to prevent and minimise air pollution from industrial and commercial premises. The Act defines 'air pollution' as 'the emission into the air of any air impurity which includes smoke, soot, dust, ash, cinders, soUd particles of any kind, gases, fumes, mists and odours of an offensive or noxious nature produced solely by an industrial plant'." The report goes on to state— "For specific sections of the Act the maximum penalty is $20,000 and if the offence is a continuing one, a maximum daily penalty of $2,000." I wish to pose a question to previous Ministers—not so much to the present Minister who has acted to provide a solution for these problems. For the part that the present Minister has played, I congratulate him to this point. I want to know what kind of misconduct would warrant a fine of $20,000? As I proceed with my speech, I intend to support the previous Opposition speaker, the honourable member for Lytton, Mr Bums, because he has had longer experience in dealing with this problem than I have had, judging by some of the statements that he has made. Under a section titled "Other Powers", the report goes on to state— "The Minister may by order, direct the occupier of any premises to cease conducting any trade, industry or process, or operating any fiiel-buming equipment or industrial plant where the Council reports that the emission of air impurities from the premises is likely to be injurious to the health of any person or to the environment." Undoubtedly, provisions are contained in the Act that cover the problem of emission. Up to this stage, no-one has pointed out instances in which the Act has been applied in relation to that matter. As I said, I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to date. I sit back with bated breath hoping that what he is proposing is carried out. In his second-reading speech the Minister said that serious air pollution problems exist. He was not understating the problem. As he realises, the problem is very large. I presented to this House a petition containing 13 500 signatures. For so many people to sign a petition about a problem in an area proves that the problem in fact exists. As I said, people have suffered for a long period of time. They have experienced extraordinary discomfort. There are dangers to health. Daily, people in my electorate front me with children who have asthmatic problems, chest problems and bronchial problems. The number is far in excess of the number that would be expected under normal circumstances. At times I have become quite distraught when people have explained to me the problems that they have had with people who are aged and frail, sick or house-bound and cannot get out of the house when the smell is at its worst. Many people do not look at the family pressures that arise under those circumstances. I remember fronting the previous Health Minister with a delegation. He said to me, "You cannot define that a smell is a health problem." There are so many side effects from that type of smell. It is constant and also inconstant. It is a smell that causes people to reach the stage at which they do not know whether they can invite friends around for a barbecue. They cannot sell their house because no-one will buy it. They are stuck in an area; they cannot get out. Their social life is certainly restricted to a great degree. Those sorts of pressures on a family in this day and age, added to the other financial pressures that many families face, certainly are beyond the pressures that should be put on people living in residential areas. Mr De Lacy: They are locked in there. They can't stop there because of the smell and they can't get out. Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1443

Mr McLEAN: That is right. The Minister said that for a considerable time his department has received complaints about the odours. I quite believe that, because I have also received complaints, and I have been the member in that area only since the last redistribution. I can assure this House that I have had many calls. In fact, there is an enormous file on this problem. When the redistribution was carried out, I obtained the honourable member for Lytton's file and breezed through it. I can assure the Minister that a pretty healthy and full-grown kangaroo would be needed to jump over it. I removed a few letters from the file. One of them in particular explains some of the history of the problem down there. It was a letter from the member for Lytton to Mr Hewitt, who was the Minister at the time. It stated— "As long ago as Febmary 1973 I have been writing to the Air Pollution Control Centre and previous Ministers ... In 1973 we were told after-bumers would be fitted with a view to reducing or eliminating pollution. We were told in April, 1973 that the after-bumers had been installed and were put into operation on the 6th April, 1973. We were also told that odour from the rendering vessels was negligible. In October, 1973 we were told that measures now taken by A.J. Bush & Sons would alleviate the odour problem of last summer. In 1974 we were again complaining of the operation of A.J. Bush and again in 1975. We continued to complain through 1976 and 77 and letters would be on your file. In 1978 there was a renewed outburst of pollution from A.J. Bush and a number of letters were written to your Department. We wrote again in 1979 and in April, 1979 were told that a new continuous rendering plant would be installed and that the existing batch cookers would not then be used. This should mean less odour problems as there would then be no periodic venting of the cookers during loading as at present. On the 30th January, 1981, 16th Febmary 1981 and 14th April, 1981 I again had recourse to write in relation to A.J. Bush & Sons." That letter was written in 1981. Of course, since 1981 a lot more correspondence has been exchanged. The problem has been an ongoing one and people have been told stories but have been given no results. The first letter I found on the file was dated 1972 and was from the Murarrie Progress Association, which is one of those honorary groups of people of the type that I am sure every member in this House would have in his electorate. Over a long period this group of people has sought to make their area a place for an enjoyable and friendly community. For such a long time they have been fighting to obtain a normal way of life for the people who live in their community. They are community-conscious people who have continued the fight since 1972. Although I do not intend to read aU the letters, I can assure the House that they must have given the former member, Mr Bums, the odd grey hair. The letter that really got to me was the one from A. V. Bush, who apparently is part of the management of the company I am discussing. Although the first complaint about the operation was received in 1972, it took until 1983 for Albert Bush to write the following— "Please be assured of our eamest endeavours to avoid causing any degree of public nuisance; this aspect of our operations has received and is continuing to receive, a very great deal of attention." On 27 January 1983, some 11 years after the first complaint was received by the Air Pollution Council, a person who is probably the most senior executive of that company 1444 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

