Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 27 AUGUST 1985

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Papers 27 August 1985 141

TUESDAY, 27 AUGUST 1985

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

ASSENT TO BILL Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that on 23 August 1985 I presented to His Excellency the Govemor Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for the Royal Assent and that His Excellency was pleased, in my presence, to subscribe his assent thereto in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Minimum Penalties for Child Abuse From Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (2 637 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU set down minimum penalties for child abuse. Third-party Insurance Premiums From Mr Warburton (40 152 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will revoke the recent increases in third-party insurance and ensure that future increases be determined after public hearing. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamations under— Foresty Act 1959-1984 Constmction Safety Act Amendment Act 1985 State Enterprises Acts Repeal Act 1983 Eraser Island Public Access Act 1985 Orders in Council under— Legislative Assembly Act 1867-1978 Forestry Act 1959-1984 Harbours Act 1955-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Workers' Compensation Act 1916-1983 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1981 Supreme Court Act of 1921 Money Lenders Act 1916-1979 Building Societies Act 1985 Magistrate Courts Act 1921-1982 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978 Tmstee Companies Act 1968-1984 Justices Act 1886-1985 Real Property Act 1861-1981 142 27 August 1985 Papers

District Courts Act 1967-1982 State Securities Registration Act 1925-1981 Judges' Salaries and Pensions Act 1967-1984 ChUdren's Services Act 1965-1982 National Parks and WUdUfe Act 1975-1984 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1984 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1984 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1984 Land Act 1962-1985 Newstead House Tmst Act of 1939 Queensland FUm Industry Development Act 1977-1981 Regulations under— PubUc Service Act 1922-1978 Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936-1979 Constmction Safety Act 1971-1985 Private Employment Agencies Act 1983 Industry and Commerce Training Act 1979-1983 Factories and Shops Act 1960-1983 Industrial ConcUiation and Arbitration Act 1961-1985 Weights and Measures Act 1951-1983 Inspection of Machinery Act 1951-1982 Workers' Compensation Act 1916-1983 Elections Act 1983 Land Sales Act 1984-1985 BUls of Sale and Other Instmments Act 1955-1981 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1981 Business Names Act 1962-1979 Cash Orders Regulation Acts, 1946 to 1959 Money Lenders Act 1916-1979 Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 -1981 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978 Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1958-1974 Friendly Societies Act 1913-1982 Liquor Act 1912-1984 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962-1982 Recording of Evidence Acts, 1962 to 1968 Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980-1984 Property Law Act 1974-1985 Art Unions and Amusements Act 1976-1984 Collections Act 1966-1981 Associations Incorporation Act 1981 Justices of the Peace Act 1975 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 SmaU Claims Tribunals Act 1973-1984 Ministerial Statement 27 August 1985 143

Building Societies Act 1985 Public Tmstee Act 1978-1981 Censorships of Films Act 1947-1984 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1984 Films Review Act 1974-1984 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1984 By-laws under the Harbours Act 1955-1982 Rules under the Coroners Act 1958-1982 Report of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee for the period 1 January to 30 June 1984.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Application by Junefair Pty Ltd for Totalisator Administration Board Subagency Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing) (11.9 a.m.), by leave: AU honourable members wiU be aware of aUegations that have been made by honourable members opposite in recent days conceming the decision by the Totalisator Administration Board to recommend to me an appUcation by Junefair Pty Ltd for a TAB subagency at the Oxenford Tavem. One of the principal allegations made by those who have no knowledge of the realities of life when it comes to the operation of TAB subagencies is that the operation of a subagency is a money-making operation. A memorandum, dated 23 August last, sent to me by the general manager of the TAB (Mr Harriott) answers that allegation. It will set the record straight and give honourable members an idea what this is aU about. The memorandum reads— "Regarding sub-agency operations, the sub-agent receives no rental retum whatsoever from the T.A.B. as the conditions of a sub-agency caU for that sub- agent to provide premises and any attendant costs of premises such as Ught and power. The sub-agent's reimbursement is limited to a percentage retum on turnover with a minimum weekly payment of $125.00 or two and a half per cent of weekly turnover. The sub-agent is also required to provide all necessary staffing and no reimbursement is available to him from the T.A.B. for those costs. Taking these factors into consideration, it is estimated that the operation of a sub-agency with an initial tumover of approximately five thousand doUars ($5,000) per week would cost the sub-agent in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,Q00) per year for the first year of operation, together with an amortisation of costs involved in building and setting up a sub-agency. Where a sub-agency is operated in separate premises as is proposed in this case, it is estimated that a tumover of at least fifteen thousand doUars ($15,000) per week would be required before a break-even point is possible. Again in this case, it is estimated that it could take up to two years to reach that point." I will be tabling the document. One of the most serious allegations that can be made against a Minister is that he has misled the Parliament. Last Thursday in this House the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) said— "The Minister made a statement in this House on 23 August 1984 and that has proved to be not tme." The honourable member for Salisbury made that statement in reply to an interjection from the honourable member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers). I understand that those two members are at loggerheads now. Tommy is crooked on the honourable member for 144 27 August 1985 Ministerial Statement

Salisbury for stealing his thunder. The honourable member for Salisbury mshed in here, bignoting himself As I said, the honourable member for Salisbury made that statement in reply to an interjection from the honourable member for Ashgrove, as reported in Hansard— "He has misled the House as well." The honourable member for Salisbury agreed with the honourable member for Ashgrove. The honourable member for Salisbury said also— "The member for Ashgrove is right." I refer to the following statement that I made on 23 August 1984 in this House, which replied to allegations made at that time by the honourable member for Ashgrove— "With regard to an application to the TAB for a licence—anybody who owns what he considers to be a suitable site can lodge such an application. In this case, the reply from the TAB was that at this time it did not believe that an agency was required in the area and that it would reconsider the application in 12 months' time." That is the cmx of my statement on that day, and I believe that the honourable member for Salisbury and the honourable member for Ashgrove were referring to it when they made their allegations last Thursday that I had misled the House. That statement was based on a letter dated 30 May 1984 from the then chairman of the TAB (Sir Edward Lyons) to the solicitors acting for Junefair Pty Ltd, one of the two applicants who at that time had applied to the board for a licence. That letter read— "With reference to previous correspondence regarding the establishment of T.A.B. facilities in the Oxenford area, my Board directed the Executive to carry out a full survey in Oxenford, and the results of the survey were discussed at a Board meeting on 29th May, 1984. The survey shows clearly that a full agency operation could not, with the findings of the survey, be justified under any circumstances at this time. With regard to conducting an operation in other business premises, it is considered that even this level of service would not be viable at this stage. In view of all the facts placed before the Board, it was decided that a T.A.B. service in this area is not warranted at this time, but the area will be re-surveyed in twelve months' time to examine the growth and development of this general area, and establish if a T.A.B. installation is desirable and, if so, just what location would give the best T.A.B. service to the pubUc." An identical letter was sent to Mr and Mrs Frith, and I will table copies of both. In view of that irrefutable evidence, which completely rejects the allegations made in this place last Thursday by the honourable member for Salisbury and the honourable member for Ashgrove, I call upon both to withdraw and apologise. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have to discuss that matter with the Clerk. Mr HINZE: Thank you for your mling, Mr Speaker. Appreciating that you must get advice on the matter, I expect that those honourable members, when they read the documents to which 1 have referred, will withdraw the statements. If they wish to apologise, that is their business. Mr Goss interjected. Mr HINZE: It is a serious matter. The honourable member is a barrister, I believe, and supposed to be sensible. I have held him in high regard, and I hope that I always will do so. Ministerial Statement 27 August 1985 145

The evidence shows that not on any occasion did I mislead the House. I have been a Minister since 1974 and a member of this Assembly since 1966. Such an allegation is a blot on my political stature in this State. I take it seriously. I ask the member for Salisbury to consider it and, at an appropriate time, to withdraw his allegation. Mr Goss: I undertake to do so when the whole file is tabled. Mr HINZE: They will all be tabled. Mr Goss interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That comment by the member for Salisbury is quite out of order. Mr Burns: You said something else on 23 August. You said that there was no conflict of interest in your portfolio. I think that what happened yesterday proves that there was a conflict of interest. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Burns: You misled the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Do you notice how quiet I am, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I do. An Opposition Member inteijected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HINZE: Don't get thrown out on my behalf. Tommy; I wouldn't like it. Mr Burns: No, I won't. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HINZE: Another serious allegations raised against me is that there was conflict of interest. The honourable member for Salisbury canvassed that in his speech in the House last Thursday and posed a number of questions. As I said at my press conference yesterday, after receipt by the solicitors for Junefair Pty Ltd of the TAB decision to recommend to me as Minister the Junefair Pty Ltd application, I immediately sought Crown Law advice. That advice was that there was no conflict of interest in the law. That Crown Law advice referred to a convention of the Federal Parliament goveming the code of conduct recognised by the Prime Minister and each of his Ministers. Although this is only a convention, it provides a useful guide in this matter. Referring to a Minister, the convention says— "When directing the business of the department he administers: A Minister should inform the Prime Minister of any real or apparent conflict of interest that arises; The Prime Minister, unless he asks the Minister to divest himself of the interest, either arrange for another Minister to deal with the matter or else give explicit authorisation to the original Minister to proceed with it; and In any event, the Prime Minister have the matter recorded." In the circumstances, of course, where "Prime Minister" appears, it should read "Premier and Treasurer". 146 27 August 1985 Ministerial Statement

By making the decision that I did, with other members of my family involved in Junefair Pty Ltd, to withdraw the application and by informing the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer of my concems about any real or apparent conflict of interest, I believe that I have followed that convention. Any suggestion that I would allow myself to be put into a position of having a conflict of interest in this matter is, therefore, categorically rejected. However, I and other members of my family had determined by that time that we would withdraw the Junefair Pty Ltd application because in the eyes of members of the public it could be seen to be a potential conflict of interest. That was the matter referred to by the honourable member for Tingalpa, or wherever the hell it is. Allegations made by the honourable member for Salisbury have been reported in the media to the effect that I somehow attempted to deny my involvement with the Junefair Pty Ltd application. On 22 August last year, in this Parliament the honourable member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers) raised this matter. In rising to a point of order, I referred to that honourable member's remarks about Junefair Pty Ltd, and the words which foUow are recorded in Hansard. I said— "He began to refer to a company, which is a family company in which I have an interest." Mr Goss: Why did you deny it last Thursday in a press conference? Mr HINZE: I did not deny it. That reference clearly proves beyond any shadow of doubt that I did not attempt to deny my involvement in my family company. An Opposition Member inteijected. Mr HINZE: If such silly allegations are made, they must be corrected. I think it is important that the history of this matter be recorded in the interests of public record, and I can do no better than cite a statement issued on 24 August 1984 by the chairman of the Totalisator Administration Board, Mr Ian Callinan, Queen's Counsel. I shall table a document. Mr Goss: Why do you not table the lot? Why is the House getting this piecemeal? Mr HINZE: Because, quite obviously, it will be similar to Blue Hills. Opposition members will be trying to keep it going, and I will be here to answer them. Mr Goss: You can stop it dead. Put the file on the table. Mr HINZE: Do not worry; I will not be mnning away. I also cite further comments made by Mr Callinan as reported in this morning's Courier-Mail. I table the article, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Junefair the best: chairman By Peter Morley The TAB board had considered that the Junefair Pty Ltd application to establish a sub-agency at Oxenford was the best in terms of public convenience and profitability, the chairman, Mr Ian Callinan, said yesterday. Outlining the history of moves for a licence, Mr Callinan said that in November, 1980, Mr and Mrs Frith sought an agency at their newsagency premises at Oxenford, but officers decided it was not warranted. By July, 1982, one officer was of the opinion the application should be granted but board records showed the matter did not come up for consideration until May last year. A further survey then showed a full agency operation was not warranted and it was doubtful whether any operation was justified, and a decision was deferred for 12 months. Ministerial Statements 27 August 1985 147

In January this year, Junefair solicitors sought a licence for a sub-agency near or at the Oxenford Tavem and it was resolved to call applications, nine of which were received, including a fresh one from the Friths in respect of the post office premises they moved to in July. The board established that Mr Hinze was a director of Junefair which renewed its application. "In those circumstances, the board was conscious of the need to examine and evaluate very carefully each application submitted." Mr Callinan said. "A detailed survey was carried out by employed officers of the Board, who recommended the acceptance of the Junefair application in respect of premises at the Oxenford Tavem. "The board, however, thought that the matter should be independently evaluated and accordingly, engaged Mr V. G. Feros, an independent and experienced town planning consultant, to assess the applications and to make recommendations on them, bearing in mind among other things, the primary obligation of the board to find the best site in business terms and to promote investment with the TAB." Mr HINZE: There is one further document that should be included in the public record, and that is the assessment by an independent town-planning consultant, Mr Victor Feros, of the nine applications made to the board for the Oxenford subagency. I table that document also. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid upon the table the documents referred to.

DAYS ALLOTTED TO ADDRESS IN REPLY

Sessional Order Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House), by leave, without notice: I move— "That the House may, on the Tuesdays and Thursdays allotted to the debate on the Address in Reply, continue to sit until 10 o'clock p.m. Each of the periods between 11 o'clock a.m. and 4 o'clock p.m. and between 4 o'clock p.m. and 10 o'clock p.m. shall be accounted an allotted day. All provisions of Standing Order No. 17 shall, mutatis mutandis, continue to apply." Motion agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Reports by Mediator Appointed under Retail Shop Leases Act Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology) (11.24 a.m.), by leave: I shall lay on the table of the House the first report of Mr W. M. Lamond, FREI, AAIV, mediator appointed under the provisions of the RetaU Shop Leases Act 1984-1985, for the period 1 August 1984 to 30 June 1985. A mediator is required under the Act to report to the Minister annually on the discharge of his functions during the year, bringing to notice all matters within his knowledge that were significant to the relationship of landlords and tenants under retaU shop leases. I believe that the mediation process, provided in the RetaU Shop Leases Act is the cheapest and simplest way of settling most disputes. The presence of an unbiased third party interested in settling a dispute will usually lead to disputants agreeing to compromise. I pay a tribute to Mr Lamond on his mediation work during the past year. He has held many meetings with tenant groups, landlords and centre managers. At those meetings he has explained the provisions of the Act. Not only has he mediated successfixUy in a large number of cases but also on a number of occasions he has successfully arranged settlements of shopping centre problems before individual cases came to the mediation process. The Govemment is lucky to have as a mediator such a man as Mr Lamond, with all his long experience in shop-leasing practices. 148 27 August 1985 Ministerial Statements

I also lay on the table of the House the report for the year ended 30 June 1985 of members of the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal established under the provisions of the Retail Shop Leases Act. Only three disputes were heard by the Tribunal during the period. Two were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the leases were entered into before the commencement of the Act. In the other case, a decision was made in favour of the tenant. The tribunal's report notes a problem with facilities to record evidence. I propose to investigate ways and means of overcoming that problem as soon as possible. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid on the table the reports referred to.