was trying to convince people of "our eamest endeavours to avoid causing any degree of public nuisance". I assure the House that I have received many letters on this subject. The great number of them is an indication of the seriousness of the problem. The claim has been made that the company was there before the houses. That is not tme. People lived in the vicinity of these works long before 1971. Although it is trae that many more homes have been built since that time, it is also trae that, because of the increase in the amount of work going through the plant, the radius of the area now affected is much greater and extends across many long-established suburbs. The obvious question that must be answered is: why is this company aUowed to do such large tonnages of processing when it is quite obvious that the overloading of the plant is the cause of the major problems. The letters that I have received show that a great percentage of the complaints occur in the December/January period. As the Air Pollution Council would have received the complaints that I have, why has it allowed the overloading of the plant every December/January for some 15 years? Why was such a high workload allowed to continue? Why did the Air Pollution Council not step in and at least restrict the tonnages allowed to be processed? As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, I realise that there are health problems associated with this type of operation. This material cannot be buried or thrown in the river. It has to be disposed of in some way and, with the community's current way of life, the work of this type of plant is necessary. However, this type of operation could have been conducted in other plants round the city. The Air Pollution Council has failed miserably by not stepping in and using the powers under the Act to do something about this problem. It is trae to say that the siting of the plant was a mistake and that the Brisbane City Council must take its fair share of the blame. The member for Lytton has already touched on that. I agree with everything that he said. It is also trae to say that the Govemment is not blameless. Surely 15 years is long enough for a change to have taken place. Honourable members have been told that the company is in the course of completing repairs and modifications to the plant. Once again, the company has given an assurance that other action will be taken to reduce the odours by some 90 to 95 per cent, and that the deadline is the end of April. On behalf of the people who are affected by the plant, I ask the Minister to outline in his reply what repairs and modifications the plant is undergoing and what other action the company has assured the Minister that it is undertaking. In addition, is the Minister's department monitoring that progress? Mr Alison: Could you table this? Mr McLEAN: I will table the honourable member for Maryborough in a moment. This is an important matter affecting many people. It might not worry the member for Maryborough Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr McLEAN: If the company does not meet the deadline for improving the standards, what type of prosecution proceedings will the Minister initiate and when? I was most pleased that in his second-reading speech the Minister indicated that he was considering the longer term and that he was going to make personal representations to the Sydney-based senior management of A. J. Bush as soon as was practical to discuss the company's long-term plans. The Minister has stated that the company has been requested to consider relocating the plant in an area away from residential suburbs. Discussions would encompass a proposal that with Govemment assistance a new high-tech plant would be established Clean Air Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1445 on an altemative site. Could the Minister also outline in his reply how far that proposal has progressed and whether he can foresee any move towards implementing it? I do not wish to have firms such as A. J. Bush closed down, thereby putting people out of work. I realise that it is a difficult job to support and protect industry and, at the same time, ensure total freedom from pollution at all times. I fiiUy realise the problems in that regard. However, that should be the essential aim of Govemment, and every effort must be made to obtain that goal. The A. J. Bush episode cannot be aUowed to be repeated. The Air Pollution CouncU must be given more power and must use that power. A procession of Ministers—some six in aU—have been the subject of a procession of lies and deception by a company that was obviously trying to mislead people, at least some of the time. The community has seen a procession of non-events. I find it hard to believe that a company could survive after showing such contempt for its surroundings. I do not know how this company could overload its plant to bursting point without check or reprimand. I have personally received hundreds of telephone calls from residents about this matter. On one particular occasion, after receiving 20-odd telephone calls, I visited the plant. It was at about quarter to 12 on a Friday night. The smell was so putrid that it covered a wide area as far away as Norman Park, which is many miles away from the plant. I went into the plant with some people who had telephoned me to complain. As I said, it was just on midnight on a Friday. The foreman who was on duty at the time took us through the plant and showed us the cause of the problem. There were inches of slime and rabbish on the floor. The boilers had overflowed. The smell was just unbelievable. I do not know how people can work there. I have experienced the plant at first hand. Probably one of the reasons the residents get so understandably and justifiably upset is because at that time of night, when the smell is so bad and people cannot sleep, they cannot talk to anyone. They cannot telephone anybody. The worst smells appear to be at a time when no officers of the department are on duty. It seems to me that if this department is to operate in an efficient and positive manner, it is quite ludicrous that no complaint can be investigated after-hours. I repeat that the people in this district do not deserve it. The 15 years that those residents have suffered is quite enough. They have suffered untold health problems and obvious deceit by the company over many issues. The obvious inaction by Govemment over a long period must not be repeated. I congratulate the Minister in his actions to date and will do so publicly in any fomm when this problem is permanently solved. Along with many thousands of long- suffering residents, I await the final outcome. I look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions that I have asked. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (1 a.m.): Recently the Tennyson Power House spent some $ 18m on soot-arrestors to clean up the air in order to benefit my constituents and the residents of surrounding areas. The powerhouse was closed down some two or three years later, so the Queensland Electricity Commission certainly did not do it because it had a bucketful of money to spend or because it enjoyed spending $18m. It was not because the QEC had money to bum but because it was subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Diesel engines shunt all night in the Moolabin goods yards, which adjoin the Tennyson Power House. Those engines pump diesel flames over the very same area where the QEC spent $18m cleaning up air pollution. In addition, those engines cause a lot of noise pollution. The Railway Department ignores the pleas of my constituents, myself and the Minister. The moment a complaint is made to the Railways Department by the Minister, the engine-drivers take the matter into their own hands. They know that the Railway Department does not come under the provisions of the Clean Air Act and they have no responsibility to the people. For the next three or four nights after a 1446 7 April 1987 Clean Air Act Amendment Bill

complaint is made the engine-drivers make even more noise than usual. I am sure that, at different stages of the shunting operation, they stop in the yard, put the brakes on, rev the engines up, make a great deal of noise and pump fumes all over the place. They deliberately flout the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As far as I am concemed it is time that the Railway Department was subjected to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Private business has to abide with and live under this Act and, because they had to abide by the Act, many people have gone broke. It is very unfair that the Railway Department does not come under the Act. It should be under this Act and also the Noise Abatement Act so that it is unable to ignore the pleas of the residents and myself and also the Minister, who has contacted the department on many occasions in this regard. The fmit section that will be moved to Clapham Junction, where there is a lot of shunting, will be closed, but it is time that because of the air and noise poUution the Moolabin railway yards were closed down. The land is good industrial land and would bring in a good amount for the Govemment if it were sold.

Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (1.04 a.m.): I move— "That the question be now put."

Mr De LACY: (Caims) (1.04 a.m.) I move— "That the honourable member for Caims be heard."

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The question is that the question be put. Question—That the question be now put—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 44 NOES, 35 Ahern Katter Ardill Prest Alison Lane Beanland Shaw Austin Lester Beard Sherlock Berghofer McCauley Braddy Smyth Booth McKechnie Bums Underwood Borbidge McPhie Campbell Vaughan Burreket Menzel Casey Wamer Chapman Muntz Comben Wells Clauson Neal D'Arcy White Cooper Nelson De Lacy Yewdale Elliott Newton Eaton Fraser Powell Gibbs, R. J. Gately Randell Goss Gibbs, I. J. Sherrin Hamill Gilmore Simpson Hayward Glasson Slack Innes Gunn Stephan Knox Harvey Stoneman Lee Henderson Tenni McEIligott Hinton Mackenroth Hobbs Tellers: McLean Tellers: Hynd Littleproud Milliner Davis Jennings FitzGerald Palaszczuk Gygar Resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to.

Committee Mr POWELL (1.12 a.m.): I move— "That clauses 1 to 7, as read, stand part of the Bill. Canals Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1447

Question put; and the Committee divided- AYES, 44 NOES, 35 Ahem Lane Ardill Palaszczuk Austin Lester Beanland Shaw Berghofer McCauley Beard Sherlock Booth McKechnie Braddy Smyth Borbidge McPhie Bums Underwood Burreket Menzel Campbell Vaughan Chapman Muntz Casey Wamer Clauson Neal Comben Wells Cooper Nelson D'Arcy White Elliott Newton De Lacy Yewdale Fraser Powell Eaton Gately Randell Gibbs, R. J. Gibbs, I. J. Row Goss Gilmore Sherrin Gygar Glasson Simpson Hamill Gunn Slack Hayward Harvey Stephan Innes Henderson Stoneman Knox Hinton Tenni Lee Hobbs MCE.IllgOU Hynd Tellers: Mackenroth Tellers: Jennings Littleproud McLean Davis Katter FitzGerald Milliner Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Ahem, by leave, read a third time.

CANALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 March (see p. 873). Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (1.18 a.m.): The Canals Act Amendment BiU is a very short BUI that does not propose many changes to the Act that was introduced in 1958. However, the proposals in the Bill change the provisions within the Land Sales Act. With the number of canal subdivisions that have been created since 1958 in Queensland, one wonders why it is necessary at this time to change that particular section of the Act by the amendments contained in clauses 2 and 3. In the period since 1958, when the original canal subdivisions were built on the Gold Coast, massive numbers of canals have been approved both by local shires and by councils throughout Queensland, particularly on the Gold Coast and in areas on the far-north coast. It is quite evident that in the next decade or two those canal developments will almost double in number along the coast of Queensland. The legislation that is before the House proposes to change that part of the Canals Act that relates to the off-the-plan sale of canal blocks so that they are at the same level as blocks that are sold in dry subdivisions. Although protections are provided under the provisions of the Land Sales Act, the fact of life is that the Opposition is not in favour in a direct sense of off-the-plan sales. The reason is that, in spite of the provisions of the Land Sales Act and the Canals Act, problems have been encountered by consumers when they have bought a block of land. It must be remembered that ordinary people spend a massive amount of money on a block of land in a canal subdivision. That amount is a large section of their income. The cost of the land is an important item in the end-product that the average Australian or Queenslander hopes to own, that is, a house and land. In many cases, subdividers have not treated members of the public with total honesty. 1448 7 April 1987 Canals Act Amendment Bill

I realise that the Minister will say that the protections already provided in sections of the Act are sufficient. However, I never believe that enough protection is provided for the consumer, particularly when the subject-matter is land and when changes have to be made by statute. The fact is that most canal subdivisions take in coastal or riverfront land areas. Mr Jennings: Ha, ha! Mr D'ARCY: Well, I know a couple that do not. A couple of blocks in some of the Woop Woop areas started in the backblocks. The fact is that most canal subdivisions involve the destmction of some section of the environment that most Queenslanders hold precious. I am most familiar with coastal areas, such as those that extend from the Tweed River to Cape York. I can remember that the very first canal subdivision on the Gold Coast was established without a plan. Mr Tenni: That was set up by Brace Small. Mr D'ARCY: No. It happened a long time before Brace Small was active on the Gold Coast. Mr I. J. Gibbs: Way back before his time. Mr D'ARCY: The Minister is a johnny-come-lately. Oates Canal at Labrador was the very first canal subdivision that took place. The Minister for Works and Housing might remember it, because it forms part of his electorate. That subdivisional development went through without a plan. Today, the people who live in that area are still suffering because of the many problems that were caused by that subdivision. Admittedly, the subdivision is only a tiny one that mns off the main coastal strip. However, the point I make is that since those days, local authorities and the Department of Harbours and Marine have demanded much higher standards, which is in the interests of developers. This point was made to me by the Minister. Since the original subdivisions took place, it has been necessary for the local authorities and others to maintain a higher and higher standard in order to sell the end-product to the general public. Consequently, higher and higher prices have been obtained. When one begins to realise that a top block of canal subdivision land can attract a price of $lm or $750,000, one begins to understand what has happened on the Broadwater and what is happening in Queensland. Ordinary canal subdivision blocks are being sold at a minimum of $50,000 or $60,000. Blocks at that price would be located in a fairly remote and general canal subdivision estate. People who put money into the purchase of canal subdivision land are being asked to spend a lot of money. Even if land is bought off the plan on a deposit of 10 per cent, legally, people are still tying up large sums of money. Over a period, from the stage of obtaining a bank draft through to completion, the amount of money that can be tied up in the purchase of a single subdivision block is substantial. In real terms this Bill is asking the general public to be involved in tying up their money for a period following the registering of a plan. At the present moment the registering of the plan with the council means that the stamping of the plan can occur before the developer has actually turned one sod. In a development consisting of a block of flat land which is being divided into blocks, that is fair enough because the land can be seen beforehand, and one can see where the pegs will go and other things. But in a canal subdivision, things are different. What worries me is that the Gold Coast these days has set its own market. From the time of Oates Canal through to the time when Tom Hiley first introduced this Act in the House in 1958, many things have changed. I read all of the speeches that were made in this House when that legislation was introduced. They include speeches from Gaven through to Power and the then Minister. On today's standards they did not know Canals Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1449

what they were talking about. During the intervening period the legislation has been amended. It is fair enough to say that those people set their own standards on the Gold Coast. I pointed that out to the Minister. What about the areas at Bundaberg, Gladstone, right through north Queensland where there are proposed subdivisions? If the Minister for Justice picks up a map of council areas in Queensland he ought to be worried because he would see proposed subdivisions. There are proposed subdivisions over the estate that go back 20 years. I know of one at Noosa that T. M. Burke, when that north coast area was first developed, proposed and which is still current. Each year it is re-ran through the council. If this type of development continues in Queensland, why not continue the safeguard that the Minister of the day, Mr Hiley, put into the Act and has remained in the Act for the other people of Queensland who will continue to buy land in canal subdivisions throughout the length and breadth of Queensland? I believe it should stay there. As canal subdivisions become more popular, as they have, it will be found that bankers particularly—and the bankers outlay the money and propose the subdivision—will need certain guarantees. They will ask developers to make bigger and better subdivisions. In this State more land-developers will go broke, as they have done continually over the last two or three decades. Once a contract is written—it does not matter how it is written—somebody is liable. The law states that somebody is liable. Many of those subdivisions could end up back in the hands of the council. The Minister will say to me, "Look, somebody has to finish it because that is the rale. I have a rale here that says that somebody has to finish it. It says because of a bond paid by these people the council will finish it." If it is a subdivision where the land is not worth as much subsequently and the prices fall, people will not get their money back one way or another, even if it is only 10 per cent. The Minister will also say that the Land Act states that after a certain period of time—I think it is nine months—they can get their money back. Who is not going to benefit? The general Queenslander somehow will end up in the position of paying for legislation such as this. Mr Tenni: Why? Mr D'ARCY: For the simple reason that somebody has to finish the subdivision. As an example, I will refer to a subdivision up Caims way. Mr Tenni: If the bloke goes broke, somebody buys the thing cheap and finishes it. Mr D'ARCY: If I understand it correctly, the Minister is saying that if a bloke goes broke, nobody suffers. If the bloke goes broke, first of all, his contract is probably unpaid. Secondly, the bank probably is not paid. Thirdly, the Govemment probably is not paid. As a result, everybody has to pay more taxes and everybody suffers. Somebody then buys it cheaply and finishes it. That is what would happen in the case mentioned by the Minister. Mr Tenni: What is the difference between that and the land-developer? Mr D'ARCY: There is a massive difference. I do not agree with land-developers selling off the plan to the extent to which they are allowed to seal a plan with the council and then sell off it. Why has the Govemment introduced this legislation? Why after such a lengthy time is it necessary to bring in this legislation? The Minister and his department have not looked closely enough at clauses 2 and 3. The remainder of the Bill poses no problem for the Opposition. The Minister's second-reading speech did not sufficiently explain why the repeal of section 19 of the Act is necessary. In fact, the Minister's speech was double Dutch. Mr Prest: What would you expect? Mr D'ARCY: That is right. I am sure that the Minister did not understand it.