Totalisator Administration Board Licences Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (11.26 a.m.), by leave: In view of the statement attributed to my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing that TAB agency licence applications were not always referred to him, I have considered the position with respect to such licences. I believe that, in view of the residual discretion reposed in the Honourable the Minister to grant or refuse these licences, applications therefore should have received his consideration. However, the position with respect to such licences as have been issued without the appropriate ministerial consideration can be cured with a minimum of inconvenience to all concemed by all agency licences being brought up to the Totalisator Administration Board for examination and those previously not approved by the Minister being submitted to him for his consideration. This, however, is a matter for the board.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to move that so much of the Standing Orders be set aside as would allow the Parliament to examine forthwith all aspects of the Hinze family TAB agency affair and the alleged conflict of interest and impropriety on the part of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 35 NOES, 42 Braddy Palaszczuk Ahem Lane Bums Price Alison Lester Campbell Scott Austin Lingard Casey Shaw Bailey Littleproud Comben Smith Bjelke-Petersen McKechnie D'Arcy Underwood Booth McPhie De Lacy Vaughan Borbidge Menzel Eaton Veivers Cahill Miller Fouras Warburton Chapman Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Wamer, A. M Cooper Newton Goss White Elliott Powell Gygar FitzGerald Randell Hamill Gibbs, I. J. Row Innes Glasson Simpson Knox Goleby Stephan Kmger Gunn Stoneman Lee Harper Tumer Lickiss Harvey Wharton Mackenroth Henderson McElligott Tellers: Hinze Tellers: McLean Davis Jennings Kaus Milliner Prest Katter Neal Resolved in the negative. Personal Explanations 27 August 1985 149

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (11.37 a.m.), by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to the statement made by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) and his request that I give consideration to withdrawing the statements that I made and consideration to his answer to them. I will give consideration to withdrawing those statements only when he tables the whole of the file rather than a self-serving selection of the documents within it, as has occurred today. In the interests of putting as many documents on the table as possible, I will table further intemal TAB correspondence. Briefly, I will table a letter from the general manager to the chairman (Sir Edward Lyons), dated 20 Febmary 1984. Mr Wharton: Is this a personal explanation that you are making? Mr GOSS: Yes. It is in reference to this. It is in rejection. I will just record the dates; I will not read the documents. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the honourable menber for Salisbury wish to table the documents? If so, he should table them and get on with his personal explanation. Mr GOSS: Mr Speaker, do you want me to Ust what I am tabling? Mr SPEAKER: Yes. I cannot allow debate on this particular subject. Mr GOSS: Mr Speaker, do you want me to table the documents or list them? Mr SPEAKER: Yes. The honourable member can table the documents. Mr GOSS: I will simply table the documents and honourable members can look at them later if they have not already seen them. In relation to the allegations that I made, as purportedly refuted by the Minister— I will give serious consideration to a withdrawal when the file is tabled and when the Minister is prepared to stand up—because he has not done so yet—and say that he did not use his influence to block granting of the application by Mr and Mrs Frith. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Mr VEIVERS (Ashgrove) (11.39 a.m.), by leave: In reply to the chaUenge by the Minister for Racing for me to withdraw my comments, I make this point: The Minister has been arguing with the umpire right from the word go in this issue. A Government Member: Is this a personal explanation? Mr VEIVERS: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will give me some time to decide whether a personal explanation is being made. Mr VEIVERS: I am making a personal explanation because I have been challenged to withdraw the comments that I made last year. The Minister has been arguing with the umpire since the word go, and now he has been given out, caught behind. He will be clean bowled next time. I will not withdraw: Mr SPEAKER: Order! These are not personal explanations, and I advise honourable members at this juncture that it is wrong for them to rise in this Chamber and make a farce of Standing Orders. As I have said before, if an honourable member seeks leave to make a personal explanation, it must be of a personal nature. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (11.40 a.m.), by leave: Last Thursday in the House, the Premier and Treasurer purposely misrepresented and misquoted from a press release 150 27 August 1985 Select Committee of Privileges in the News-Mail dated 11 June 1985. He alleged that I advocated substantial death duties and a capital gains tax. In both cases, he was wrong. The Premier and Treasurer could not quote any such statements from the News-Mail article because no such statements were there. I have advocated a reduction in personal income tax. However, unlike the Premier and Treasurer, I do not support a flat rate of tax, under which he and his wife would save more than $30,000 a year in tax on their parliamentary salaries alone. That cut would be paid for by pensioners and lowly paid workers. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer): I will table the document for the honourable member. He is misleading the House. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table. Mr Burns: You had a Dorothy Dixer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again wam the member for Lytton. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I did not ask him to make that siUy statement. Mr SPEAKER: The waming is under Standing Order No. 123A. That is the honourable member's second waming. Mr Burns: What is he doing? Mr SPEAKER: Persistent interjections Mr Burns: Under what Standing Order Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have wamed the honourable member for Lytton for the last time. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (11.42 a.m.), by leave: On Thursday last, the Premier and Treasurer said that I was untmthful. That would be the greatest untmth ever! I table a newspaper cutting dated 19 June 1985 relative to a court case held in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court. It indicates that what I said in the House on Thursday by way of interjection was tme. Marijuana was found growing on the Bjelke-Petersen property, and the Premier and Treasurer, by his denial, has misled the House. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to.

SELECT COMMITTEE OF PIUVILEGES

Appointment of Members Mr NEAL (Balonne): I move— "(1) That this House do appoint a Select Committee of Privileges; (2) That the Committee consist of Messrs Stoneman, Cooper, McPhie, Palaszczuk, Lickiss, Ms A. M. Warner and the mover; (3) That four members be a quomm at any meeting of the Committee; (4) That the Committee have and exercise such powers, duties and responsibilities as may, from time to time, generally or in any particular case, be determined by the House; (5) That, in the exercise of the aforesaid powers, duties and responsibilities, the Committee have authority and power to send for persons, papers and records unless otherwise determined by the House in any particular case save however Use of Official Aircraft 27 August 1985 151

that a Minister of the Crown or an officer of the Public Service shall not be obliged to provide information, oral or written, which has been— (a) certified by a Crown Law Officer to be information which, if it were sought in a Court, would be a proper matter in respect of which to claim Crown privilege; or (b) certified by the responsible Minister, with the approval of the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet assembled, to be information such that its disclosure would be against the public interest; (6) That the Committee have leave to sit during any adjoumment of the House notwithstanding that such adjournment exceeds seven days; (7) That the Committee may sit during the sitting of the House; (8) That the Committee, so far as is practicable and as it may do, function in a manner similar to that of a Committee of Privilege of the British House of Commons for the time being unless otherwise determined by the House in any particular case; (9) That the Committee, in addition to sitting from time to time on or in relation to matters of privilege, may meet from time to time to discuss privilege generally, including acts or omissions constituting instances of breach of privUege, whether in Queensland or elsewhere, and to inform itself with respect to privilege in such manner as it thinks fit; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may invite from and discuss with such persons or bodies as it thinks fit, submissions and views on or in relation to matters of privilege; (10) That the foregoing provisions of this motion, so far as they may be inconsistent with Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders." Motion agreed to.

OVERTIME PAID IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS Order for Return Mr KAUS (Mansfield): I move— "That there be laid upon the table of the House a retum showing the amount of overtime paid in each Govemment Department (all funds) in 1984-85." Motion agreed to.

FEES PAID BY CROWN TO BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS Order for Return Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham): I move— "That there be laid upon the table of the House a retum showing all payments made by the Govemment to barristers and solicitors during the 1984-85 financial year, stating the names of the recipients and the amounts received separately." Motion agreed to.

USE OF OFFICIAL AIRCRAFT Order for Return Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora): I move— "That there be laid upon the table of the House, in relation to the operation of aircraft owned by the Govemment of Queensland, a retum of travel by Ministers of the Crown during the year 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985, showing— (1) Total flying time; (2) Total number of passengers carried; (3) Names of Ministers who travelled on any of the aircraft." Motion agreed to. 152 27 August 1985 Committee of Subordinate Legislation

COMMITTEE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION Appointment of Members Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora): I move— "(1) That this House do appoint a Committee to be called the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. (2) That the Committee shall consist of seven members. (3) That the Committee consist of Messrs Jennings, Alison, Stephan, Comben, Braddy, Gygar and the mover. (4) That it shall be the duty of the Committee to consider all Regulations, Rules, By-laws, Ordinances, Orders in Council or Proclamations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') which under any Act are required to be laid on the table of this House, and which are subject to disallowance by resolution. If the Regulations are made whilst the House is sitting, the Committee shall consider the Regulations before the end of the period during which any motion for disallowance of those Regulations may be moved in the House. If the Regulations are made whilst the House is not sitting the Committee shall consider the Regulations as soon as conveniently may be after the making thereof (5) The Committee shall, with respect to the Regulations, consider— (a) whether the Regulations are in accord with the general objects of the Act pursuant to which they are made; (b) whether the Regulations trespass unduly on rights previously established by law; (c) whether the Regulations contain matter which in the opinion of the Committee should be properly dealt with in an Act of Parliament; (d) whether for any special reason the form or purport of the Regulation calls for elucidation; (e) whether the Regulations unduly make rights dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions. (6) If the Committee is of the opinion that any of the Regulations ought to be disallowed— (a) it shall report that opinion and the grounds thereof to the House before the end of the period during which any motion for disallowance of those Regulations may be moved in the House; (b) if the House is not sitting, it may report its opinion and the grounds thereof to the authority by which the Regulations were made. (7) If the Committee is of the opinion that any other matter relating to any of the Regulations should be brought to the notice of the House, it may report that opinion and matter to the House. (8) A report of the Committee shall be presented to the House in writing by a member of the Committee nominated for that purpose by the Committee. (9) The Permanent Head of the relevant Department shall forthwith upon any Regulation, which is required to be tabled in Parliament, being approved by the Govemor in Council, forward sufficient copies to the secretary of the Committee for the use of the members of the Committee. (10) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, provided that a Minister or members of the Public Service shall not be obliged to provide information, oral or written, which has been— (a) certified by a Crown Law Officer to be information which, if it were sought in a Court, would be a proper matter in respect of which to claim Crown privilege; or Questions Upon Notice 27 August 1985 153

(b) certified by the responsible Minister, with the approval of the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet assembled, to be against the public interest to disclose. (11) The Committee shall have power to act and, subject to paragraph (10), to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses whether the House is sitting or not. (12) The proceedings of the Committee shall, except wherein otherwise ordered, be regulated by the Standing Orders and Rules of the Legislative Assembly relating to select committees." Motion agreed to.

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

1. Oil Palm Project, Lockhart River Community Mr BURNS asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to his announcement that Harrisons and Crosfields are to carry out a feasibility study into an oil palm project at the Lockhart River community— (1) Why was a British firm appointed for this task when at least six Australian firms would have welcomed the opportunity to tender? (2) Who is paying for the study? (3) Who is the client? (4) What is the nature of the agreement entered into by the Lockhart River community council, when was the agreement signed, who were the signatories, and what provision has been made for the council to have some say in the future development of the project? (5) Will the council have some equity in the project? (6) Is it expected that the project wiU employ Aboriginal labour? (7) If so, will the relevant awards and conditions apply? Answer— (1 to 7) The development of the oil palm industry has been proposed by Harrisons and Crosfield. That company will commission the feasibility study, and the engagement of a consultant is a matter for consideration by the company. The Lockhart Community Council has given a written undertaking to the Queensland Govemment that, subject to the satisfactory outcome of the feasibility study and to further negotiations on conditions between the company, the council and the Govemment, a lease wUl be made available over approximately 12 000 ha of land for a period of 75 years. The undertaking was signed on 19 June 1985, by the chairman and four members of the community council. Matters relating to employment of Aboriginal labour, the payment of wages and any retum to the community will be determined following completion of the feasibUity study and further consultation between all parties concerned.

2. Fire Services Levies Mr PREST asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services— (1) How many contributors to the fire services levy, stage 2, were there to be in the respective groups 1 to 12, Classes A, B, C and D in each group under the first proposal gazetted on 8 June? 154 27 August 1985 Questions Upon Notice

(2) How many contributors are there now in the respective groups 1 to 16, classes A, B, C and D, as now published in the Queensland Govemment Gazette No. 110? (3) How much money was raised for 1984-85 by way of (a) levy, (b) insurance contributions not covered by levy, (c) donations to fire-prevention research and (d) any other contributions? Answer— The answers sought by the honourable member are lengthy and comprehensive. (1) Based on information available from local authorities, it was estimated that the maximum number of property-owners who would have contributed to the fire services levy under the levy groupings determined on 6 June are as follows— Property Totals by Class

1985/86 Total Number Category A Class B Class C Class D Class of Properties

1 56 797 22 434 8 173 14 420 101824 2 531002 62 503 32 960 48 661 675 126 3 9 168 1353 1070 2 447 14 038 4 3 590 733 771 1281 6 375 5 10 688 1 718 2 512 2 831 17 749 6 2 096 319 274 650 3 339 7 963 123 96 140 1 322 8 2 766 212 192 360 3 530 9 1 841 93 67 115 2 116 10 1 179 119 80 117 1 495 11 244 12 7 15 278 12 300 28 16 36 380 620 759 89 647 46 218 71095 827 572 (2) It is not possible to predict accurately by grouping the number of contributors under the revised levy scheme until local govemment has reallocated property categories. (3) Funds received by the fire services during the financial year 1984-85 were as follows— $ (a) Property-owners' contributions (Private dwellings and vacant land) 26,893,250 (b) Insurance levies (Commercial and industrial properties) 27,243,250 (c) Donations to fire prevention and research 50,000 (d) State Govemment contribution 7,769,500 Commonwealth Contribution 405,000 62,361,000 The net Budget expenditure for 1984-85 was $62.2m, excluding research expenditure of $50,000.

3. Paltridge and Associates Pty Ltd Mr PREST asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services— With reference to the fire services levy, stage 2— (1) Who was responsible for the compilation of the statistics for categories and charges? (2) Was Paltridge and Associates Pty Ltd involved in a consulting capacity? Questions Upon Notice 27 August 1985 155

(3) If so, what was the fee charged for the consultancy? (4) Is the principal of Paltridge and Associates Pty Ltd his former adviser? (5) What money has been paid to Paltridge and Associates Pty Ltd by him as Minister for his advice since he resigned as adviser on fire services? (6) Because of the problems associated with the implementation of charges to rate­ payers in stage 2, has Paltridge and Associates Pty Ltd been requested to refund any portion of the consultancy fee to him as Minister and, if so, how much has been requested and how much has been refunded? Answer— (1) The Minister's fire service advisers, with the assistance of local authorities. (2) No. (3) There was no consultancy. (4) The honourable member should direct this inquiry to the Corporate Affairs Office. (5) A payment of $3,700 was made some months ago. (6) No.

4. Koala Virus Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— (1) Did he see the 60 Minutes program, part of which contained a segment in respect of the threat to the Australian koala population posed by the vims, chlamydia psittaci? (2) Did he also note the suggestion by Mr Ronald Straun that the problem was being brought about by over-population, and that he therefore advocated culling koalas to rectify the position? (3) Is Queensland considering taking this option and what action is the Queensland Govemment instigating to ensure the continued viability of the koala population? Answer— (1) No; but the program was brought to my notice. (2) The Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has been working on this problem for some time and, indeed, its researchers were the first in Australia to discover that the infertility disease was having a serious effect on wild populations of koalas. My advisers agree that there is a strong possibility that the disease problems are caused by over-population. (3) In Queensland there are no situations in which koalas are so crowded that culling has been necessary, and such actions are not contemplated. Culling has been carried out in Victoria in a few isolated situations in which koalas have become so overcrowded in the past that they stripped trees of leaves, causing severe damage to the trees. Queensland started a program of koala research in 1971. One of the major findings of this project was that infertility, associated with the presence of cysts on the ovaries and utems of females, was present at very high levels and was having a marked effect on population size. This finding has given rise to the present concem about the effect of disease on koalas. The impact of this disease problem is still under study. 156 27 August 1985 Questions Upon Notice

5. Funding for Expo 88 Mr SHAW asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to the funding for Expo 88— (1) How much money has the authority raised by way of grant from the State Govemment and how has this been expended? (2) How much money has the authority raised by way of grant from the Australian Govemment and how has this been expended? (3) How much money has the authority raised by way of loan, what interest is the authority paying on such loans, from whom have these amounts been borrowed and how have these funds been expended? (4) At the time when the Queensland Govemment agreed to host Expo 88, what amount of money did the Queensland Govemment agree to contribute by way of grant and what amount did the Australian Government agree to contribute by way of grant? Answer— (1) No grants have been made by the State to the authority, but the State has assisted the authority through stamp duty exemptions on site acquisitions and in other ways. (2) No grants towards the operation of Expo have been received from the Com­ monwealth Govemment, although contributions have been made by that Govemment to Westem Australia for the America's Cup yacht race and to South Australia for the Grand Prix car race. However, part of the Commonwealth contribution towards the cost of constmction of its paviUon has been received. This amounts to $3m, but none of those funds have been expended to date, as arrangements regarding its pavilion are stiU under discussion. Queensland cannot obtain information from the Commonwealth as to the sort of pavUion that it wants, and so on. (3) To 30 June 1985, the Queensland Govemment has assisted the authority in its funding by the raising of loans of $8 3.9m through the Queensland Development Authority on a floating interest rate basis. Interest on these loans is being capitalised pending the finalisation of long-term funding arrangements. Expenditure to date is as follows— Land acquisition and site development $7 5m Administration and operating costs $3m (4) At the time the State agreed to host Expo 88, no commitments to contribute towards the costs of staging the Exposition were made by either the State Govemment or the Federal Govemment.