75052—49 1450 7 April 1987 Canals Act Amendment Bill

As section 19 did not make much sense, I have to give the Minister credit for repealing it. When I asked the director what it meant, he was not sure, either. A Government member interjected. Mr D'ARCY: I was not being unkind. Section 19, which is being repealed by clause 5, gives local authorities permission to continue with the constraction of omamental lakes in city parks, etc. Mr Tenni: They are now illegal. Mr D'ARCY: Is the Minister removing the illegality? Is the Minister sure? Was that illegal? I am not arguing with the Minister, but the section does not make sense, and what the Minister said in his second-reading speech does not make sense. Mr Tenni: If we take it out, it is controlled under the Local Govemment Act. Mr D'ARCY: But the Minister is not saying, as he tried to say here, that they are currently illegal? Mr Tenni: Of course they are. The Local Govemment Act will control them. Once we get rid of them out of this Act, they will come under the control of that department. Surely you do not want two departments to control them. Mr D'ARCY: But they are not illegal at the moment. Section 19 is useless and should be removed; I am sure the Minister and I have no disagreement on that. The clause of the Bill that troubles the Opposition deals with sale off the plan, when the land can be sold and the length of time. For the Minister to introduce the BiU after a great number of canal blocks have been sold in Queensland under the present system and law is quite frivolous. To date developers have put up with the system. I do not know what pressure the Minister is under or from what brigade. Is the white- shoe brigade putting the Minister under pressure? I do not know whether the Minister is under pressure from some of his well-known friends. The people of Queensland do not need the anguish caused by the liquidation and placement of mortgagees in possession that could be necessary under this Bill. Although the Opposition is concemed about those aspects, it is not opposed to the Bill in principle. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (1.34 a.m.): In rising to speak to the BiU, I mention a couple of points. Firstly, I ask that the Minister give a clear guarantee and undertaking to the House that no developer will significantly benefit from the passage of this Bill through the House. I say that because I recollect reading in the press recently that one canal-developer would receive a windfall from a Bill before the House in this session. I tmst that that will not result from this Bill. After such a long period of time has elapsed, I am curious about who asked for the legislation. I concede that the points raised by the Minister in his second-reading speech are relevant. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that, after all this time, perhaps someone out there has in fact asked for the Bill to be introduced and that perhaps windfall profits are to be made by someone if the Bill is passed. Clearly the main amendment to which the Minister refers—that is, clause 3, which proposes to insert new section 8A—relates to the important subject of treating canal- developers in a simUar way to the way in which dry land developers are treated. The main concem, of course, is the protection of the public. I concede that odd situations might arise because the Govemment is dealing with canal developments, which are somewhat different from dry-land developments. Nevertheless, there is a protection—a safeguard—in that the vendor will not be able to give effective transfer of the title to the purchaser until all work is completed. That should provide adequate protection to the purchaser. The amendment should succeed with those safeguards. Canals Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1451

A number of aspects of this Act raise questions. Probably the most significant is the maintenance of canals and waterways. The 1979 amendment to the Act made maintenance before and after the amendment the responsibility of the local authority. Tidal canals and access channels are covered by the Queensland tidal waters and harbours and marine legislation. Nevertheless, it is still the responsibility of local authorities to keep them clean. It concems me that, in years to come, canals will become a major problem. Although at the moment local authorities might be charging a differential rate—a benefited rate— for those people who enjoy the benefits of canal estates, down the track somewhat the cost of maintaining those canals will rise to the point of putting increasing pressure on the relevant local authority. I ask the Minister and his department to investigate that matter further because I, for one, would not like to see local authorities have pressure applied on them from the public to pay not all of the costs but certainly part of the costs of cleaning the waterways and maintaining them out of general rates, instead of out of the benefited general rate which they presently charge. Honourable members will be aware that local authorities can charge a benefited rate—a separate rate—to those people who enjoy the privileges of living on canal estates. In the next couple of decades, many of these estates will be 50 years old, and, although it has not occurred to date, it is a distinct possibility that the cost of maintaining waterways could have to be met out of general rates. Another matter to which I refer briefly is that, every time a development that involves a canal estate is mentioned, many people seem to be concemed about the mangroves, the wetlands, mosquitoes and so on. It is interesting to note that in 1888 a fisherman by the name of Cameron complained about the net fishermen in Moreton Bay, claiming that they would rain the fishing in Moreton Bay. In that day and age, his complaint was that the bream that were then caught were just over a pound and that the average for whiting was five to the pound. Some quick checks that I carried out recently indicated that it is much the same today. Many mangroves have been removed from the area. They have been destroyed—cut down—for airport development, canal development and so on. Nevertheless, mangroves, like many other flora species, are not static. Being a very colonising species, they manage to spread and grow in other areas. In fact some of them are now beginning to grow near the South East Freeway and under the Captain Cook Bridge. Back in the 1840s there was one mangrove growing on either Mud Island or St Helena Island. Now there are acres and acres of mangroves in that area. Nothing is static; changes certainly occur. People are concemed about the fish habitats and about the problem of destroying mangroves; but, in the end, much theory and many half-traths are involved. Mangroves survive and spread to different areas. They are now growing where they did not exist 100 years ago. Clearly canal estate developments will attract further interest in the years to come, as there will be more and more of them, not just down on the Gold Coast, but also in the Brisbane City Council area, where consideration is being given to canal estate developments. As life-styles change and more people want to enjoy the pleasures of boating and waterfront advantages, more interest will be shown in canal estate development and more pressures will be brought to bear. Although I certainly support the amendments, I want to be perfectly sure that the public will be safeguarded in the amendments to the Act that have been proposed by the Minister. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (1.42 a.m.): It should be plainly and clearly stated that this Bill is just one of a succession of Bills that can be regarded as the fast-track legislation for the white-shoe brigade. That is what this legislation is all about: nothing more and nothing less. The one reason why this legislation is being introduced—it is contained in the Minister's speech—is that the canal estate developers should not be 1452 7 April 1987 Canals Act Amendment Bill disadvantaged as compared to dryland developers. That is the one reason for clauses 2 and 3 in the legislation before the House tonight. Under the present legislation the major canal developments that Queensland has had in the past have progressed very well and with the safety of all concemed in mind. Mr Tenni: What one do you know about so intimately? Mr CAMPBELL: I thank the Minister for asking that question, because I will give him three. Mr Tenni: Don't read it. TeU me about it. Mr CAMPBELL: I will tell the Minister about development lease No. 2 that was given by the Lands Department back in 1960 to Kawana Estate Pty Ltd. It was the development lease that was given originally to Caloundra/Mooloolaba Developments Corporation Pty Ltd under the name of I.F. Grant Ry Ltd. That development proceeded quite weU and everyone concemed with it was protected. In actual fact, the developer was protected more than one would have expected. Under this Govemment, if a developer is not doing well enough, the Govemment changes the rales to make certain that he does make a profit. This has happened so often. It has happened to the extent that if developers are not doing as well as they should be, the Govemment changes the amount of commission that they pay to the Govemment. That has happened in aU of these developments. OriginaUy under development lease No. 2 the developers were to pay a 10 per cent commission on sale and 20 per cent on the remainder of the blocks. Then the developers found that they needed a little bit of help. The developers paid 5 per cent on sale and the other 15 per cent was payable within two years. In other words, this Govemment assisted the cash flow. The situation is that at least the consumer was protected. Now the problem is that the properties will be sold off a plan. People will put down a deposit and the developers will tell them what they have bought. These people wiU have no chance in the world of getting anything back if they have purchased a block of land situated in the middle of a canal. That is the basis of the whole situation, and it has happened. Mr Tenni: How do you buy a block of land in the middle of a canal? Mr CAMPBELL: One can do that in one of these canal developments. Goondoo Pty Ltd has development lease No. 7 on Macintosh Island, which is in the middle of the Broadwater. That development was taken out of the back land behind Narrowneck. The land was developed and sold for a millionaires' row. That has happened, and it will continue to happen in the future. Mr Tenni: You are saying that our councils are incompetent, because they have to approve of it. Mr CAMPBELL: The Minister probably had some great friends come to him in the past with great plans. Those great plans on a piece of paper are passed by the council. They do not mean a thing until the land and canals are developed to the stage at which a house can be built on the land. In many cases the development of the leases has taken many years longer than expected. In fact, in three cases involving development leases the (Queensland Govemment, through the Lands Department, has increased the term of the development lease because it could not be completed within the 10 years that were provided. That happened with Raby Bay, which is another development that will possibly not be completed within the time provided. The development was for 10 years from 1980 to 1990. What happens if development is not completed? The Minister looks after everybody except the consumer. Today, Queensland has the worst record of consumer protection in Australia. The BiU before the House is another Bill that puts the consumer down the drain. The Minister can look after his white-shoe brigade; the Opposition will look after the consumer. Canals Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1453

Hon, M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (1.48 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments. Of course, the two members of the Opposition were totally wrong. I do not know what they were talking about when they referred to the white-shoe brigade. I would not have a clue. Frankly, I do not know anyone who wears white shoes. The Govemment is giving an opportunity to developers who are more likely to go broke if, having outlaid a great deal of capital, they cannot tie up enough sales to satisfy their financiers that the project can continue and that it is sound. I think that this is a way of protecting the consumer. In this instance, the consumer has nothing to worry about. Money is deposited into a tmst account, which is fully protected. After nine months, if the job has not been completed fully, a person can get his money back. The honourable member for Bundaberg said that the councils in this State are incapable of performing their duties correctly. In other words, he was saying that councils are prepared to sign plans and specifications that are not correct and that one can have a block of land sitting in the middle of a canal. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. I have great confidence in the councils of this State. I believe that they will abide by the regulations of the Land Sales Act in exactly the same way as they will abide by this legislation. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. M. J. Tenni (Barron River—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr D'ARCY (1.50 a.m.): The Minister's reply to the comments that I made in relation to the Bill was quite frivolous. The Opposition is concemed that some councils in Queensland might allow subdivisions simply to obtain additional rates. When one drives throughout the many shires of Queensland, one finds many subdivisions that have not been completed because developers have gone broke. During the past 20 years, "Mortgagee in Possession" signs have been legendary on many estates throughout Queensland. I expect that trend to continue with canal subdivisions in some of the more remote areas of the State. The Minister is being frivolous when he claims that councils wiU not allow certain subdivisions to take place at the behest of greedy developers who are desperate for a quick quid and who want to subdivide those areas simply for their own greed. As canal subdivisions wend their way along the Queensland coast and into the various streams of south-east Queensland, developers will be caught more and more. Clauses 2 and 3 involve major changes to the Act. Clause 2 is probably the major clause, because it overlays the other clause. In part, clause 2 states that— "'. . . notice in respect of that canal specified in subsection one of this section.' and substituting the words 'Order in Council specified in section 7 (3) in respect of that canal.'" Section 8 of the original Act and the amendment in clause 2 allow the Land Act to take precedent. The Opposition objects to that. The proposed amendment allows the sale of land from a plan once the plan has been sealed. Often, that can be achieved before work has commenced on a particular site. Although the Minister has stated that, if a job has not been fully completed after nine months, a person can obtain a refund of his deposit, his guarantees are not satisfactory to me. 1454 7 April 1987 Canals Act Amendment Bill

These sorts of activities have been occurring since 1958. Since that time, at least 100 000 canal blocks have been sold in Queensland. That is considered to be a substantial number under this Act. Why is the Minister curtailing the extra safeguards to purchasers? By doing so, he wiU increase the number of subdivisions that will be unable to be financed and sustained, unUke those that have been developed on the Gold Coast. The quality of subdivisions on the Gold Coast has increased. However, when one travels further north along the Queensland coast, one finds that subdivisions of inferior quality have been approved in backwaters. Land prices vary substantially as one moves further up the coast, and land can be sold off the plan. As a result, a boom and bust situation develops wherein people will buy land unseen and will continue to promote its value. Upon settlement of subdivisions for units or blocks of land, where those subdivisions have been sold from plans, some of those subdivisions have changed hands eight times before they have been completed. The fact is that, at settlement, one gets paper-shufflers. This legislation deals with something that is more complex than an ordinary flat block of land. The Liberal Party member mentioned tidal flows, walls, revetments and all the other problems that are associated with canals, which are often approved by smaller councils along the Queensland coast. Over the next few decades those problems will occur. If the Minister wants that, he is doing a disservice to the people of Queensland by introducing the amendment. Mr TENNI: The Govemment supports totally the autonomy of local govemment in this State and is quite happy with the clause. Question—That clause 2, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 52 NOES, 26 Ahern Knox Ardill Austin Lane Braddy Beanland Lee Bums Beard Lester Campbell Berghofer McCauley Casey Booth McKechnie Comben Borbidge McPhie D'Arcy Burreket Menzel De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill Fraser Powell Hayward Gately Randell Mackenroth Gibbs, 1. J. Row McLean Gilmore Sherlock Milliner Glasson Sherrin Palaszczuk Gunn Simpson Shaw Gygar Slack Smyth Harvey Stephan Underwood Henderson Stoneman Vaughan Hinton Tenni Wamer Hobbs White Wells Hynd Yewdale Innes Tellers: Tellers: Jennings Littleproud Davis Katter FitzGerald McEIligott Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 3 to 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Tenni, by leave, read a third time. Supreme Court Library Act Amendment Bill 7 April 1987 1455

SUPREME COURT LIBRARY ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 March (see p. 778). Mr GOSS (Logan) (2.05 a.m.): Mr Speaker and members of the House may be pleased to hear that I confidently expect to be able to pull up within the 90 minutes allocated to me in this particular debate. If it looks as though time is mnning out, I will not propose to seek extra time but rather I will be rashing through to try to finish within the aUotted time so that everybody can go home. The Opposition supports the legislation. It agrees with the proposal by the Minister for Justice that the employees of the Supreme Court Library Committee should be entitled to work on the basis that they have the same superannuation entitlements as other Crown employees. I must confess that prior to the introduction of this legislation I was not aware of the fact that they were not in that position. It is quite clear and quite fair that they should be in that position. It is on that basis that the Opposition supports the legislation. Mr Jennings: This is one of the best speeches you have made. Mr GOSS: If the honourable member continues to interiect, it will get better. That raises the necessity for the Govemment to examine at some stage—and I know that it is not necessarily the responsibility of the Minister for Justice—the position of all Crown employees so that some equity and equality can occur in relation to superannuation in order to ensure no groups of Crown employees are privileged and other groups are disadvantaged. The Labor Party believes that there should be greater rights to superannuation in the community generally and that when it comes to Crown employees there should be equality. On that basis the Opposition supports Supreme Court Library Committee employees' coming into the same category as other Crown employees and it supports the legislation; although I note that the legislation does not seem to specifically set out that provision in the same terms used by the Minister in his second-reading speech. However, on the basis of his assurance and on the basis of the legislation as drafted, which is basically in terms of providing that the approval of the Govemor in Council shall be the determining factor, or the guide-lines by which those employees are brought into equality in terms of superannuation entitlement, the Opposition is prepared to accept that, as clearly that will be the goal that will be achieved by this legislation, even though it is not specifically spelt out. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (2.07 a.m.): The Liberal Party does not propose to take the same encyclopaedic approach that the Opposition did. It supports the legislation. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (2.08 a.m.): This legislation makes the superannuation scheme under the Supreme Court Library Act actuarially sound. It is also a scheme that is accountable to the Govemment. We on this side of the House support the Bill. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (2.09 a.m.), in reply: I thank the members for their kindness on this occasion. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 1456 7 April 1987 Adjournment