6. Ministerial Rescission of Council Resolutions and Non-acceptance of Council Recommendations Mr SHAW asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— (1) On how many occasions over the last two years has he used his ministerial powers to rescind resolutions by local councils? (2) What are the names of the councils concerned and the resolutions rescinded and what are the reasons for his intervention? (3) On how many occasions has he refused to accept council recommendations for amendments to town-planning rezoning and how many rezonings have been approved contrary to council recommendations or on his own initiative? Questions Upon Notice 27 August 1985 157

Answer— (1) On two occasions during the last two years, the Govemor in Council has exercised his power under the Local Government Act 1936-1985 to rescind resolutions passed by local authorities. (2) The local authorities were the Livingstone Shire CouncU and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council. The resolution of the Livingstone Shire Council related to the suspension of the shire engineer and was carried by only one vote, the chairman and deputy chairman of the council voting against the motion. Following full consideration of the matter, I decided to appoint a retired District Court judge and a retired chief engineer of the Department of Local Government to investigate charges raised against the shire engineer by the council, and I expect to receive a report on the matter in the near future. The Hinchinbrook Shire Council resolution related to a decision of the council to take a poll of electors of the shire on the question of the carrying out of certain river improvement works by the Herbert River Improvement Tmst. Because a petition for the taking of the poll had not been presented to the council as required by the Local Govemment Act, the Solicitor-General advised that the council had no power in law to take the poll. The council was made aware of that decision but still persisted in proceeding with what would have been an unlawful poll. (3) The information sought by the honourable member is being extracted from the records of the Department of Local Govemment and I will inform him by letter as early as possible of the outcome.

7. College Land, Hervey Bay Mr YEWDALE asked the Minister for Education— With reference to the land taken by the State Govemment under the Proclamation dated 17 November 1984 for the constmction of a college in Hervey Bay which included portion 59 and lot 1 on Reg. Plan No. 193855, county of March, parish of Urangan— (1) What are the name and address of the person from whom the land was taken? (2) What was the amount paid by the State Govemment for the land? (3) What are the name and address of the person who valued the land? (4) On what date was the former owner given notice of intention to resume? (5) Had the Minister personally or through his department had discussions with the owner before the notice of intention to resume and, if so, on what dates? (6) Did he initiate these discussions? (7) Have all the relevant documents required under State Govemment laws with this land purchase been lodged and, if so, on what dates, and were these documents fully completed with all information provided? Answer— (1 to 7) The honourable member seems to be under a serious misconception about the acquisition of land at Hervey Bay for education purposes. The land was not resumed; it was purchased by the Government for $500,000 from Mr N. Jacobsen, who had the land advertised for sale. Similar parcels of land in that area have sold for up to 70 per cent above the price paid by the Govemment. The land was purchased in accordance with the usual procedures and was accordingly valued by the Land Administration Commission.

8. Electricity Tariffs Mr BOOTH asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— (1) Is he aware of recent statements by an ALP spokesman that recent changes to electricity tariffs discriminated against mral consumers? 158 27 August 1985 Questions Upon Notice

(2) What are the details relating to equalised tariffs throughout Queensland? Answer— (1 & 2) I thank the honourable member for Warwick for his question because it highlights the hypocrisy of the ALP in its attitude towards the rationalisation of electricty tariffs in this State. On the one hand ALP members in metropolitan electorates claim that Brisbane consumers should have cheaper power charges, whUe on the other hand they now maintain that mral and provincial residents are getting a raw deal. The fact is that the stage has now been reached at which all domestic water heating and general supply tariffs are at uniform rates. In other words, in these charges no Queenslander is paying more for his or her electricity, no matter where he or she Uves. The Queensland Govemment has established this policy and, despite attempts by the ALP to undermine it, the vast majority of the people of this State have accepted it as a fair and reasonable decision. If the ALP members for Cook, Caims, Townsville, Mourilyan, Mount Isa, Mackay, Rockhampton, Port Curtis and Bundaberg believe that a uniform electricity tariff is unjust, let them speak out against it so that the people in their electorates know where they stand. However, I will not be holding my breath for their answers because, in the past, some of their constituents were paying 50 per cent more for their power charges than people in the Brisbane area. There are a few instances, such as farm tariffs, in which there are still some slight differences in charges, but these will be rectified as soon as possible.

9. Funding for Rural Adjustment Scheme Mr BOOTH asked the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer— With reference to statements by a Federal ALP member claiming that the Queensland Govemment has provided very little funds towards the Rural Adjustment Scheme and also claiming that Federal money has been placed into consolidated revenue and, in fact, claiming that the Queensland Govemment is cooking the books— Will he give the source of all funds provided for the Rural Adjustment Scheme in the year 1984-85 and the disbursement of such funds? Answer— In the 1984-85 financial year, the receipts to the Rural Adjustment Fund were $25.4m, made up as foUows— $ From the Commonwealth for assistance under Parts A and C of the agreement (which is totally Commonwealth funded) 9.4m From the State under Part B for assistance to the sugar industry 5.0m Interest on the fund balance 0.4m Repayments from borrowers 10.3m Recovery of administration expenses 0.3m Expenditure of $22.7m from the fund was made as follows—

$ Advances to borrowers 15.2m Repayments to State and Commonwealth 6.7m Administration expenses 0.8m The $5m made available by the State for the sugar industry was not fully taken up at 30 June 1985 and the balance was carried forward for expenditure this financial year. Questions Upon Notice 27 August 1985 159

10. Fees Payable to Electrical Workers and Contractors Board Mr VAUGHAN asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the increased fees payable to the Electrical Workers and Contractors Board from 1 July 1985, which were published in the Queensland Government Gazette No. 46 on 1 June 1985, and which were subsequently amended and republished in the Queensland Govemment Gazette No. 77 on 29 June 1985, and as these fees were last increased in December 1978— (1) Why were the fees for (a) application for an electrical contractor's licence initially increased from $50 to $200, then dropped back to $50, (b) application for renewal of an electrical contractor's licence where the application is lodged on or before the date of expiry of the existing licence initially increased from $40 to $200, then dropped back to $50, (c) application for renewal of an electrical contractor's licence where the application is lodged within 14 days after the date on which such licence expired initially increased from $60 to $225, then dropped back to $60 and (d) application for renewal of an electrical contractor's licence where the application is lodged later than 14 days after the date on which such licence expired initially increased from $85 to $250, then dropped back to $85? (2) As it is almost seven years since these fees were last increased, and as it is Govemment practice to increase its fees and charges regularly to cover the cost of the service, why have not these fees been increased to cover increased costs? (3) Why were other fees increased by 66.6 per cent to 100 per cent while some fees were not increased at all? Answer— (1 & 2) The honourable member knows that the Electrical Contractors Association has been seeking to revert to the closed shop situation which existed in the contracting industry prior to 1977. The public utterances of officials of the Electrical Trades Union indicate that this attitude has union support. The Govemment proposed a package deal to remove some of the abuses in the system; for instance the holding of licences for status purposes with no intention to engage in contracting work. The Government's package included the higher fee of $200. There was criticism from the Electrical Contractors Association over the increased fee and the Govemment therefore decided to revert to a fee which was sufficient only to cover costs. (3) These increases relate to such things as replacement certificates and licences, where the fee has increased from $10 to $20. The new fees reflect the costs involved in processing applications.

11. Electricity Tariffs Mr VAUGHAN asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to his announcement, on 7 June, that after 1 September domestic electricity consumers who were on the continuous water heating tariff and had not changed over to the controlled water heating tariff where it was available would be charged for all electricity consumed at the higher domestic light and power tariff— (1) As at 30 June, how many domestic consumers were supplied with electricity by each of the electricity distribution boards in the State? (2) How many of these consumers were on the (a) continuous water heating tariff, (b) controlled water heating tariff and (c) night-rate water heating tariff? (3) How many of these consumers on the continuous water heating tariff have made application to change over to the (a) controlled water heating tariff and (b) night-rate water heating tariff? (4) As there are thousands of domestic consumers who want to change over to the controlled water heating tariff but have to wait because electricity boards cannot provide this cheaper tariff for some time, and since such consumers are connected to the supply 160 27 August 1985 Question Without Notice

for a maximum of six hours a day more than consumers currently on the controlled water heating tariff, will the Government consider introducing a special water heating tariff of 5.75c per kWh (which represents a charge of the continuous tariff for 25 per cent of their water heating consumption and a charge of the controlled tariff for 75 per cent of their water heating consumption) for those consumers until they can be changed over to the controlled tariff? (5) If not, what is the reason? (6) As there is a small number of consumers in parts of the State, namely Pinkenba, Wynnum North and Spring Hill, who for technical reasons cannot be provided with the controlled water heating tariff will the Govemment consider, as a concession, charging these consumers at the controlled water heating rate or the special water heating tariff of 5.75c per kWh, if agreed to, for all electricity consumed for water heating? Answer— (1) Domestic consumers as at 30 June 1985— SEQEB 548 310 SWQEB 56 746 WBBEB 46 865 CEB 54 375 MEB 30 265 NORQEB 61 432 FNQEB 47 353 845 346

(2) Total number of consumers on the water heating tariffs as at 30 June 1985— (a) Continuous tariff 317 712 (b) Controlled tariff 231 855 (c) Night rate tariff 19 411 It is estimated that all but 2V2 per cent of these consumers are domestic. (3) Consumers presently in the process of being changed total approximately 8 650 for the controlled tariff and 1 080 for the night-rate tariff. (4 & 5) This matter was considered following earlier representations from the honourable member. As he knows, the lower rate on the conroUed tariff is available because consumers' loads can be switched off at times of high demand. By controlling this load, electricity authorities are able to make certain cost reductions. If the load is not able to be switched off, there are no cost reductions which can be passed on. Lower combination rates suggested by the member would effectively be a subsidy from other consumers. (6) Arrangements have been made for the introduction of the controlled water heating tariff to these areas.

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE Application by Junefair Pty Ltd for Totalisator Administration Board Subagency Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to his contradictory statements about his involvement in the TAB subagency licence affair. Firstly, the Minister strongly implied, as appears in this moming's Courier-Mail, that he was not aware of the provision of the Racing and Betting Act requiring his ministerial approval for agencies and subagencies. He said that, had he realised that his final approval was required, he would have told his wife and sons that there was no use in proceeding with a licence application. On the other hand, in complete contradiction, the Minister admitted knowing full well the requirements of the Racing and Betting Act, claiming that his attempts to Address in Reply 27 August 1985 161 convey the proper course of action to Sir Edward Lyons about ministerial approval for licences had been futile. It is some months since Sir Edward Lyons departed from the TAB scene. I now ask: Which, if any, of those very contradictory statements is tme? Was he or was he not aware of the requirements of the Act that he administers? Two separate and contradictory statements were made by the Minister yesterday. Mr HINZE: I cannot accept that they are contradictory statements. I tried to give a factual account. When I went into the sin bin crowded with newspeople firing questions at me one after the other, 1, in my position as Minister, tried to convey what had occurred and also the way in which the department has been administered over the last Mr SPEAKER: Order! At 12 noon, In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 17, the House proceeded with the debate on the Address in Reply.

ADDRESS IN REPLY Resumption of Debate—First and Second Allotted Days Debate resumed from 21 August (see p. 49) on Mr Henderson's motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (12 noon): The Gover­ nor's Opening Speech for this session of Parliament was noteworthy for its content— noteworthy, however, not for what it contained, but for what it left out. 1 realise that the Govemor is new to his job. I appreciate also that his Opening Speech is prepared by a Govemment speech-writer. Nonetheless, I find it extraordinary that the Governor's Speech ignores almost all of the major issues—the serious issues—facing our State of Queensland. No mention was made of the stricken sugar industry and what the National Party State Government intends doing to assist the industry in its time of greatest need. No mention was made of the breaking-point at which Queensland's emergency and essential services are now operating. No mention was made of the ongoing crisis in industrial relations in our State, where conflict, thanks to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, has replaced commonsense. No mention was made of the State Government's proposal to implement a jobs contract scheme—to exploit employees and reduce Queenslanders' standard of living. No mention was made of the explosion in State Government taxes on such basic items as electricity supplies and third-party insurance. No mention was made, in this the Intemational Youth Year, of the devastating problem of youth unemployment now mnning at nearly 25 per cent in Queensland. There is, however, a lot of nonsense in the Govemor's Speech, which I attribute to the Govemment speech-writer, and to which I will return later. I want to deal first with the even greater nonsense paraded before this House last week by the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. I begin with the concluding remarks of the honourable member for Roma, who assures us all how the National Party Government will continue to provide Queensland with balanced and decentralised development. What a load of twaddle. The member for Roma might still be wearing nappies, but obviously he has mastered the National Party's first article of faith: when you tell a lie, make sure it is a good one and a big one. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has accused me of telling lies. I request that he withdraw that remark. 162 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Does the honourable member find the remark offensive? Mr COOPER: I find it offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Roma finds the remark offensive, and asks that it be withdrawn. Mr WARBURTON: I will delete the implication. I did not say that about him, but I will withdraw the remark unconditionally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind all honourable members that the procedure in this Chamber has been clarified by me conceming instances in which a direct reference has been made to an honourable member and to lies. Mr WARBURTON: Of course, I did not say that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would recommend for the attention of the honourable member for Roma the 1984 report on decentralisation by Professor C. P. Harris of James Cook University for the Queensland Department of Commercial and Industrial Development, which I have mentioned on numerous occasions. A survey was undertaken on behalf of the department, and the report states— "The Queensland Govemment has no explicit decentralisation policy or set of policy measures designed to favour the establishment or expansion of industries in non-metropolitan parts of the State." For the benefit of the honourable member for Roma, I would like to repeat another of Professor Harris's observations—this time on the National Party State Govemment's lack of economic policy and direction. Professor Harris, the Govemment's own expert, had this to say— "Most of the so-called development programs . . . have had no clear overall industry development or regional development direction. There has been little or no inter-departmental integration of objectives, policies and programs. It is therefore reasonable to claim that, in terms of State Govemment initiatives, no economic development strategy exists, or has existed in the past, in Queensland except on a limited, fragmented, ill-directed, and ad hoc basis." This is what the National Party calls "balanced and decentralised" development. Perhaps the National Party will explain why, after all this "balanced and decentralised" development, the enduring weakness of the Queensland economy continues to be its narrow base. Perhaps the National Party will explain how the Queensland Govemment intends to rectify this situation by spending the least of any State on services to industry development. I have described the National Party Govemment as one afflicted by cargo-cult mentality in its approach to economic development, and I have shown how it sits around waiting for things to happen rather than taking the necessary action to make them happen. Evidence of this approach is to be found in the National Party's pre-occupation with the amounts paid to the various States by way of subsidies and tariff protection. The National Party would have people believe that there is some form of grand conspiracy denying Queensland the level of protection and assistance extended to the other States. The tmth is that the tariffs are applied equally Australia-wide. Queensland does not receive comparable per capita amounts in tariffs and subsidies, for the simple reason that the National Party has not provided the "balanced development" that it boasts about. It has failed to attract sufficient industry to Queensland, it has failed to property stimulate the manufacturing sector, and it has failed to adequately diversify our State's economic base. The member for Roma further assured us of how the National Party Govemment will protect the rights of its citizens to receive essential services. Frankly, what sort of Address in Reply 27 August 1985 163

sick joke is that? It has probably escaped the attention of the National Party that the only genuine state of emergency in Queensland surrounds the provision of essential services. I remind the honourable member for Roma that the police, fire-fighting, ambulance and nursing services joined forces earlier this year to highlight their desperate shortages of staff and resources. The document they provided to the National Party Govemment was headed, Queensland's essential services in 1985. A state of emergency. What has happened since? What has been the Govemment's response? It has made no response of any consequence. In fact, it has done nothing. To the police, fire-fighting, ambulance and nursing services we can add another service that is stmggling to cope, that is, the Queensland prison service. Something is drastically wrong with the delivery of State Govemment services in Queensland when such a situation arises and continues. That it has not been acted on is a public scandal. Queenslanders are paying with their lives for the National Party's skinflint approach to funding essential services. Police authorities have said quite openly that people are being killed on Queensland roads because of insufficient police. The police force mns a Clayton's highway patrol because it does not have the officers or the vehicles to do the job properly. Medical authorities have said quite openly that people are dying in Queensland because the State Govemment does not provide a paramedic ambulance service. What hope is there of the Govemment's approving a paramedic service when it refuses to provide an adequate level of funding for standard ambulance services? Queenslanders are paying dearly for the National Party Govemment's mean and stingy ways. They are paying in cash and kind as car thieves and neighbourhood criminals make the most of a critical shortage of police. Police Commissioner Lewis said that Queensland needs an additional 440 police. Police Minister Glasson said likewise; but nothing has happened. The Police Dmg Squad remains hopelessly understaffed. No wonder one of the most spectacular growth industries over which the National Party has presided has been dmg abuse! Queenslanders are paying the way for this high-charge, low-service Govemment. They are slugged with the highest electricity and car registration charges in Australia, and are getting precious little in retum. The Queensland Govemment spends the least of any State on health, education and welfare services—and it shows. Parents are forced to pick up the slack of the Govemment's funding for education services. In 1984, the parents of Queensland's 374 000 State school students raised $16m to complement Govemment funding to secondary, primary and special schools. More than $2m of that was spent on printing, stationery, office equipment, class-room teaching aids, and, in some cases, such basic supplies as toilet paper. Parents are becoming increasingly reluctant to raise funds for items and services that they rightly regard as essential—items and services that in many cases should be provided by the State Government. The National Party attempts to misconstme its wholesale neglect of basic and essential services as lean and efficient Govemment administration. Mean and inefficient would be a more accurate appraisal. It goes further. Nurses in Queensland have been forced into taking industrial action, not for higher wages or better conditions for themselves but for improved standards of patient care. The State Govemment bludges off the untiring efforts of volunteer community welfare organisations. Because of the State Govemment's refusal to participate in joint 164 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Commonwealth/State funded programs such as home nursing services, Queensland's aged population is severely disadvantaged. Queensland families, Queensland's youth and Queensland's industries are losing out—for no other reason than the National Party Govemment's refusal to acknowledge and meet its responsibilities. I turn to third-party insurance. I am sure that all honourable members are aware that at present this matter is foremost in the minds of many Queenslanders. It is not common knowledge that the Government has had before it since March 1984 the report of a committee of inquiry into motor vehicle compulsory third-party personal injury insurance. The report contains 27 excellent recommendations. The chairman of the committee was Mr Winders. The three other notable gentlemen who participated in the inquiry were Mr Nosworthy, Mr Rutherford and Mr Spender. The Govemment has had since March 1984 to do something about the 27 recommendations, but it has not done anything. Now, it has the audacity to come before the people of Queensland and say, "We have another committee formed." Presumably, that committee is to examine the report of the previous committee of inquiry into third-party insurance. The major recommendation in that report referred to the setting up of a premiums committee, the matter about which there is great controversy at present. Prior to 30 September each year, that premiums committee would be given detailed information by each of the compulsory third-party insurers on important matters relating directly to compulsory third-party insurance operations. I refer to the famous schedule that imposes the huge costs upon ordinary motorists throughout the State. The Queensland National Party Govemment has been negligent by failing to review the first schedule to regulations pursuant to the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act. That is the schedule that shows the class and description of the motor vehicle, together with the annual premium in each case. Despite calls for the schedule to be reviewed, the latest call of note being by the Winders commitee of inquiry, there remain numerous anomalies causing problems for the owners and insurers and showing that in certain cases the system is being rorted. Let me give you some examples of the anomalies. Tarago-type commuter vans carrying up to eight people are to be charged $168 per year. Under class lA, buses with a carrying capacity of not more than 12 persons and used exclusively for private purposes will be charged $98—quite a significant amount less. The message is that if a person happens to be in the know, he registers his Tarago as a private-purpose bus and saves $70 a year. However, one has to be in the know; some people are. In the schedule, ambulances do not receive any specific mention but are classified under class 10 as motor vehicles of a class not specified. The new annual premium is a massive $606 a vehicle. In May 1983, the premium was lifted to $337; yet in November 1979, the figure was only $57 per annum. Now, the premium for each ambulance is $606. If ambulances were considered in the same way as buses that are used for hospital and charitable purposes, under the latest proposal the premium would be $156 per annum. However, for ambulances—the vehicles on which so many people depend for their lives—the premium will be $606; yet the Government claims that it cares about ambulance services and will do something about them. Even National Party members would agree that there is a massive difference between $606 and $156. If ambulances were considered in the same way as fire brigade vehicles, as they should be, no charge would be levied. In Western Australia, a State that is often compared with Queensland, the charge is $57.07 for each ambulance. I tum to fork-lifts, which are used extensively by business and industry. Fork-lifts usually operate in a warehouse or factory environment, but are occasionally driven on dedicated roads. A fork-lift is not specifically categorised and is also regarded as a motor vehicle of a class not specified, attracting an annual premium per unit of $606. So much for the National Party Government's concern for costs to smaU business and industry. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 165

While the Govemment continues to slug business with higher taxes and charges, it intends to embark on a program of pay-back to employers by the reduction of wages and entitlements to workers employed by those businesses. In Western Australia, the annual premium for a fork-lift is $57.07. I tum now to driving school vehicles, and another anomaly occurs here. To obtain comprehensive insurance coverage for a driving school vehicle—as distinct from third- party insurance—driving school operators must contribute more than the ordinary motorist, and, to most people, the reason would be understood clearly. Why is it that motor cars used by driving schools for the purpose of tuition attract a lower third-party premium than cars used by private motorists? Mr Burns: They pay less? Mr WARBURTON: Yes; motor cars used by driving schools have a lower com­ pulsory third-party premium, but a higher comprehensive insurance premium. The new figure for cars in this category is $95 per annum, compared with the new figure of $168 per annum for ordinary vehicles. I am not arguing that the cost for driving school vehicles should be increased, but it must be admitted that an anomaly exists that should have been considered ages ago. Finally, I tum to a very lucky group of people, and I am glad that some of my mral friends are in the House at the moment, because they may may be able to throw some light on this matter. These fortunate people somehow manage to get enormous concessions for compulsory third-party insurance providing that they state—I understand that the vast majority do—that their vehicle is used exclusively for farming, grazing or prospecting work. If a person says that a motor car is used exclusively for those purposes, the new payment wiU be $72 instead of $168. That is a significant saving. Owners of tmcks exceeding 2.0321 tonnes wUl pay $66 instead of $447. That also is a very significant saving. Imagine the total revenue difference if all farmers, graziers and prospectors made claims that certain vehicles used for private use were used exclusively—I impress upon the House that the word "exclusively" is important—in connection with farming, grazing or prospecting work. The fact is that neither the State Government Insurance Office (Queensland) nor the FAI Insurance Group ever questions a claim from these categories of people that the Mercedes, the Fairlane or, believe it or not, the campervan is used exclusively for farmwork, and, when claims have arisen from accidents, both insurance companies have consistently fully indemnified the vehicle-owner, even if it was found that the insurance coverage was under the wrong category. I make the point that I said that the great majority of people are into this caper; I did not say everybody. Government Members interjected. Mr WARBURTON: If some Government members have guilty consciences, I assure them that they have plenty of time to rise in the House to say that they own a property and insure their vehicles as not being exclusively used for farm work. They have plenty of opportunities to do that. Is it any wonder that this National Party Govemment would not act upon the recommendations in the Winders report? That would really have opened up the proverbial Pandora's box. The fact is that very few farmers, if any, insure any of their vehicles other than under the exclusive category. The point goes further in that many pastoral companies own tmcks that are used every day on dedicated roads and pay $66 per vehicle whereas, under the new deal, the tmckie operating the same type of tmck on the same roads and doing the same type of work pays $447. There will be plenty of opportunities, I am sure, to find out who may or may not be involved in that rort. There is every reason to believe that, because of the State Government's refusal to address the problems of the schedule, the present system is being rorted to the detriment 166 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

of the ordinary motorist. The worst feature of the whole matter is that the powers that be know of the rorting that goes on and do nothing about it. I make the point that it is impossible for this Govemment to justify any of those massive increases in compulsory third-party insurance premiums when the schedule alone is in such an unholy mess. That this Govemment has pursued the course of action of tabling the regulations today, knowing full well of the matters that I have brought to the attention of honourable members, does not stand it in very good stead. I shall tum now to some other issues. No other issue better iUustrates the gulf between the National Party's rhetoric and the substance of its performance than the State Govemment's efforts to combat unemployment in Queensland. No other issue better illustrates this Govemment's downright deceit and dishonesty. In his second- reading speech to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in this House last Thursday, the Premier and Treasurer made special reference to the State Govemment's $600m Special Major Capital Works Program, which he described as "the largest single project of its kind undertaken by the Govemment". In one respect, he is correct. It is the largest single fraud that has ever been perpetrated by Queensland's National Party Govemment. It is a fi-aud that the Govemment will seek to perpetuate when it brings down the State Budget on Thursday week. As happened last year, I am sure that honourable members wiU be told about this extraordinary effort by the Govemment to provide 40 000 new jobs. The Govemment will grandly announce another $263m worth of spending. But, as has been established beyond dispute, this program is nothing but an extraordinary hoax. It is, in fact, $600m worth of Ues. Earlier this year, with the release of the Co-ordinator-General's full schedule of capital works, the Opposition was able to prove conclusively how and why the program was a fraud from the word go. The Co-ordinator-General's report showed that in 1984- 85 the Queensland Govemment would spend significantly less on capital works than in the two previous financial years. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember how the Premier and Treasurer took pains in his Budget speech last year to stress and impress that the $600m program was over and above what the Govemment would normally be doing. That is where the fraud lies. In fact, it is not over and above what the Government would normally be doing. Mr Wharton: That's not right. My department spends more under its normal program. Mr WARBURTON: The Minister for Works and Housing agrees with me, and I am pleased to hear that he does. In April this year, the Premier and Treasurer went one better—or should I say $800m better—saying, "As a special gesture we are spending $ 1,400m extra, apart from our Budget, on jobs and job creation." Suddenly, $600m worth of fraud became $ 1,400m worth of fraud. The additional amount referred to the State's rail electrification program, which also falls into the capital works category. As the State Govemment's own schedule of capital works shows, less money was to be spent in 1984-85 than in the two preceding years. For the umpteenth time, I ask the Premier and Treasurer to explain how his Govemment can spend less money on capital works and then tum round and claim that more jobs are being created. He will not explain that, because he cannot explain it. Queensland's unemployment figures further highlight what a fraud this so-called Special Major Capital Works Program is. Honourable members were told that it was meant to provide 40 000 new jobs—40 000 additional jobs for Queenslanders! That is what all the headlines shouted day after day after last year's State Budget—40 000 new, additional jobs to reduce unemployment. I hope that the media takes more notice when the next Budget is introduced and that it is not hoodwinked, as it was on the last Address in Reply 27 August 1985 167 occasion. The State Govemment's full-page newspaper advertisements proclaimed that 40 000 additional jobs would be provided to reduce unemployment. That fraud was paid for out of public funds. Where are the jobs? Where are any of those 40 000 additional jobs that the Premier and Treasurer was going to provide for Queensland's unemployed? The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for July show that, compared with the preceding 12 months, there are 2 000 more people out of work in Queensland and 1 000 fewer people in full-time employment. In case members of the National Party ministry and back bench cannot grasp what I am saying, I will spell it out in simple terms. The State Govemment is doing absolutely nothing to curb unemployment. The so-called $600m Special Major Capital Works Program is a colossal hoax. The Premier and Treasurer is conning the people of Queensland, and he has been caught out in that action. What is left? Excuses from the National Party about how Queensland's unemploy­ ment, which has been the highest of any State for eight consecutive months, is the fault of, to quote the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper), "Southem States exporting their unemployment problems northwards" Honourable members have heard excuses from the Premier and Treasurer about the impact of Queensland's sugar industry problems on the labour market. They have heard excuses about how the National Party, which is responsible for management of the Queensland economy, is the helpless, hapless victim of a cyclical economic downtum. I will deal with the first of these excuses, that is, interstate migration being the cause of the unemployment problem in Queensland. Govemment members are being sold a pup; they listen to the propaganda that comes from the mouth of the Premier and Treasurer. As usual, the National Party Govemment cannot get its story straight. Its own task force on employment had this to say— "Limited available data suggest that the number of job-seekers among im­ migrants in 1983-84, as compared to retirees, etc. was not significant and that, in fact, there was a small net outflow of those interstate migrants influenced primarily by employment considerations." Do Government members want to hear any more facts? But, sure enough, whenever the latest unemployment figures come out, Queensland's poor position is conveniently explained away by the National Party—everyone from the Premier and Treasurer and the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Bill Gunn) down—as the fault of "all those southerners" coming to Queensland. That is a load of mbbish. It does Govemment members no good to use that as an excuse. That shows their cargo-cult mentaUty. Government Members interjected. Mr WARBURTON: Govemment members are upset today. Those are the same southerners who, every time the latest interstate migration figures come out, are moving to Queensland because of the National Party's dynamic policies and economic wizardry. In other words, the National Party denounces those same people whom it claims to have lured to this wonderful State. The National Party cannot get straight its story on which strategy it wants to pursue to create jobs and reduce unemployment. In last year's Budget—one year ago—the emphasis was on the public sector providing the answer through capital works programs. That shows what a fraud the $600m Special Major Capital Works Program is. This year's employment task force report headed in the opposite direction. Its major conclusion was that the private sector would play the primary role in job creation. The report said— "The task force believes that the only real means of generating long term sustainable economic growth is via the private sector, which is the major source of economic growth in Australia. 168 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

As such Govemment expenditure should be directed at assisting the private sector, rather than at artificially creating short term jobs." Such a dramatic change in Government economic direction within only 12 months shows that what I have been saying is correct—the Government's direction is nil. I believe that the report of Professor Harris shows clearly that, under the National Party Govemment, Queenslanders are going nowhere. In Queensland the National Party State Government is doing neither of the things that I have referred to. It refuses to assist the private sector properly. It refuses to play its part as a Government through the public sector. It can do no better than promote fraudulent job-creation schemes. That brings me to the National Party's second favourite excuse for why it cannot cope with Queensland's unemployment problem, that is, the sugar industry downtum. The disturbing fact is that the National Party is doing nothing to assist this major Queensland industry and the sugar town communities that depend on its viability. As I demonstrated during the debate on the Appropriation Bill, the State Govemment has all the money in the world but uses it for all the wrong purposes. When the financial assistance of the Queensland Government is genuinely and desperately required, suddenly the Government cannot afford it. However, it can afford an $8m jet for the Premier and Treasurer. It can afford millions upon millions of dollars for self-promotional advertising campaigns. Last year the National Party Govemment spent more than $5m with private advertising companies on promoting itself, yet it cannot give a bean to the sugar industry or any of the other industries that are undergoing problems in this State. Money is no object when it comes to prosecuting and persecuting the trade union movement. It will be recalled that the Govemment has given a blank cheque to one firm of solicitors, about which more will be said in due course. In those matters, the sky is the limit. But money for the sugar industry? No, that is not the State Govemment's responsibility, so the National Party claims. The State Govemment is quite happy to make a $40m profit out of its handling of the Rural Reconstmction and Rural Adjustment Funds, but it has still to channel that $40m profit back into mral assistance, let alone dig into its own pocket to help the sugar industry. Until the State Government gives tangible assistance to the industry, the National Party's whinging complaints about the sugar downturn contributing to Queensland's unemployment position will rightly be seen as undUuted hypocrisy. The Government's other favourite excuse is that it is the victim of economic circumstances beyond its control. How often have we heard that? It is nothing more than a gutless cop-out. The National Party Govemment is a victim of its own incompetence and irresponsibility. How can it ever hope to weather the effects of outside economic influences when it does not have an economic strategy of its own? How can it hope to cushion the impact of adverse consequences on Queensland's narrow economic position when it has failed over a period of decades to take action to diversify that economic base? How can it ever hope to generate jobs and bring down unemployment without allocating funds for additional capital works to provide those jobs, or without providing assistance to the private sector to expand? We have reached the stage in Queensland at which the National Party really does believe its own propaganda. It has deluded itself into believing that it manages Queensland's economy efficiently and effectively. Frankly, that is straight out of fantasyland. We hear National Party members, without exception, using the State's budgetary position as one of the many pieces of evidence of the Government's economic expertise. We hear that time and time again. "We have got a balanced Budget," they cry. "Aren't we wonderful?" The claim by the National Party that the State Government has balanced its Budget is like the claim by a person with a $50,000 house mortgage saying he has no debts. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 169

The Queensland Govemment, like every other State Govemment, balances its Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is a variety of ways of doing so. The Premier's claim that balancing the Consolidated Revenue Fund Account is proof of the Government's sound economic management is pure deceit. All three Government accounts—the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Trust and Special Funds and the Loan Fund Account—have to be assessed to get an accurate picture of the State's tme financial position. The Queensland Government refuses to publish, as the Federal Government does, the total Budget outcome. Instead, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates the Queensland budgetary position using the same national accounting procedures as the Federal Government and most other State Governments. The outcome is that the Queensland State Government incurred an estimated deficit, or shortfall, of $ 1,249m in 1984-85, up from an $894m deficit in the previous financial year. Anyone can balance one account. The important thing is to balance all the accounts of the Queensland Government, and on this measure the National Party Government has failed miserably. In just one year, Queensland's deficit has exploded by $350m to $ 1,249m. The Queensland Govemment, far from balancing the Budget, is rapidly putting Queensland into hock and mortgaging our future for generations to come. There is a clear alternative to the National Party Government's ineptitude, extravagance and insensitivity. The Labor Opposition will articulate this alternative to the people of Queensland between now and the next election. Already we have launched the broad outline of a regional and economic development strategy for Queensland aimed at boosting expansion within the private sector, thereby creating jobs. That strategy will be further developed over the coming months with particular reference and application to various economic regions of the State. The Labor Party Opposition has already spelt out its attitude to State Government assistance for the sugar industry. Instead of procrastinating as the Government does, the Opposition takes necessary action in the short term. As I have previously indicated, a Labor Government would move immediately to reduce the burden on Queensland families and individuals of excessive State taxes and charges such as electricity tariffs and car registration fees. The present system of compulsory third-party insurance would also be overhauled totally. A halt would be put on the sky-rocketing cost of electricity by reducing the $225m a year tax on domestic and small business consumers. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (12.41 p.m.): I support the motion so ably moved by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt and seconded by the honourable member for Roma. At the outset, I take the opportunity to do something that is traditional in this debate, which the Leader of the Opposition failed to do. I reaffirm my allegience and that of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen and Queensland's new Governor, Sir Walter Campbell. I wish Sir Walter and Lady Campbell well for the future. They have already endeared themselves to the people of Queensland. However, it was unfortunate that certain people sought to disrupt the opening of Parliament last week. The behaviour of the tax-payer-subsidised rent-a-mob that assem­ bled outside Parliament was a disgrace, but it was an example of what people in this country have come to expect from the militant Left. 1 take this opportunity of commending the police for the patience and professionalism they displayed despite substantial provocation from these militants, who apparently believe that Parliament should not sit and that the Government should not be permitted to govern. It seems that no institution or office will be spared from the excesses and the extremism of the militant Left in this State and right throughout Australia. It is obvious that such groups are more than well represented in this Chamber. Mr FitzGerald: 1 saw one of the members of the Opposition outside on opening day, and the record shows that she was. not present in this Chamber.