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Clauson, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (2.11 a.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Promotion of Expo 88 Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (2.12 a.m.): During the last few weeks serious questions have been raised in the community about the gross lack of promotion of and publicity for Expo 88 and the standard of financial management of the authority's operations. I refer the House to the Auditor-General's reports on audits of the departmental accounts, statutory bodies and local authorities and seek to raise certain matters in the report dated 23 February 1987 on the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority. A note on page 10 of the report says— "Included in the Administration and Operational Expenses are payments to FrontUne Communications Pty. Ltd. totalling $25,000 for the appearance in December 1985 of the Trojan Marching Band. This event did not occur and the company has since gone into liquidation and recovery is expected to be minimal. A further cost of $5,529 was incurred in associated expenses." V Let me consider the details. The Expo authority paid $25,000 in advance to Frontline Communications Pty Ltd in two payments. On 16 July 1985, $20,000 was paid—and on 13 August 1985 a futher $5,000 was paid—for a marching band that did not show up. On 25 January 1985 Sozaba Pty Ltd was incorporated, and on 4 Febraary 1985 new directors, Philip Barry Shawyer and Shirley Barbara Kell, were appointed. On 12 March 1985, Sozaba Pty Ltd's name was changed to Frontline Communications Pty Ltd. The principal purpose of Frontline Communications Pty Ltd was to promote US football—Gridiron—in Australia. To that end a game billed as the "Australia Bowl" was played at VFL Park on 7 December 1985. The marching band that was to have played at that game—the Trojans from California—was then to come to Brisbane for Expo 88 promotional purposes. However, things rapidly went wrong. On 9 December 85, the agents for the mortgagee, AGC Advances, were appointed. Frontline Communications Pty Ltd was placed in provisional liquidation on 14 January 1986 and into official liquidation on 11 Febraary 1986, just 382 days after incorporation. What sort of financial ineptitude allowed $25,000 to be paid in advance to a company with absolutely no successful promotional or entertainment history? In fact at the time of the first payment of $20,000 on 16 July 1985, the company had been incorporated for only 172 days. In answer to a question I asked last week, the Premier stated that the $25,000 paid to Frontline Communications was part payment of the authority's contribution to bringing the Trojan Marching Band to Australia. Cleariy, the intention of the Expo authority was to pay more to, or spend more on. Frontline Communications Pty Ltd. There is more. A company called Spectak Productions Pty Ltd handles the co­ ordination of all entertainment to take place during Expo. The directors of that company are Richard Peter Birch, Kenneth Edward Cowley, David William Fayle and Nina Stevenson. Ric Birch is the man the Expo authorities claim was responsible for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Los Angeles Olympics. This is not necessarily the case. Mr Birch was employed in a fairly minor job by a company putting on the entertainment, but that is the extent of it. However, in the Expo 88 context, Mr Birch's Califomian connections deserve closer attention. Mr Birch's company, Spectak, has appointed a Califomian company, World Projects Corporation (WPC), and its principals Bob and BiU Lutt as sole agents for touring groups wishing to appear at Expo. Adjoumment 7 April 1987 1457

On 11 March 1987, WPC forwarded a draft letter of introduction to Expo 88 for Mr Birch to approve. The gist of it is to make it clear to any north American entertainment groups—for example, orchestras or choirs—that they can deal with Expo 88 only through WPC—but at a price! That price is 5 per cent of gross revenue for their performances and all travel arrangments exclusive to WPC. Even if they do not want to use WPC in that way but organise their own travel, they must still pay WPC a $50 per person booking fee. The complaints from travel agents regarding the arrangement are flooding in. A telex from Brace Hodge, Goway Travel Toronto, states— "We have some big problems with two of three groups here who don't want to work with the Califomian contact you gave. One is threatening to go to Switzerland instead of Australia." Another telex from Michael Cannon, managing director of Afit-Specialist Tours, states— "Both my clients, and ourselves have also expended a great deal of time and energy and money to develop business to Australia, let alone Expo.

My clients wish to book their established clients into Expo, through ourselves.

I have today met with Roslyn Shawyer, your Sydney communications co­ ordinator and explained what action we will take if we do not receive co-operation." Shawyer—remember that name. Philip Barry Shawyer was a director of the failed Frontline Communications Pty Ltd, the company that was paid at least $25,000 in advance to bring to Australia the Trojan Marching Band. Now a Roslyn Shawyer tums up. That is very curious. It seems to me that there may be gross deception occurring in the whole promotional and entertainment area of Expo 88. Government members: Your time has expired. Mr HAYWARD: I table the documents. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members on the back bench will show respect to the Chair. I call the member for Tablelands. Tourism Potential of the Tablelands; Kuranda Railway Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (2.16 a.m.): Earlier I spoke about some of the problems of the local economy in the Tablelands area. I want to speak now about the tourism potential of the Tablelands. All honourable members have spoken on many occasions in this Chamber about the tourism potential of Queensland and the fact that everyone is looking forward to it being possibly the saviour of some of the local areas and the local economies. Of course, all honourable members are familiar with the potential of Caims as a tourist destination. However, Caims in itself does not offer the tourist all that the tourist demands to see. The hinterland regions round the Tableland area offer tremendous potential for growth in tourism and tremendous potential for entertainment of intemational and, indeed, national tourists. In the area of the Tablelands—not only in my electorate but the greater Tablelands— are some of the most scenic areas of Queensland, which encompass waterfalls, rivers, dams and streams, volcanic lakes and possums. AU in aU, it is a very, very pleasant place. I believe that the crown jewel of the Tablelands is the Tinaroo Falls Dam. It was built in the late 1950s as an irrigation scheme which was designed to boost the tobacco 1458 7 April 1987 Adjoumment

industry and thereby boost the local economy. It has now developed into something more. It has developed into a tourist Mecca as it were, which has been developed simply because of the foresight of the Department of Primary Industries fisheries research centre. In the last several years a considerable amount of research work has been carried out into various kinds of angling species that can be released into still-water ponds and local streams. That centre has come up with the idea that it can release several species, including black bream, silver bream, sleepy cod and, of course, our famous barramundi into these streams. The barramundi have done extraordinarily well in the Tinaroo Falls Dam and are very quickly becoming the great attraction of the Tablelands. There are various reasons for this. Of course, the Tablelands, being distant from the ocean, does not have the problem of crocodiles—the Minister for Maritime Services will be pleased to note that— so that American tourists can swim in the placid waters of Tinaroo Falls Dam. It does not have marine stingers, so there is no danger of any kind in those waters. Children can go there and take part in all sorts of aquatic sports as well as recreational angling. I believe that in the very near future people will travel vast distances to come to the Tinaroo Falls Dam simply to catch those fish that are available in the dam, and to be close to civilisation and the services offered by the Tableland region and near safe waters. Tourism will take a tremendous leap forward and the local economy of the Tableland region will also take a tremendous leap forward because of this foresight and the development of the fishing potential of the Tinaroo Falls Dam. There is one small matter I wish to raise. It relates to the Kuranda railway and the proposal to increase the fares on that train. Later, I will speak to the Minister about that because that train is the heart-blood, life-blood and indeed the main artery to the Tableland region for many tourists, both national and intemational. I would be very sad indeed if the railway was priced out of the pocket of the people who come and spend their holiday money on the Tablelands.