6870.1—7 170 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr BORBIDGE: I believe that the honourable member for Lockyer has alluded to the honourable member for Kurilpa (Ms Warner). Questions ought to be asked about the involvement of the honourable member for Kurilpa in the shabby and disgraceful conduct that was observed outside Parliament last week. Honourable members even witnessed the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition having to justify his presence and participation in the parliamentary process to some of his supporters who make up the political circus of the lunatic Left, all of whom are the friends of the honourable member for Kurilpa. The Leader of the Opposition had to say, "I must attend Parliament, I am sorry. I would like to be with you, but I have to be in Parliament." 1 suppose all honourable members respect him for that. Mr FitzGerald: The honourable member for Kurilpa ignored the wish of the Leader of the Opposition that all members attend Parliament. Mr BORBIDGE: I take the point made by the honourable member for Lockyer. Mr Newton: The honourable member for Wolston did not attend, either. Mr BORBIDGE: I understand that the honourable member for Wolston was elsewhere. I believe it is appropriate to comment on the determined campaign undertaken by a few academics and some sections of the media, aided and abetted by the Opposition, to undermine the standards of this Parliament. I point out that, at times, incredible disrespect for Parliament is displayed by some of those who sit on the Opposition benches. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Port Curtis would be a prime example. Honourable members witness regularly the adoption of standards and tactics that go beyond what could be described as reasonable in premediated attempts to make the House unworkable, to frustrate and delay, and to obstmct the process of government. Mr Lingard: The Opposition even walked out of the House on one occasion. Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourable member for Fassifem pointed out, on one occasion the Opposition walked out. The fact remains, however—and the Labor Oppo­ sition and academics cannot take it away from the Government—that this Parliament has been an active, progressive and fair one. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: It seems that I have struck a sensitive nerve, and I will proceed to enlighten the honourable member for Windsor with some facts of which he may not be aware. In terms of sitting days, to date the Queensland Parliament has out-sat most other State lower houses and in this session it will out-sit the House of Representatives. In contrast to that, the Hawke Government has averaged sittings of only approximately 10 weeks a year and it has passed an average of 170 pieces of legislation, which represents a 35 per cent increase on the post-war average. In the Ufe of this Parliament, members have had more than ample opportunity to address themselves to the issues of the day. However, members of the Opposition, Professor Wiltshire and some of the other so-called experts in this State do not address the same level of criticism to the Federal Parliament. In this context, I refer to The Bulletin of 11 June 1985. Mr Davis interjected. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 171

Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest to the honourable member that he listen to what I have to say. If he listens closely, he may even manage to learn something. The article, in part, reads— "The Govemment treated parliament with more contempt than usual during the Autumn session—and more than it could get away with. Members of the House of Representatives had to troop back to Canberra last Friday because the Australian Democrats took a stand in the Senate on those parts of the May 14 economic statement which limit the benefits available to ex- servicemen. The leader of government business. Special minister of State Mick Young, was unregenerate. He arranged for proceedings to be limited to an hour, so that the house could deal with the Bill sent back by the Senate, denying the Opposition any question time or opportunity for debating current issues.

Young also made considerable use of the guillotine to cut short the time allowed for debate, allowing only 45 minutes. The last time such extensive use was made of the guillotine was in the early 1970s, when Daly was leader of government business." When that device has been used in the Queensland Parliament on rare occasions relative to matters of urgency, the Government has been criticised. The article then deals with the attendance of Ministers of the Federal Govemment in the Federal Parliament and proceeds in this way— "Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden did not show up at all in May. He was travelling around Asia." Mr Newton: Just as well they did not need his vote. Mr BORBIDGE: That may be tme. The article continues— "Treasurer Paul Keating, Immigration minister Chris Hurford, Trade minister John Dawkins and Prime Minister Bob Hawke all at one stage or other found engagements around the world that were deemed to be more important than parliament. Defence minister Kim Beazley did not bother to announce in the house the second biggest defence commitment ever made by Australia—the decision to buy six submarines at a cost of $2.6 billion." 1 suggest to honourable members opposite, to the self-appointed experts outside and to other critics of this Parliament that they open their eyes, look at our performance relative not only to the other States but also to Canberra, and start to be reasonably objective. This Parliament has been a good one, and will continue to be so. The electorate of Surfers Paradise, which I have the privilege of representing, and the entire Gold Coast region are continuing to reap the benefits of the low-tax, private- enterprise policies pursued by the National Party Government. Indeed, my area is experiencing a surge in major tourism development that must be a profound embar­ rassment to the prophets of doom and misery who haunt the isolation of the Opposition benches in this House. Mr Booth: The knockers. Mr BORBIDGE: Yes, the knockers and the whingers. We are experiencing more major hotel resort developments than anywhere else in Australia or, for that matter, the southern hemisphere. I refer to the casino, the Surfers Paradise intemational hotel, the Daikyo Kenko Hotel, the Holiday Inn and the Sanctuary Cove development at Hope Island, all of which are proof of the confidence that the 172 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

private sector has in Queensland and its Govemment. Two other major international hotel developments are likely in the near future, and Sea World has recently announced major expansion plans for what is already an outstanding theme park. The Gateway Bridge and its associated freeway will place Brisbane's new airport within 45 minutes' travelling-time of Surfers Paradise. Planning for the rail link is well advanced and work on the stabilisation, of the Nerang River entrance is nearing completion. The Govemment infrastmcture is keeping pace with development. The road system is being upgraded and stage 2 of the Gold Coast Hospital is nearly finished. The Gold Coast has entered a new era in its development. Much of the impetus has come from the policies that this Government has encouraged and nurtured. Projects worth a total of $ 1,000m are simply not taking place in New South Wales. Anyone who visits the Gold Coast notes that the development finshes at Coolangatta. It is not happening in Victoria, South Australia, Westem Australia or any of the other places that the Opposition would have us believe are mn by efficient administrations. The Opposition has criticised, and continues to criticise, this State's unemployment rate. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) played his record again, but the fact remains that Queensland has generated just under 30 per cent of all new jobs created in Australia so far this year—55 400 new jobs since January. Those are official figures that Opposition members do not seem to acknowledge. Figures supplied by the Bureau of Statistics show that over the past three years, Queensland has gained 13 000 unemployed people. Each week, 85 unemployed Australians have moved to Queensland. The overall effect on Queensland's unemployment rate is estimated at approximately 1.1 per cent. Although the unemployment rate is still higher than all members would like, it is continuing to drop. Our key economic indicators are good and, on a per capita basis, Queensland is outperforming the rest of Australia. Recently, Queensland's low-tax status was confirmed again by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Government finished the financial year with an accumulated surplus of $166,000 in the ConsoUdated Revenue Fund. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I wish that the honourable member would listen. He is very good at talking and at being an absolute bore but, when it comes to listening, he simply cannot manage to control himself Mr Prest: You should stick to your pet subject—prostitution on the Gold Coast. Mr BORBIDGE: The foul-mouthed member for Port Curtis is at it again. Every time he opens his mouth, the respect that members on the Government's side hold for him drops a little lower. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Keep opening your mouth. You are doing very Uttle credit to yourself You are reflecting on yourself and the Labor Party. Your credibility outside is not very good. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Orderi Mr Prest interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Orderi This personal exchange will cease forthwith. I ask both members to continue with the debate on a less personal basis. Mr BORBIDGE: I was attempting to tell the honourable member, who was getting so excited, that for the year ended May, Queensland experienced the highest increase in retail sales of any State—14.1 per cent, which was well above the national average of 11.4 per cent. The latest Consumer Price Index statistics show that Brisbane has had Address in Reply 27 August 1985 173 the lowest quarterly increase of any of the State capitals. In the June quarter. Government charges in Brisbane rose by only 0.05 of an indexed point compared to the weighted average of 0.12 in all capital cities. Charges in Canberra and Sydney rose by 0.23, while costs in Adelaide and Melbourne rose by 0.09 and 0.08 respectively. Like the earlier ABS report on State taxation, the CPI figures confirm that the Australian Labor Party and other political opponents, including some from outside this Parliament, have been dishonest in falsely asserting that large increases in State taxes and fees have occurred. Throughout the parliamentary recess we have seen time and time again the complete subservience of ALP members to Trades Hall. Shackled with their outdated idiological blinkers, they have blindly supported former SEQEB employees who cut off power to every man, woman and child in this State. The Labor Party and Trades Hall have sought to reimpose black-outs on the people of Queensland. Already it has been shown that the new efficient SEQEB will save an estimated $25m as a result of contract employment, continuity of supply, and other reforms. The ALP criticises the cost of electricity but seeks to entrench the former shop-steward mentality that crippled the electricity generating industry of this State to the detriment of the consumer and the tax-payer. Members of the ALP have supported union leaders who have demonstrated contempt for the law and they have backed an illegal southern- organised blockade of this State in breach of the Australian Constitution. They have sought to victimise supporters of the Govemment. The union threat posed to Australia by a handfuU of militant union leaders should not be underestimated. I strongly support the Government's courage and determination to reassert the rights of Governments to govern in the face of widespread harassment and intimidation. The fact is that strike-free essential services are the norm in every major Western democracy, Australia being a notable exception. The fact that public servants should not be permitted to strike has been acknowledged by a former Whitlam Minister, Clyde Cameron, and in no uncertain terms. The nation is entering a crucial period in its history, and the people must decide whether the future will be one of prosperity for which we can compete or whether we will fail to take advantage of the nation's considerable natural assets and resources. Under the Labor Party administration in Canberra, the nation is drifting towards the latter and most unacceptable option. Australia's poor export performance has coincided with two record Federal Government deficits, which have plunged this country further into the red. Despite Canberra's attempts to disguise its financial mismanagement, Australia now faces the second highest account deficit in 30 years. The nation's overseas borrowings are horrendous, which is the inevitable result of big-spending, high-tax Governments living beyond their means. The Opposition's recipe for fixing Queensland—it would fix it, all right—is to spend more. If a Government spends more, it must raise more, and if it raises more taxes, it stifles and kills incentive. That is the economic philosophy that comes through time and time again when Opposition members get to their feet in this Chamber. In 1970, Australia's gross external debt was $3.5 billion. By 1984, it had reached $43.5 billion. The Reserve Bank has warned that the total foreign debt has more than trebled in the past four years and the annual repayments to service that debt require a massive 25 per cent of the value of the nation's exports. When the nation should be improving its overseas trading performance—its overseas competitiveness—it is continuing to slip further behind. Since the early 1970s, Australia's share of world trade has fallen 27 per cent, and it is a fact of life that the nation's trade performance is being overrun by nations that have a fraction of Australia's resources. It is time that the reasons for that lack of performance were considered very closely. Industrial disputation has not been confined to Queensland. Australia's record in the shipping industry is the worst in the world. Earlier this year, the Commonweahh 174 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Public Service was unable to function. The Government of Tasmania was not able to take delivery of its new trans-Tasman ferry. The thuggery of the Builders Labourers Federation is well known and has now even been acknowledged belatedly by the Labor Party. In considering the dangers, threats and costs of militant unionism, I draw the attention of honourable members to the lead story in The Weekend Australian of 27 July 1985, in which it was reported— "Strikes prevented the export of $270 million worth of wheat last financial year—and $60 million of this is directly attributable to the actions of 320 highly paid and underworked men. This handful, some of whom earn $70,000 a year for a 25-hour week, held up 400,000 tonnes of wheat worth $60 million in NSW grain terminals. Another 1.3 miUion tonnes, at $160 a tonne, was held up by other strikes around the nation." Mr Cooper: That is a shocking, disgraceful performance. Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend said, that is a shocking, disgraceful performance. The report continues— "The figures, obtained from the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) yesterday, reveal the extent to which industrial disputes affect the national economy, and are eroding our reputation overseas. Japan refuses to ship prime-quality wheat from NSW because of its unreliability following several shipments with mixed grades of wheat. It chooses instead to ship NSW wheat through Queensland ports." At least Japan and our other trading partners know that the State Government in Queensland has its act together. Sitting suspended from I to 2.15 p.m. Mr BORBIDGE: Before the luncheon recess I was talking about the massive problems confronting this country, particularly the problem in regard to wheat exports and what has been happening in New South Wales. I will continue quoting from that article, as follows— "Australia exported 15 million tonnes of wheat worth more than $2.5 billion last year, but several million tonnes more were available for sale if it could have been exported.

Most of the trouble stemmed from terminal workers at the Sydney and Newcastle ports because of grossly inflated salaries, low working hours, overtime, hefty sick leave and an unacceptable level of absenteeism. Standard conditions include 32'/2 hours a week, 30 days' paid sick leave annually, double time for all overtime, 50 per cent penalty loading on afternoon shifts, 100 per cent on night shifts. A senior wheat industry executive this week described the 320 terminal workers as greedy and unruly. Most utilised the "system' to their best advantage and earned double their base salary because of excessive overtime." Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I would be interested to know whether honourable members opposite are prepared to accept that sort of thing and the enormous cost of such conditions in terms of loss of national income and, ultimately, jobs. Such unacceptable behavior should not be permitted to continue. Last financial year alone, strikes prevented the export of $270m worth of wheat. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 175

Already the on-costs for Australian industry and business are mnning at between 45 and 50 per cent over and above wages and salaries. Australia's international competitive position is a disgrace. If honourable members want an outside verification of the reasons why Australia is not employing more people in manufacturing industry, let me quote an address by Mr Neil Walford, chairman of Repco Corporation Limited, to share­ holders at the third annual general meeting on 30 October last year. He said— "The growing imbalance in the relative power of the trade unions and business is not a good thing for this country and it should not be fostered by the Govemment and the Arbitration Commission. The simple reason is that whUe all the victories are going to the unions, they will turn out to be pyrrhic victories. They will only lead to lowered competitiveness, lower incentive to build and grow, and higher unemployment.

The growing and unrealistic obsession with egalitarian ism and redistribution of wealth is so slowing and discouraging the creative engine within our community that the end result can only be social disaster and an inevitable reduction in our living standards relative to other countries.

I am an optimist and I am confident that it will all come right one day. It will be a long hard journey. It will not be made easier by the fact that given the general apathy of most people towards politics, it is a simple matter under our democratic system for activist minorities to win control of great political parties." He went on to say that his company had formulated its strategy for the future. He said— "Manufacturing will become a diminishing percentage of our total operations. We shall be looking for our major growth to come from our overseas operations." They are the words of the chairman of a major Australian corporation. His attitude typifies the legitimate concern that is expressed daily by those people within our community who are best able to lead an economic recovery. That is why the rest of Australia at the present time is watching Queensland. This State has made a move that has reversed the trend of increasing trade union domination and reasserted the rights of Governments to get on with the job of goveming. It is clear that this country needs to review its entire industrial relations system. It is time that the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was made to answer for its pitiful performance. Because that commission has failed, its days are numbered. Recently proposals have been advanced in this State for voluntary contract employment. Those proposals are sound and should be supported. Mr Vaughan: What about voluntary contracts of employment for politicians? Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest to the honourable member that members of Parliament are on a three-year contract. We answer to the people every three years. If, following a majority vote of his fellow-workers, an employee wants to enter into a voluntary contract system, subject to certain safeguards and legislative requirements, what is wrong with that? If the majority of workers in a work-place want to opt out of one system, such as working under an award of the State Industrial Commission, and if they want to negotiate contract employment subject to those safeguards, what is wrong with that? Why is the Opposition running for cover? Why is it so determined to keep in place a system of industrial relations that is promoting unemployment? The Oppo­ sition's day will come. 1 can only say that the Labor Party is scared stiff because its members know that they and their union thugs and heavies may well be caught out and that many workers in a large number of industries might find that they have a mechanism by which they can reassert the independence that has been lost by them to a handful of union members. 176 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Vaughan: You are as wrong with this as you were with the hours question on the Gold Coast. Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable member wants to talk about the Gold Coast, he should have seen the disgraceful heavying tactics that a few union leaders were adopting last week in trying to drag a few workers out of a number of establishments, even though those persons did not want to stop work. The union leaders had been on the Gold Coast for days using heavying tactics, making threats and intimidating the workers. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: That is the type of system that the Labor Party in this State seems determined to perpetuate for ever. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The members of the Labor Party do not give a damn about job creation. They are not prepared to look at the system and say, "Can we improve it? Can we make it work more effectively?" Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The proposal under consideration by the Govemment has the potential to deregulate substantially the market, create new jobs and make business expansion and growth more viable. I note that the honourable member for Wolston, who is getting so excited, has certainly not been very constructive in putting alternative proposals forward to the Queensland Government or, for that matter, any other Govemment. If unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is to be tackled effectively, a major reform must be undertaken. I acknowledge the need for protective mechanisms to be built into such a system. I believe that can be done. The concept has widespread support within my electorate. I suggest that it would have widespread support within the electorates of the honourable member for Wolston and his colleagues. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You said that about shopping hours, and then you spent two days talking to employees, getting them to back off on the coast, because you told the same untruths in here on that occasion as you are now. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member, who is fresh from a recent spell elsewhere, is again displaying his ignorance. Mr Neal: Picnicking at Her Majesty's pleasure. Mr BORBIDGE: Picnicking at Her Majesty's pleasure, as the Government Whip suggests. I suggest also that the time is appropriate to look very seriously at Federal Government departments' duplication of State Government areas of administration. To mention just a few—they include: aboriginal affairs, business and consumer affairs, community development and regional affairs, culture and recreation, education and youth affairs, employment and industrial affairs, health, home affairs and environment, housing and construction, industry and commerce, resources and energy, primary industry, science and technology, sport and recreation, and transport. It should be acknowledged by the Federal Government that the Federal departments in all those areas should be made to account for their existence. 1 suspect that they would be unable to do so, because those departments are initiating policies in areas of administration that traditionally, consti­ tutionally and rightfully have always been the province of the States. A total of 16 Federal Government departments should be made to account for their performance and should be made to justify their continued existence. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 177

The Governor's Opening Speech to this Third Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament details a heavy legislative program that will greatly benefit the people of Queensland. I am confident that the Queensland Government will continue to give a lead to the rest of Australia, despite those members opposite who seek to undermine, to destroy and to do everything that they can to stop this State realising its full and proper potential. The Queensland Labor Party has taken opposition to new depths. It has sought to undermine public confidence in the Government. It has sought to undermine Queensland. Opposition members have shown that they are quite happy to sidle up to the ACTU and the Federal Government when the time comes, even if it means that what that Government or the ACTU is going to do can hurt not only the Government of Queensland but also the people of Queensland. The best example of that was the pathetic support of Opposition members for the illegal blockade of this State by their so-called champions in the ACTU. I am confident that, before very long, the people of Queensland will again pass judgment on the Labor Party and that its numbers in this place will be diminished considerably. The Government has a busy program. It certainly has my very strong support. Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (2.26 p.m.): I join the debate on the Address in Reply to document quite fully and definitively the mishandling by the Government of compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance. If anybody needs proof that this State is mn by a hill-billy Government, I will now provide that proof by telling honourable members about the way in which it has handled compulsory third-party insurance. The compulsory third-party insurance premium (CTP) for a motor car, which was $20 on 31 December 1967, will have increased by a massive 740 per cent to $168 on 15 October 1985. That is about double the increase in the consumer price index for the same period. Mr Stoneman: How much did wages go up in that time? Mr FOURAS: I assure the honourable member that the increase was much less than that. The increasingly inept administration of the Queensland economy is rapidly pushing Queensland from the bottom to the top of the States' taxes and charges scale. It appears that the National Party Government is not worried about the hip-pocket nerve of vehicle owners. What should be of major concern to Queenslanders is not only the lack of concern by our hill-billy Government about the size of the increases but also the increases themselves. These giant rises follow massive increases for registration, electricity, boating charges, etc., emanating from this so-called low-tax State at rates many times the inflation rate. Following the 60 per cent hike in 1983, a committee of inquiry was set up which reported in March 1984. Even the more naive members of the public could have been excused for thinking that the purpose of the committee was to ensure that such huge increases did not recur. They must be sadly disillusioned. The Government sat on this report for some 16 months and has totally ignored its recommendations. One of the major findings was that "there is a serious question as to how premiums should be assessed and a significant demand for relevant data to be made public" For some time, concern has been expressed that CTP insurers do not publish details of their underwriting experience for the various classifications of vehicles. As a result of this, motorists are not in a position to reach an informed opinion as to whether the premiums charged are fair and above board. It is reprehensible that this secretive State Government refuses to provide to the public reasonable and meaningful information 178 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

about compulsory third-party insurance. Section 2C of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act states that— "The Insurance Commissioner and any member of his staff authorized by him in that behalf may communicate information and produce any document, which has come to the knowledge or into the possession of the Insurance Commissioner in connexion with the administration of this Act, to a person to whom, in the opinion of the Insurance Commissioner, it is in the public interest that the information be communicated or the document be produced and action shall not lie against the Insurance Commissioner or such authorized member on account of any such communication or production." The Queensland Government has legislative authority and power to give information to the public regarding compulsory third-party insurance, but it is not doing so. Surely it is time that this Government lived up to its responsibilities under section 2C and made sure that all relevant data is readily available for public scmtiny. In Queensland, CTP premiums are reviewed by the Insurance Commissioner on the basis of information supplied by the insurers. Recommendations for change are then submitted to the Treasurer and a final decision is made by Cabinet. It is nonsense for both the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) and the Premier and Treasurer to wash their hands publicly of the unfortunate increases in CTP by stating that they are not responsible for them. The current Queensland system has no specific legislative backing, and insurers are not compelled to give the Insurance Commissioner details of their CTP activities. In effect, the Motor Vehicles Insurance Acts have no statutory administrator other than the Minister himself One of the major recommendations of the Winders committee of inquiry was that— "The Committee has arrived at the conclusion that prescribed details of the CTP insurer's composite experience in each of the vehicle classifications should be made public annually. These statistics could serve to allay the misgivings of some motorists and their organisations about the appropriateness of CTP premium levels and diminish criticism in the area." That information was given to the Government in March 1984. The committee also reported in March 1984 that "the time is now ripe for legislative clarification and provision" It should be pointed out again that, for about 16 months, the National Party Government put in the too-hard basket the report on CTP which has urged major administration shake-ups. The Government may protest that third-party premiums are not Government charges, but the Government is authorised, and has the power, to approve charges and, more importantly, through legislation, has the power to change the system to a more cost-efficient one. The major recommendation of the report was the establishment of a premiums committee. Such committees or equivalent organisations operate in the majority of other States and in the ACT. Such a committee, according to the inquiry, "would give motorists a sense of participation, responsibility and confidence in CTP insurance, remove much of the mystery that at present shrouds the insurance background, and lessen future criticism of premium levels" Such a committee would have access to full details of the relevant statistics and would promulgate any changes which were necessary in premiums. It would also have the responsibility of reviewing the appropriate classification of vehicles which are unfortunately hopelessly out of date and allow a massive degree of rorting by smarties, which was eloquently documented by the Opposition Leader (Mr Warburton) this morning. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 179

The committee recommended also that the regulations be amended to provide that each CTP insurer shall submit to the premiums committee— the number of vehicles, premiums received, amounts of claims paid and provisions for outstanding claims, separately, for each vehicle classification; the estimated expenses of administering CTP insurance during the year; and the estimated investment income derived from CTP insurance during the year, with an explanation of the method of arriving at this figure. A further recommendation was that the statistics be published for public scmtiny on an annual basis. The Winders committee of inquiry said that the premiums committee should have access to all of the figures in each classification, whether investment, number of vehicles or provisions for underwriting losses, and that the figures should be made public so that it could be seen that everything was fair and above board. The committee said also that the recommendations about the setting up of a premiums committee and the requirement that full accountability be given to the premiums committee and to the public could be implemented by regulations by virtue of sections 9 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1976-1979. It is appalling that these massive hikes are being implemented without any meaningful public scmtiny. The report said— "A premiums committee could therefore be established quickly and commence its operation prior to the next review of CTP premiums " I repeat that the Winders committee recommended that before the next review— before the massive increases recently announced—a premiums committee be set up, at the stroke of a pen, through regulation using the Motor Vehicles Act. It could have been established by regulation, by the stroke of the pen, as early as March 1984. It is scandalous that this inept National Party Govemment sat on the report and did nothing for 16 months. The public are entitled to ask why. Is it that the SGIO and FAI forced the Government to ram through these massive premium increases because they were afraid that the premium committee would try to hold down premiums? We are all aware in this Chamber that the SGIO has become used to having the National Party Government mbber-stamp its price rises and its increases in powers. Some honourable members also are aware of the powerful liaison between FAI and the Queensland Government, and it leads me to ask: Why were these massive increases rammed through the Parliament and the recommendations made by the committee not accepted? All the facts and figures were placed before the committee 18 months ago in an effort to bring about rationalisation so that members of the public could by assured of not being ripped off; yet, they are being ripped off. CTP insurance in Australia used to be underwritten by many insurance companies, most of whom have withdrawn from this type of insurance business. As a result, CTP insurance in every other State is now centred on State Government insurance offices or on a monopoly organisation established by the Govemment. The Queensland Govemment should insist that such a single authority handle CTP insurance. The advantages of such a move include the usual economies of scale and would result in a saving of administration costs. There would also be substantial savings of costs for two vehicles, one insured with SGIO and one with FAI. In such a situation, a saving of between 16 and 20 per cent in legal costs could be effected. More importantly, a Government instrumentality would be more accountable than a private one in providing compulsory third-party insurance. I was appalled, when on announcing these charges, the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) stated quite categorically that the SGIO was entitled to a 5 per cent profit on its CTP business. He obviously forgets that the original charter of SGIO was to keep other private insurance companies honest and to provide premiums for Queenslanders at 180 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

lowest possible rates. Surely, the ownership of a car can no longer be considered a luxury. An insurer should not have the right to profit from a compulsory insurance scheme. This Govemment has no qualms about its workers' compensation scheme being handled by a monopoly. It has boasted for some time of the advantages of a single insurer operating workers' compensation insurance compared to many insurers doing so in other States. In fact, other States have now followed Queensland's example. It is important to note that, although the committee of inquiry did not recommend the establishment of a single authority, the recommendation contained the following qualification— "That a single authority may be justifiable if periodical payment awards replace lump sum awards to any significant degree or if a no-fault system is introduced." The presence of FAI in the CTP field obviously limits the policy options open to the Queensland Government. This leads me to a major aspect of my criticism of this hill-billy National Party Government. I repeat that Queensland is the only State in Australia in which CTP insurance is sold by anyone other than a State insurance office. In all other States, the private insurers have left the market because of heavy losses and, in Queensland, all but FAI have done so for the very same reason. The policy of FAI is to appoint dealers of new private motor cars as agents for the company. They receive a once-only commission, for which they automatically issue CTP insurance certificates to all buyers of their cars. The first premiums are collected by these car-dealers and remitted to FAI, but all renewal premiums are collected by the Department of Main Roads, which passes them over in bulk to FAI at no cost to that company; in other words, at the expense of all Queenslanders. Shortly I will document conclusively that the SGIO is faced with the bulk of the generally more hazardous business which, in practice, it cannot decline. Renewals that FAI would decline would also come to the SGIO, which would normally not be able to refuse cover. The situation arises in which, for example, FAI writes up only CTP insurance on new vehicles for owners over 25 years of age and for, say. Commodores rather than Jaguars or sports cars. There is no doubt that FAI is in a favourable position compared to the SGIO. It is seeking CTP business actively and manages to obtain an increasing but selective share of the new business. More than 50 per cent of FAI's total general insurance business is in Queensland and of that percentage the larger part is CTP insurance. Consequently, CTP insurance provides FAI with a substantial cash flow which is used for its often uncommon investments. 1 quote from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) of 10 July 1985— "While the Titans of Australian retailing do battle, Larry Adler can laugh all the way to the bank. The former taxi driver and petrol bowser attendant, Mr Adler, 53, is the man who lit the wick of the Coles-Myer-Woolworths powder keg by selling a large parcel of Myer shares to Coles yesterday. Today, the chairman of FAI Insurances Ltd looms as the $19m man of Australian business. That's the sum he received for those shares, astutely acquired over an 18- month period in the knowledge that the retail industry was headed for a 'Big Bang'. The news for shareholders is happier today than it was in 1974 when his then small insurance company was hit by multi-million dollar losses in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy. Mr Adler, who migrated to Australia from Hungary in 1950, built up his company from scratch. In 1975 shares in FAI were worth 32c. Yesterday they sold for $17.70 each." Address in Reply 27 August 1985 181

Certainly the best barometer of profitability has shown confidence in FAI's ability to make substantial profits. The price of shares on the stock exchange indicates that that company, which has its majority of business in CTP, is very profitable. An examination of the prices on the stock exchange yesterday indicated that FAI shares traded at $14.75.

An article in The Courier-Mail of 7 August 1985 read as follows— "Sydney businessman Mr Larry Adler, who sold his Myer shares to Coles for a $19 mUlion profit before the bid was launched, will gain another $7 million from the higher offer because of escalation clauses in the sales contract." That means, of course, that from one transaction, using cash-flow funds that in the main would be coming from Queensland, the majority being from CTP premiums, Mr Adler made a cool $26m profit. I am not critical of his right as an individual to profit from his investments; but as he has said regularly in the past three years to both the stock exchange and the media, all aspects of FAI insurance business, including CTP, are profitable. It is worth repeating that all aspects of FAI insurance business, including CTP business, are profitable, and have been profitable since the year dot.

The percentage of CTP business attracted by the State Government Insurance Office has declined from 82.3 per cent to 69.3 per cent. 1 have here a table relating to the years between 1976-77 and 1983-84. It indicates the way in which the SGIO's share of the business has decreased while FAI's share has increased. That indicates the type of touting for business and aggressive marketing techniques that have been adopted by FAI.

Without doubt, Mr Adler and FAI will be mbbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the $30.3m additional cash flow in the next 12 months emanating from the forthcoming CTP premium increases. The mark 2 increases mean that FAI will make an additional $30.3m. One does not have to be very bright to realise that FAI would not be reporting the money made by selling the Myer shares for a profit of $26m as investment income from CTP business. Surely it would benefit Queenslanders if the SGIO were the sole insurer. Unlike FAI, the SGIO invests most of its funds in Queensland.

It is disgraceful that this inept, hill-billy National Government should sit back and allow FAI to selectively increase its share of CTP insurance at the expense of the SGIO. In 1976-77, the State Government Insurance Office held 82.3 per cent of CTP insurance. That figure has now dropped to about 66 per cent.

1 must ask over and over again why FAI has been so aggressive in the CTP market when, supposedly, CTP insurance is such a losing proposition. It has increased its share of the market by more than 10 per cent in the last five years. It did that by gobbling up the juiciest parts of CTP insurance.

I now table for incorporation in Hansard statistics showing the number of poUcies held by the SGIO and FAI in each of the classes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member is required to request leave of the House to incorporate material in Hansard.