GambUng Parlour in Rockhampton Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (2.22 a.m.): I raise a matter relating to Rockhampton in September 1986. At that time a gambling parlour was established within a shopping centre in my electorate of Rockhampton North. The parlour was situated above a local hair-dresser's premises. Gambling commenced to operate and it continued for several weeks. After that period of activity the local newspaper, the Morning Bulletin, published an article exposing the activity. Because I was aware of the operation, I also made public statements drawing it to the attention of the police and the community. The operators were known to have shifted from Brisbane to Rockhampton to continue this gambling operation. While the gambling continued, it was obvious that the police were not taking any action to close the operation. Consequently, I decided to wire the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Commissioner of Police, calling on them to close down this illegal gambling operation. No action was taken after I had communicated with those persons. After some little time it was confirmed that the operators had closed down and presumably left town. The pertinent fact of this matter is that, as an elected member of this House representing some 22 000 voters, I have still not heard—and I am saying this in the past tense—from the Commissioner of Police, the Premier or the Deputy Premier. I believe that the attitude adopted by those three senior people, including the Commissioner of Police, should be ventilated in this House. I will read to the House a letter that I received from the Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn. The pertinent part of this letter is the first paragraph. I reiterate that I approached the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Commissioner of Police back in October 1986, Adjoumment 7 April 1987 1459 and I received a letter from the Deputy Premier on 17 March 1987. In that letter he states— "I refer to your telegram of the 13 October 1986, forwarded direct to the Commissioner of Police, concerning alleged unlawful gambling activities in Rockhampton. I am informed that prior to the receipt of your telegram the Rockhampton Police had the premises concemed under surveillance and were gathering evidence in order to mount a raid. The organisers of the illegal gaming-house apparently received information from an unidentified source that the premises were going to be raided by police, and closed their operations prior to the raid being conducted. It was subsequently aborted. These premises are still closed and void of any gaming equipment. Police will continue to monitor the situation of any gambling activities in Rockhampton." The situation is that the police were well aware that gambling was taking place, and the major proportion of the population of north Rockhampton also knew that it was taking place, because most Australians and Rockhamptonites like to gamble. This matter was ventilated in many articles in the Morning Bulletin that were written by its own writers after I had made press statements. The senior officer of the Police Department in Rockhampton continued to ignore this activity and contended that the police had the place under surveillance. However, as a result of other information that I received, I found out that they had not. After that, I had nowhere to go. I pointed out to the House that I sent some urgent telegrams and rang the Police Commissioner on a couple of occasions. I was spoken to by an officer of lower rank and told that the matter would be investigated. The Deputy Premier waited a very long time to respond to my urgent telegram. That is not good enough. I believe that the Deputy Premier, the Police Commissioner and the Premier, to whom I also sent a telegram, were very concious of the gambling that was taking place in Rockhampton. I believe that they did not take action because there was some connection between those gamblers, the members of Parliament to whom I have referred, and the Police Commissioner. It would seem that they must have had a guilty concience or that something was going on in respect to that gambling that they did not want to stop. Because of public pressure and because the press in Rockhampton continued to pursue the matter, the gamblers finally left. As an election was approaching, I believe that the Govemment found that the gamblers were an embarrassment to it. Somebody must have told the gamblers on the quiet to get out of town. I do not believe that the gamblers left voluntarily. I believe that people in high places suggested that they leave town because they were becoming an embarrassment to the Govemment at the time of the election. It is ridiculous that several months must elapse before the Deputy Premier will respond to any member of this Parliament who has sent an urgent telegram on such a serious matter. Home-ownership Mr BERGHOFER (Toowoomba South) (2.27 a.m.): I would hike to comment briefly on the dream of the average Australian of owning his own home. It is a dream that I am sure is world renowned. That dream is fading very, very quickly. Home- ownership is the biggest dream of the average Australian. The most money that a person wUl spend in his life-time will be on the building of a new home. The building industry is a great barometer of the economy of our country. It shows just how the country is going. The Australian home is one of the few things left in our country that is 100 per cent Australian made. If a person builds a home, the bricks, timber and tiles are all 1460 7 April 1987 Adjoumment

constmcted by the builder's hands and they are all Australian made. If a person buys a motor car, how much of its content comes from overseas? I do not think that the motor car industry is doing very much to assist the economoy. Homes are made by people. Because of present high interest rates, which are rising, because of increasing costs and because of increased wages, the rich are getting richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The little person is being left so far behind that it is unbelievable. The cost of a home is increasing for the middle income eamer, not for the person on the low income. It is becoming harder and harder for that person to ever own his own home. Many people are employed behind the scenes in the building industry. A number of people, such as surveyors, engineers, solicitors and real estate agents are employed to produce a block of land. Councils must supply water and sewerage services. People are employed by Telecom. Electricity, gas and other services need to be installed. While land is not required because homes are not being built, all those people involved in providing the ancillary services are not required and no jobs are provided for them. As a result, the council does not receive rates on that land. No income is received from the services that could have been provided. The suppliers of the electricity, gas and telephone services do not receive fees for the provision of their services. I have been involved in the building industry for over 30 years. In the early days, a person built a very modest home. As wages increased and the technique of building kept up with the times, a person built a larger home. Eventually, that person built a car port. Anybody who had a car port was very proud of it. As times got better, people built garages. Eventually, they built double garages. As interest rates increased and as costs got higher and higher, wages did not keep pace with them and people had to start dropping back. They went from double garages, to single garages, to car ports, then to just a house. Builders now have the home as small as they can possibly build it. The builders cannot go any further. They have reached the stage at which the house is a little box. The only way that a home-owner can make a saving is on interest rates. While interest rates are around about 15 per cent, if a person borrows $40,000—one cannot buy much of a home for $40,000—over 25 years and pays $513 a month, over those 25 years he pays back $154,000. That represents $114,000 in interest that is paid on that home loan. Unless people are on high incomes, how can they possibly hope to own their own homes? House-building involves people such as builders, painters, plumbers, electricians and all sorts of other tradesmen. There are also the people who supply materials after a home has been completed—items such as carpets, curtains and landscaping. Just imagine the effect that high interest rates must be having upon the building industry and the work-force. People complain about married women who remain in the work-force. If it were not for both husbands and wives working, many more people would be without homes. Somewhere along the Une the Government must induce people into building their own homes. People need homes. The problem is that the smaller the home, the fewer the jobs created for tradesmen. Interest rates must be lowered. The Govemment must restore the pride and joy that is felt by those people who own their own homes.