Mr FOURAS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to have the statistics incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. 182 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Number of Policies Held by S.G.I.O. and F.A.I, by Class No. of policies Mo. of S.G.I.O FA.l. class 1(a) 652 381 398 069 l(s) 1 544 290 2 260 142 3(a) 83 119 80 295 3(b) 29 133 7 009 4(a) 48 212 9 478 4(b) 71012 20 805 4(c) 28 571 1003 5 184 19 6(a) 6 320 655 6(c) 2 109 157 6(d) 1 576 39 6(e) 1 388 44 6(0 1621 825 8(b) 19 259 3 8(c) 6618 12 8(d) 27 135 9 8(e) 40 171 74 10 6 120 74 11(a) 189 117 13 472 11(e) 62 281 13 097 11(f) 2 381 44 11(g) 2 117 47 11(h) 1 417 49 1 l(i) 10 508 333 12 62 3 13 129 6 14 482 10 15 1 929 2 16 142 3 Total 1298 011 551071

Mr FOURAS: I will now divulge some interesting statistics. For example, FAI has 38 per cent of class lA insurance, that is, private motor cars, or about 398 069 poUcies, compared with 72 per cent obtained by the SGIO, or 652 381 policies. In the private car market, FAI aggressively seeks new car business. It does not accept drivers under 25 and refuses to renew premiums when the cars become old. In the commercial motor vehicle field, it has 49 per cent, or 80 295 policies, in category 3A, that is, commercial vehicles not exceeding 2 tonnes carrying capacity, but it has only 7 009, or a mere 9 per cent, of commercial vehicles exceeding 2 tonnes. It accepts lighter tmcks but has nothing to do with larger ones. The selectivity of FAI goes on and on. For tractors it has a mere 3 per cent of the market, or 1 003 policies, compared with the SGIO's 97 per cent, or 28 571 policies. This policy cannot be more blatant than in the high-risk area of motor cycles. In this area the SGIO holds 93 183 policies to FAI's paltry 98. As well, it appears obvious that FAI finds the insuring of trailers unprofitable. It has a mere 9 per cent of the market, or 27 042 policies, as against 91 per cent, or 267 821 policies, held by the SGIO. Similarly, FAI is also reluctant to accept anything more than a minor share of insurance for hire-cars or buses. For hire-cars it has 9 per cent of the market, or 655 policies, to the SGIO's 6 320 policies. For buses it has 14 per cent of the market, or 1 065 policies, against the SGIO's 6 694 policies. The number of policies currently held is 1 298 Oil by the SGIO and 551 071 by FAI. If there were no increases in premiums, the SGIO would have received $111.5m and FAI $58.3m. In other words, had there been no increases in premiums in this Address in Reply 27 August 1985 183

financial year, the total premiums for the two companies would have amounted to $169.8m. The first announcement for an increase, from which the Govemment backed off, would have netted the SGIO $73.7m and FAI $30.5m. That is the mark 1 announcement. There was a number of categories for which increases were not announced, totalling 218 279 policies—the overwhelming majority of which were held by the SGIO. That means, of course, that the SGIO would have received increases in premiums approaching $80m and FAI about $32m. We were then told in the media by the Insurance Commissioner (Mr Quinn) that he had done his sums correctly. However, because of extreme agitation by business groups, the matter was taken back to Cabinet and the premiums for some classifications were changed to limit increases to 100 per cent. So we had the mark 2 increases. Something does not add up. On the one hand, how could the Insurance Commissioner assure the public that the compulsory third-party increases were soundly based—I presume on the basis of the user pays and actuarial and statistical facts conceming accident rates, level of damages determined by the courts, and inflation and interest eamings for each classification—and, on the other hand. Cabinet make major changes in the rates less than one week later? It is astounding that the so-called cross-subsidisation inherent in the changes militated against the SGIO and not FAI. For example, the loss in premiums for class 11, which is the class for trailers, was $ 12.6m for the SGIO and $1.8m for FAI. So the change from the mark 1 to the mark 2 increase in just one category cost the SGIO $12.6m and FAI a paltry $1.8m. In relation to hire-cars and buses, in the change from mark 1 to mark 2, the SGIO lost a further $3m, while FAI premiums were marginally improved. In fact, cross-subsidisation cost the SGIO more than $15m and FAI nothing. It is pertinent to ask whether the Government did its sums for those changes. If it did, one should ask whether there is a policy of the Nationals to favour FAI against our own SGIO. The contact that exists between FAI and the Govemment calls for close questioning. I wonder whether FAI is giving money to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. If so, I would like that to be made public in the company's books. The unfair treatment that is being given to the SGIO while great treatment is being given to FAI is absolutely appalling. It is unfortunate that, to date, the 27 recommendations by the committee of inquiry have been totally ignored. One of the most important of those was the recommendation that a small, continuing committee of appropriate Government officers be established to monitor developments in Australia and overseas regarding periodical payment of compensation as opposed to lump-sum compensation, no-fault systems of compensation, the role of insurance companies in compulsory third-party insurance, and national accident compensation. It is obvious that the Government has a responsibility to take appropriate action to stop the unacceptable escalation of compulsory third-party premiums. It is interesting to note that, although the Premier and Treasurer acknowledged that premium levels are related to accident rates, the level of damages determined by the courts, and interest earnings, he then said glibly that he was not responsible for the accidents. However, even the police admit that our Highway Patrol is a Clayton's patrol. Queensland's level of expenditure on roads—85 per cent of which is money that comes from the Federal Government—is inadequate, and there is a bloody-minded reluctance on the part of the National Party Government to use random breath-testing. Those factors must be adding substantially to the escalating accident rate. It is time that something was done in the interests of those people paying very high premiums. I will now develop some arguments as to whether these massive hikes in CTP are justified. I reiterate that it is scandalous in the extreme that the Government presents the public with massive increases as a fait accompli rather than institutes public 184 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

accountability through a premiums committee as recommended by its committee of inquiry. As stated previously, without any increases in compulsory third-party insurance, premiums on the current number of policies would have totalled approximately $ 169.8m. Increases accruing as a result of the Cabinet decision—that is, the mark 2 or second version—will net SGIO approximately $63.3m and FAI $30.7m, or a massive total of $94m more. It is unfortunate that the public have no figures concerning FAI's performance in CTP insurance. However, it is well known that the FAI chairman (Mr Larry Adler), in an interview this year, said that he would not be in third-party insurance in Queensland if FAI was losing money. In fact, he has stated that, in the last three years, no losses have been recorded by any sections of his insurance business. It is interesting to look at the underwriting profits earned and losses sustained by the SGIO, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing underwriting losses and income investment for SGIO. Leave granted. The underwriting profits or losses sustained by the State Government Insurance Office (Queensland) on third-party motor vehicle insurance, together with the investment income earned for each of the years 1975-76 to 1983-84

Year U/writing Investment Final Loss Income Result $m $m $m 1975-76 8.203 profit 4.928 13.131 profit 1976-77 1.723 6.663 4.940 profit 1977-78 7.310 7.693 .383 profit 1978-79 7.974 9.053 1.079 profit 1979-80 3.560 13.529 9.969 profit 1980-81 9.210 17.884 8.674 profit 1981-82 22.230 24.728 2.498 profit 1982-83 34.765 26.219 8.546 loss 1983-84 35.813 33.959 1.854 loss

Mr FOURAS: As stated previously, FAI has been actively touting for third-party business and one cannot be anything but impressed at its total commitment to maximising its profits and its avoiding, quite successfully, the more hazardous business. One cannot blame FAI; one blames this Government for allowing FAI to get away with this massive rip-off. From annual reports from the SGIO, one notes that, with regard to CTP insurance, the SGIO made a profit of $40.7m between the years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and a loss of $ 10.4m for 1982-83 and 1983-84. These figures are obtained by taking into account the underwriting loss or profit and the investment income. It is a pity that similar figures are not available for FAI. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) tries to justify the massive hike that will net both insurers about $94m and continues to parrot that SGIO claims for third-party are expected to increase by 29 per cent in 1985. I estimate this to be about $24m extra for 1985. However, we are not told by Mr Gunn or anyone else what investment income gains are to be made by SGIO. It is interesting to note that the investment income for SGIO has risen from $9m in 1978-79 to $40m in 1983- 84. It is also interesting to note that SGIO, although faring worse than FAI, will get an increase of $63.3m in premiums in the next 12 months. There is no doubt that the massive premium increases will lead to substantial windfall profits for FAI. In the next 12 months, FAI will be provided with a cash flow Address in Reply 27 August 1985 185

of $89m, which is an increase of $30.7m. It is also known that, in one highly publicised investment decision in share transactions it made a cool $26m. I call again for a single authority—the SGIO—to handle CTP insurance in Queens­ land. There is absolutely no doubt that the time for public accountability is well and truly overdue. There must not be any place in the world where the results of third-party insurance are subject to so little disclosure and scrutiny by the public as in Queensland; but what else is new? It is very difficult to determine whether the provisions through outstanding claims as reported to the Queensland Government are really adequate. For example, FAI has had difficulties, and still has, with, for instance, the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales in respect of provisions for outstanding claims. I wonder how the Insurance Commissioner can segregate from other assets the assets that cover these provisions. How can he determine into which part of the insurance business FAI puts its assets? Surely the public are entitled to ask the question: How and where does FAI invest its premiums? Surely the public should be given the facts. It is predictable that the continuation of massive increases in State Government taxes and charges of the past two years must lead to companies heading south rather than the mythical low-tax State attracting industry. It is pertinent to note that, to objective businessmen, the Government's refusal to be concerned about the big rises must be as worrying for the future as the rises themselves. 1 have stated publicly that the SGIO should be the only authority handling CTP insurance. Such a policy would allow much more flexibility for the Queensland Gov­ ernment. For example, the New South Wales Government has decided not to try to fund third-party insurance fully. This has the advantage that a State Government can recognise the social/political significance of this class of insurance and can use revenue other than from insurance premiums to fund or partly fund provisions for outstanding claims under CTP insurance. The New South Wales Government can do it, so why cannot the so-called richest and best Government in Australia do the same thing instead of slugging the motorists to such an extent? From 15 October pensioners will have to pay $203.10 a year to keep their cars on the road. This will be the highest pensioner rate in Australia. I call on the Queensland Government to rethink its concession rates for pensioners, otherwise many pensioners will be forced to sell their cars when the registration becomes due. A car should not be considered a luxury item. It would be unfortunate and disastrous if large numbers of pensioners who do superb voluntary work with agencies such as Meals on Wheels become stranded because of prohibitive costs. Victoria has the best concessions for pensioners. The holders of transport concession cards are eligible for a 50 percent reduction on both third-party insurance and registration, and TPI pensioners do not pay any registration and pay only half of their third-party premiums. This means that, to put a four-cylinder vehicle on the road, a pensioner in Victoria would pay $114 in the metropolitan area and $98 in the country zone. The New South Wales Government waives all costs for pensioners except third- party insurance. That means that, for the average sedan, a pensioner in New South Wales pays $161, not the $203 that he will pay in Queensland, and does not have to pay for a driver's licence on renewal, a charge which we have been told will be increased in the near future by this high-charge State Government. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (2.56 p.m.): I welcome this opportunity to support the member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and the member for Roma (Mr Cooper) in this Address in Reply debate. Firstly, 1 assure His Excellency of the loyalty of the constituents of the electorate of Condamine to the throne and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I also convey the 186 27 August 1985 Address in Reply warmest congratulations of the people of the Condamine electorate to His Excellency upon his appointment as Governor of Queensland. We sincerely hope that the electorate will have the pleasure of having His ExceUency and Lady CampbeU visit us in the near future. Already in this debate some members have focused attention upon the past achievements and upon the intended goals of Queensland. If I had believed all the scathing attacks by the Opposition in the House in the time 1 have been here, I am sure I would have found it impossible to believe the definite signs of tremendous progress that surround us throughout the length and breadth of the State. In recent years, within Brisbane we have seen the skyline of the inner city transformed. A combination of new constructions and restoration of historic buildings has produced an exciting environment. Within the last 12 months, from Parliament House it has been possible to monitor the constmction of the Gateway Bridge, the Fisherman Islands grain complex, the Queensland Cultural Centre and new office blocks in the inner city. The diverse nature of the projects I have mentioned shows the scope of the progress taking place. Outside of the city, signs of great progress are also readily seen. I hasten to point out that the progress is taking place in both the private and the public sector. The Kidston gold-field, the Dalrymple Bay coal port, electrification of central Queensland railways, the Tarong Power Station, the Burdekin Dam, tourist developments along the coastline, two new cotton gins, at Goondiwindi and Cecil Plains, the expansion of our agricultural belt, expansion of the grain storage systems, ever-increasing reforestation areas and the development of public facilities in national parks—all are concrete examples of the development going on within the State. The member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) very ably gave statistical evidence to disprove the Opposition's claims that the management of Queensland's economy was so poor that Queensland was an embarrassment to Australia. It is worth repeating some of the figures he cited. Queensland's population was approximately 16 per cent of the total Australian population when statistical records of the nation were last taken, yet Queensland produced 22.1 per cent of the nation's export earnings. Queensland accounted for 20.3 per cent of all building approvals and for 20 per cent of all dwelUng unit approvals. Retail sales in Queensland were 16.2 per cent of the national average. New vehicle registrations in Queensland represented 16.1 per cent of the national total. People from the southern States continue to migrate to Queensland. These are not the statistics of a mismanaged State; these are not the figures of a State that is supposed to be an embarrassment to Australia. Earlier I spoke of concrete developments. 1 firmly believe that in the last 12 months this Bjelke-Petersen Government has begun a new era. This Govemment has been to the forefront in legislating for exciting new attitudinal development. It is a fact that the attitude of the public in relation to its acceptance of trade-unionism has changed greatly. Because of unrealistic union leadership, this nation's economic performance has slipped dramatically over recent years. The great strength of the work-force of Australia has been misled and mismanaged by irresponsible leaders in the trade union movement. Mr Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, is now wrestling with the severe problems of a nation that is finding difficulty in competing on world markets. Not very many years ago he led the union movement in irresponsible industrial disputes. Mr Hawke is on record as saying, when president of the ACTU, that he would bring this nation to its knees. Now that he leads the Commonwealth Government, he is attempting to reverse the damage that he precipitated. I do give Mr Hawke credit, however, for now, as Prime Minister of Australia, attempting to overcome the malaise that the union movement in general, and he in particular, helped to create. Unfortunately, although he has endeavoured to turn the nation around, his unelected coalition partner, the ACTU, keeps on vetoing his initiatives. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 187

It is patently clear to many members of the public that the ALP Government is subservient to that body. For a long time the public has recognised the fact that union leadership in Australia is mining the nation. The Queensland Government has taken the first legislative steps that are in tune with a mood sweeping the work-places of Australia. The call is loud and clear. No longer is it, "We must have the right to strike"; now the cry is, "We must have the right to work." Despite the pathetic attempts by a minority leadership of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council to have the public believe otherwise, all members of this Chamber are well aware that public opinion on the Electrical Trades Union issue is firmly on the side of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The union movement realises that it has a lot to lose. The union leadership realises that it is losing its hold over its members. I watched closely during the debates on the union legislation that was introduced into this Chamber in 1984. I recognised the valiant attempts made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) and his colleagues to do as the union leaders dictated, but I also detected their sense of hopelessness. That was made patently clear when the Opposition ran out of speakers. During the debate, the Opposition ran out of substance, whereas Government members were up and running because, wherever they went, they were reassured by the people of Queensland that the legislation was what they wanted.