Kuranda Tourist Train Mr De LACY (Caims) (2.32 a.m.): Last week, it was revealed that one-way fares on the Kuranda tourist train had been increased from $5.40 to $10, an increase of 85 per cent. This is outrageous and out of keeping with the widely held need for restraint right across the board. The Queensland National Party Govemment certainly has a peculiar set of values. When wages increase by $10 per week, representing 2 to 3 per cent of average wages, it Adjoumment 7 April 1987 1461

screams blue murder. However, when it comes to its tum, it thinks nothing of increasing charges by 85 per cent. How can it preach wage restraint when its ovm commitment to restraint is so abysmal? What is the stated reason for this massive increase? To recoup losses? Not on your Ufe! The Kuranda tourist train is one of the few railway lines in Queensland making a profit. Approximately a million passengers wiU use the service this year. Is it part of a general fare increase? Again, not on your life! In fact, the one-way fare from Caims to Kuranda on the railmotor, which leaves just half an hour after the tourist train—same Une, same destination, same distance, same scenery—is only $ 1.90. Perhaps the Govemment is joining the ranks of those people who regard tourists as fair game. It is very sad if the Govemment beUeves that it is justified in fleecing tourists, but there is no other rational interpretation that one can put on an increase of that magnitude—unless, of course, it is cronyism. The Minister was reported in Saturday's Cairns Post as saying— "The railways decided on the rise as it understood the other operator on the service. Destination Projects, had increased its fare." Destination Projects—for those honourable members who do not know—leases up to four carriages from the Railway Department and provides a so-called up-market service, including a tour commentary. Surely the Railway Department's responsibUity is to the fare-paying public, not to the financial viability of a private entrepreneur. This episode, it seems, is yet another chapter in the whole sorry history of cronyism in relation to Destination Projects—a history which has left a sour taste in the mouths of many Caims tour operators, railway workers and so on. Destination Projects was granted a preferential lease over 7 800 square metres at Freshwater for the constraction of its historical village in 1984. It is well known that the deal was sewn up before expressions of interest were called. The next thing was that the lease of the Kuranda refreshment rooms was handed over—no tenders. The existing lessees were unceremoniously booted out. The next thing we find is that virtually all the money used to develop the complex came not from private sources but from both State and Commonwealth (3ovemment loans through the DCID and the AIDC. So much for the need for an injection of private capital and entrepreneurial initiative! However, the company still went broke. In December 1985, the AIDC stepped in to restmcture the company. It seems that it is StiU going broke, thus the increase in its own fares from $10 to $12.50 on 1 April this year. The company then prevaUed upon the Transport Minister to increase railway fares to $10 so that the railway would not be competing unfairly. My information is that the charge by the Railway Department to Destination Projects will remain at $4.90 per passenger. If that is so, it is the greatest scandal of all. The Railway Department maintains the line, mns the train, provides drivers, guards and porters, cleans the train, supplies the brochures, and receives $4.90. Destination Projects suppUes the commentary and receives $7.10 on top of the $4.90. I compare that with the bus-operators, who are an integral part of the Kuranda tourist train scene. They receive a 20 per cent discount if they book in 12 or more, that is, they pay $8 and Destination Projects pays $4.90. Let me explan it once again. The railway is making money at $5.40. Destination Projects mns a similar service, for which it charges $12.50. However, nobody travels on it. So the company goes to the Minister and now the whole of the fare-paying public has to pay $10 just to bail out this private firm. It is a scandal and the Minister should be asked to explain. Combined Emergency Care Organisations, Caboolture Mr NEWTON (Glass House) (2.37 a.m.): I want to take the opportunity to speak about a unique organisation that was formed in Caboolture township and is now working very successfully. In 1985, a number of voluntary workers in the district decided that 1462 7 April 1987 Adjoumment there was a need within our community for groups and organisations involved in care- giving services to meet together and co-ordinate their activities. Social workers in the area have, in the past, had to call on the various groups, and it was felt that an umbrella organisation would be best able to assist the liaison between the voluntary groups, Govemment departments and self-help groups in this district. In September 1985, the Combined Emergency Care Organisations of Caboolture was formed, known locally as CECO. A booklet was put together by all the organisations. The Federal member, Mr Peter Slipper, and I paid for the booklet to be used by that group. Its objects are as follows— (1) to maintain a Christian ideal in extending service to the community; (2) to co-ordinate the emergency care-giving activities of organisations in the Caboolture Shire; (3) to provide accurate information on the care-giving facilities available within the Caboolture Shire; (4) to make submissions to all levels of Govemment for provision of funding and the establishment of welfare services as required within the community; (5) to establish and maintain a crisis centre to provide 24-hour emergency care facilities for the Caboolture Shire; and (6) to safeguard from misuse the services and funds of the emergency care-giving organisations within the Caboolture Shire. Early in 1986 CECO appUed for a grant through the Department of Children's Services to employ a community development officer. The grant to enable funding of an officer for three years was approved, and Mrs Trish Femley was employed on 7 April 1986. This organisation has gone from strength to strength. It applied for and has been granted incorporation under the legislation administered by the Justice Department. Most importantly, CECO has shown the great need for such an organisation within a community. Honourable members who have electorate offices in busy shopping centres would know how many people come into the office seeking information, financial help, or counseUing for a number of welfare problems. CECO now has premises in Caboolture that people know about and they can always go to that centre during the week. The office is manned from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., mostly by voluntary helpers. The local council has provided a small office at the memorial hall in Caboolture. The residents of this area now have a central reference point. The group has also printed a directory of services available to people in this local area. Both the Federal member Peter Slipper and I were very pleased to be able to assist with the production of this directory. (TECO presently has 25 local financial member organisations and 10 associated organisations. The 10 associated organisations are those that are unable to become a financial member due either to their constitution or the mere fact that they are a section of a Govemment department. Each month the management committee meets to discuss the day-to-day management of the association. Social workers, representatives of the Children's Services Department, social security, and North Side Psyche Service attend these meetings. Every two months the representatives of all the organisations meet to discuss future plans and liaise with each other. It is very important to note CECO does not interfere with the ranning of its member organisations. It is purely a co-ordinating body. Just before Christmas, on behalf of the Minister for Family Services, Yvonne Chapman, I had the pleasant task of presenting the organisation with a cheque for $980 to ran a volunteer training course. That six week course has since been ran, and a number of individuals from different member organisations took advantage of the Adjoumment 7 April 1987 1463 program. The positive results are very encouraging and it is pleasing to see this grant is used in such a way that it will benefit many individuals and the community as a whole. I beUeve that this type of umbrella organisation should be established in other centres across the State. The Minister and her department also deserve congratulations on their assistance. The local council and Federal Govemment departments have also been most helpful. The community needed an organisation such as CECO. The people in my electorate did not want just another committee being established. Instead, they have used the existing community service and volunteer network. CECO is promoting an awareness in the community of what services are available, acting as a referral service when required and establishing training schemes for volunteers in many groups. In conclusion, I would recommend to other honourable members that their district would benefit from this type of organisation. I would also like to congratulate all those volunteers who have spent many hours serving our community. Motion agreed to. The House adjoured at 2.42 a.m. (Wednesday).