Mr Hamill: Where were you hiding all the time? Mr LITTLEPROUD: The honourable member should check the records on the number of speakers. I appeal to members of the Opposition to concede now that the public is calling for responsible union leadership. They should convince the Queensland Trades and Labor Council and the ACTU leaders that, for the good of us all and for the good of AustraUa, we must all work for what we want. Australia is no longer the lucky country. Its future depends on our ability, be it as an individual or as a nation, to be more productive. Everyone must be prepared to work for what he wants. Unemployment remains a major matter of concern in Australia. Despite consistent efforts to create employment, it is a fact that the level of unemployment remains unacceptably high. I am not about to debate in detail the unemployment level or to cite figures showing that thousands of new jobs are being created, that Queensland's level of unemployment has been reduced every quarter for the last five quarters, or that people on social security payments are migrating to Queensland and, consequently, having a negative effect on Queensland's unemployment level. I stress that a balance must be struck between job creation and Government borrowing. The Hawke Federal Government can justly claim that it has created many new jobs—almost as many as it promised. If only those figures are taken into consider­ ation, its performance seems to be commendable. However, what the Hawke Government does not relate to this growth in employment are— (1) The temporary nature of much of the employment created. (2) Many of the jobs created are in the public sector, and that, in reality, has a draining effect on the productive sector. (3) Money borrowed to create temporary employment in the public sector is not the best type of investment. By way of comparison, the initiatives of the Queensland Government show much more business acumen. The push for an accelerated public-sector building program in the last State Budget was designed specifically to have the work in the productive private 188 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

sector done by contractors. Many of the projects chosen also offer substantial improve­ ments in efficiency in the provision of Government services. For example, the electri­ fication of the central Queensland coal-field railways will achieve the following commendable objectives— (1) It will use Queensland coal to generate power for the electric trains rather than use diesel fuel, which is a resource that is scarce in Queensland. (2) The project provides opportunity for the heavy engineering sector—a private sector suffering a downturn since the ending of the mining development boom of the 1960s and 1970s. (3) The electrified system will be cheaper to mn and maintain. (4) The project provides work for the private sector. (5) The completed project will be a very definite asset to the State. By way of comparison, I doubt that a majority of the projects funded by the Community Employment Program would meet the same criteria. A basic aim of parents is to raise their children and, hopefully, to pass on to them some accumulated assets. It is certainly not the intention of most parents to leave a legacy of debt to their children. On a national level, it is this legacy of debt that concerns many of my constituents. It worries people that every year Australia's national debt grows by an enormous amount. Sir Arvi Parbo, speaking at Mr Hawke's tax summit, warned the nation that its debt continues to grow at an alarming rate. He warned that, unless this trend was reversed, the only heritage left for our children would be a huge national debt. It is a fact of life that borrowings are necessary for development, but investment consultants constantly warn that it is imperative that people borrow on projects that offer a long-term gain. I am of the opinion that the initiatives of the 1984 Queensland Budget will produce long-term gains. I am not convinced that the borrowings made by the Federal Government will achieve the same result. My message is that I detect in the electorate a realisation that there is no such thing as a "free lunch" If Australians are to have the standard of living that they desire, it is up to each individual to work and pay for it now—not to burden the next generation with the problem of paying for our excesses. Similarly, the electorate expects Governments to manage the State and nation's future in an equally prudent manner. The subject of prudent management brings me to comment on the Federal Budget announced on Tuesday, 20 August. Although I support the initiative of traineeships for young people and the incentives paid to employees under the scheme, I am critical of the Budget on the basis that it fails to offer any lasting incentives to the productive sector—incentives that will help to generate profit, investment and further employment. The Federal Treasurer, Paul Keating, gave lip-service to the words "profits", "growth", "employment" and "development", but the reality of the Budget is that it does not provide the stimulus to the private sector that the electorate is calling for. 1 am critical of the Federal Budget also because it failed to be a complete document. Australians must wait until next month for an announcement on new tax schemes. In the meantime, uncertainty continues. People in real estate will readily admit that it has been uncertainty over what the Federal Government intends to do in its tax reforms that has caused sales to be very slow. Investment generally has been equally slow. The uncertainty began months ago when Mr Hawke first announced that a tax summit would be held. Consistent media comments on all the possible reforms have persisted ever since, further fuelling the uncertainty. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 189

Then, in July, the famous tax summit was held. Immediately it became obvious that the various options listed by the Prime Minister were to be scrapped. Even while all the participants invited to the tax summit went through the charade of talking about the options, the ACTU was behind locked doors dictating to the Prime Minister what should be done. Since then there has been further uncertainty. We were told that the annual Budget would be in two parts, or rather the Budget would be given now but the real facts investors were waiting to hear would not be announced until September, meaning that any promised tax relief people may expect wiU not become effective until the 1986-87 financial year. Not only does the Federal Budget lack stimulus, it also fails to put to rest this uncertainty that is stopping investments. The mral sector was given assurances by the Prime Minister that it would be given substantial relief The relief on fuel is welcome. However, I am told that the average grain-farmer faced an additional 10c a litre as a result of the recent price hikes. The Budget will cut the price only by approximately 2.4c a litre. The cut in tariffs on imported headers and the use of a bounty for locally made headers are in response to a long-standing request from the Queensland Graingrowers Association and are to be commended. However, Australia must realise quickly that its mral sector faces frightening pressures. These pressures are largely a result of the agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. From being an importer of sugar, grain, beef and dairy products 20 years ago, the EEC has now become a major exporter. Worse still, the EEC highly subsidises its rural producers and prohibits Australian produce entry into its European markets. Given the chance, Australia could readily undersell in aU commodities. Worse still is the fact that the EEC sells its surplus on the world market at prices well below our costs of production. For example, EEC butter-producers are paid something like $2,200 per tonne. The world price for butter seems to about $1,200 per tonne. Yet the EEC is prepared to dump its excess butter for as little as $700 a tonne or less. The malaise of our sugar industry can also be partly blamed on beet sugar produced in the EEC being dumped on the world market at similarly ridiculous prices. We face similar problems with grains and meats. The primary producers in Australia have been able to compete successfully on world markets for years. We cannot, however, expect to be competitive when prices offered by the EEC bear no relationship to the cost of production. Recently, I was alarmed when told the subsidy cost per head of population in the EEC to support its damaging agricultural policy is a mere $60 per head per annum. It may well be asked, "How can that be possible?" The percentage of people involved in agriculture in the Common Market countries is very low; so, too, is the value of agricultural produce in comparison with the gross production of the market. A subsidy of a mere $60 per head, if it is correct, is infinitesimal and explains why those people are prepared to support a system that, to us, seems completely irrational. Our trade representatives face a mammoth task, firstly, to manage a change in the EEC policies and, secondly, to compete in the world market and hold our traditional markets. Faced with such problems, the rural sector of Australia is adamant that the slice of national production going to Governments must be reduced. The rural sector is a major export-earner. The rural sector produces a major part of our national wealth. It must be helped. The rural sector is not especially looking for hand-outs. It merely wants to be relieved of some of its production costs. The rural sector is also calling for a more flexible wage-fixation scheme. It insists that the present national wage cases lock all industry into cost structures that some 190 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

sectors may be able to bear. For other sectors, however, they represent unbearable imposts. The National Party Government in Queensland is keen to legislate to give the flexibility to the wages market that the various sectors of industry need. Currently the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Honourable Mike Ahem) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Honourable Vince Lester) are fully investigating the matter. At Mudginberri in the Northern Territory, an attack on the inflexibility of the tally system applying in meatworks is under way. Workers are prepared to be paid on a scale that relates production to wages. The workers are making more money than under the tally system. The workers are happy, yet the leadership of their union adopts a head-in- the-sand attitude and wants to retain a system that costs $150 per head slaughtered, whereas the new system costs only- $50 per head, gives the workers more money and the owner more profit and enables Australian meat to be more competitive on the world market. The wide-comb issue of the wool industry had many similarities to that meatworks issue. With wider combs, the shearers benefited by making more and the graziers benefited because shed costs were reduced, yet an intransigent union leadership refused to accept a natural development. Now we find that the shearers have defied their union leadership and adopted wide combs. The result is a more efficient industry, which is an advantage to the nation as a whole. Union leaders attack such innovations as these as practices that will return workers to the 1800s. Their argument is illogical and based on emotive reasoning. It would be much wiser for union leadership to realise that the present system is based on 1950s thinking and is totally unacceptable in the 1980s. Conditions change, circumstances alter and our wage-fixation systems must adapt. We have failed to do so in recent times and, as a result, we find our nation in decline. Make no mistake about it: investors, employers, capitalists (call them what you might) will only continue to employ if an opportunity exists to make profit. If they cease to provide investment and create employment, it is the employees who suffer. The employer will merely invest his capital in another way. He will continue to earn. That being the case, it is vital for union leaders to realise that they do not own the jobs. The prosperity of union members depends heavily on the profitability of industry. Both employer and employee must co-operate to produce at a maximum—to maximise profits to be shared by employer and employee. If there is no profit, there are no employees. The way of the future in wage fixation is contract labour and flexibility in the market. The United States of America has proved it. Australia must adopt it. It is vital for all of us to develop new attitudes to industrial relations. The unions had good cause in earlier days to adopt the policies they did. There is a place for unions in the future; but, more importantly, both management and the work-force must adopt a system that will be of benefit to all and, as a result, build a better Australia. My final comment is also to do with sharing of wealth. The various Governments of Australia adopt policies of decentralisation. In Queensland the Government has prided itself on decentralised policies for many years. Its record in this field is the best in Australia. However, that is not to say it is perfect. The dying-country-town syndrome has been with us for many years. A trip throughout mral Queensland reveals that some towns are prospering but others are dying. It seems to me that the difference between progress and stagnation is closely related to the presence of public servants. That can readily be understood if one considers that one person in three is employed in the public sector and that about 40 to 45 people in every hundred are either public servants or depend on social security. That being the case, any town that does not have at least one-third of its population consisting of public servants is, in fact, missing out on its share of the nation's wealth. Country towns without a fair share of public servants lack a cash flow from the public purse that helps to sustain parts of the private sector. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 191

Mr Deputy Speaker, the various regional government centres in Queensland are all prospering, while nearby towns, not having a fair share of public servants, are suffering. I urge the Government to realise that this is the case and to further fine-tune its decentralisation policies to equitably share the State's wealth by deploying public servants throughout the State. I conclude by looking forward to contributing to the various debates in this Chamber during the current session and I hope that our deliberations wiU be based on the single concept that the people of Australia must co-operate in their desire for a greater common wealth, and that all of us most work towards leaving an enriched inheritance, not a growing national debt.

Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (3.17 p.m.): It is with a measure of disappointment that I respond to the Governor's Opening Speech last week, because it was quite obvious that that speech had been prepared by the Government. It indicated clearly that Queensland wUl continue along the same old road or the same old path that has resulted in its becoming the State in Australia with the highest rate of unemployment and a graveyard for smaU business. It should be noted that Queensland has the highest level of bankmptcy. It is all similar to a scene from the children's tale The Emperor's New Clothes. The Premier and Treasurer wanders around the State clothed in economic policies. Govern­ ment members cheer him along because they have not the good sense to tell the Premier that his policies are transparent and without substance, as were the Emperor's clothes. Like the Emperor, the Premier and Treasurer and his Government have been exposed for the economic frauds that they are. Honourable members have just heard the honourable member for Condamine arguing the case of a public-servant-led recovery in the economy of Queensland. I am not sure whether that point of view would be endorsed by the Premier and Treasurer and the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer in their Budget speeches. The honourable member seems to think that all of the problems experienced in country towns can be resolved by employing more public servants in those towns. That is an example of the sort of economic nonsense that Opposition members have come to expect from Government members. The fact is that Queensland now has a Government that is divided over economic management and economic policy. Only today, the Premier and Treasurer deflated the Health Minister because of that Minister's blustering concern about Medicare funding. It was only last week that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, who gave the same speech in the Chamber today, complained about the shortfalls in funding received by the Queensland Government at the hands of the Federal Government. That is the sort of story of half-tmths and deceits that Opposition members have come to expect every time Govemment members open their mouths on matters of economic management. 1 wish to say, though, that I whole-heartedly endorse the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Sandgate, when he exposed the double-dealing, double standards and deceit, and the half-tmths that are so often portrayed as fact when only half of the story is told. A very good example can be found in the issue of funding child-care. That is a subject that has been mentioned a couple of times in this Chamber over the last week, and I notice that one of the Government's Cabinet Ministers has presented a petition that calls upon the Government to step into the breach and provide more funds for child-care services and pre-school centres in Queensland. When I conclude my remarks, it will be apparent to all members in the Chamber why such measures are absolutely necessary. I should hope that, when the State Budget is to be brought down in the very near future, the Queensland Government will recognise its responsibilities in this very important area and cater for the early education needs of young Queenslanders. 192 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

1 noted with some interest a comment in these terms in the Governor's Opening Speech— "Many new pre-school and early education facilities will come into existence to give infants their first learning experiences." If, in the Budget, the Government does not live up to its responsibilities, pre-school education will be retarded and probably a number of pre-schools will go to the wall. Education is very important to our society. After all, it is the future of our society. It is recognised on both sides of the Chamber that the primary responsibility for funding primary, secondary and pre-school education centres rests with the State Government. Nevertheless, some assistance comes from the Commonwealth. The point is that specific payments made by the Commonwealth make up a very tiny fraction of the total outlay on education. In fact, in the State Budget, Commonwealth outlays on education take approximately one-tenth of the outlay by the State in any one year. Pre-school funding is of prime importance. Queensland entered this area in 1973- 74. It was no coincidence that that coincided with the commencement of Commonwealth funding under the Whitlam Labor Government. In 1973-74, the Commonwealth provided $435,826 to Queensland to initiate a pre-school education program. The following year saw a clear indication of Labor's commitment to pre-school education. In 1974-75, the amount for Queensland pre-schools was increased by 300 per cent to $1,733,560 by the Whitlam Government. I emphasise a fact that is sometimes overlooked by Government members, namely, that the Commonwealth's objectives in providing funds was not specifically for pre- schools, but rather to provide child-care places. The consultation that ensued between the Commonwealth and the States after 1972, when the whole question of block-grant funding of pre-schools was first mooted, came about because the States argued at that time that only by the provision of pre-school funds could the number of child-care places in the States be increased very quickly. Consequently, the Commonwealth provided the States with funds to assist in the provision of pre-schools. However, at no time did the Commonwealth earmark funds specifically for pre-schools. Funds were part of an overall commitment to child-care places. In 1974 the Social Welfare Commission report, titled Project Care: Children Parents and Community actually argued against giving pre-school funding priority. It favoured broadly based assistance for a whole range of children's services. That approach was taken up by the Fraser Government in 1976 in the establishment of the Office of Child Care with increased emphasis on non-pre-school-based services under the Children's Services Program. That program exists today. It is interesting to look at the funding arrangements because, when the debate centres on where the funds are coming from, an appreciation of the arrangements for the provision of funds is most important. When the Commonwealth first entered the area of assistance to pre-schools the Labor Government offered 100 per cent of the construction costs of new pre-schools. It also offered 100 per cent of the recurtent costs of all approved staff for pre-schools. For established pre-schools, the Commonwealth Government at that time offered the difference between the State's contributions and the award salaries of approved staff on condition that the States maintained their level of support. That will be a consistent theme—the expectation and the requirement on the part of the Commonwealth that the States meet their responsibilities in pre-school funding. The change of Govenment also saw a change in approach to the level of support for pre-schools. The incoming Liberal-National Party coalition Government under Fraser and Anthony tightened the level of support for pre-schools. The 100 per cent commitment to costs was dropped back to 75 per cent of recurrent costs for agreed pre-school staff and advisers. From 1 January 1977, under the Fraser Government, lump-sum, block grant funding was introduced for pre-schools. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 193

In 1977-78, in the first fuU year of that block grant, $42.75m was allocated by the Commonwealth, of which $7,670,500 came to the Queensland Govemment for allocation to community kindergartens and pre-schools in this State. There was no outcry from our conservative members opposite when, in the following year, 1978-79, the Fraser/ Anthony Government dropped back the level of support to community kindergartens and pre-schools by 14 per cent in money terms. In real terms that meant a far more substantial slashing of the Budget. In 1978-79, under the block grant scheme across Australia, $32.5m was allocated to community pre-schools, of which $6,605,000 came to Queensland. That represented 20 per cent of the total allocation under the block grant scheme for Australia. The point is that in subsequent years—in fact, for seven years—the allocation to Queensland under the block grant for pre-schools was not increased. Indeed, the allocation across Australia was not increased. It was maintained at that level of $6.6m to Queensland. That has persisted until the present time. Honourable members might ask, "What does this mean?" Of course, in real terms it means that Commonwealth support for community pre-schools has been diminishing. Firstly, it reflected the policy of the Fraser Government to withdraw from the temporary funding of pre-schools. As 1 pointed out earlier, pre-school funding was part of an overall commitment to child care. It also represented recognition by the States and the Commonwealth that the provision of pre-schools as an integral part of the education system remained and continues to remain a prime responsibility of State Governments. The other point that should be recognised—I cannot put it forcefully enough—is that the maintenance of the same level of finance for those seven years coincided with substantial increases to the States in untied general revenue tax-sharing funds from the Commonwealth Government. Do not think for one moment that the States were starved of funds during that period. As I said, during that period, very substantial increases in tax-sharing funds were distributed among the States. On many occasions Ministers have argued the case for untied tax-sharing funds. State Governments do not like specific tied grants from the Commonwealth. The reason for that is simple. With specific and tied grants. Commonwealth Governments require the States to spend money in particular areas. Untied grants under the general revenue- sharing arrangements allow the States to determine their own priorities in the allocation of the funds. Unfortunately, the Queensland Government accords a very low priority to pre­ school education, as it does to a number of other areas. Consequently, Queensland families have been suffering a lower level of support from this Government compared with families in other States of Australia. In 1977-78, Queensland received $775.5m from the Commonwealth in tax-sharing funds. It was estimated that in 1984-85, Queensland would receive $ 1,890m from the Commonwealth under the tax-sharing arrangements. In money terms, that represents an increase of 144 per cent. The source of my information is the Budget papers of this State. From that source of funding the State Govemment makes a large proportion of its allocation for services and, in particular, its allocation for the education Vote. What is the argument? The argument is that if the State says, on the one hand, "We want the continuation of the block grant," and, on the other hand, argues that there should be untied allocation of funds to the State, the State is being totally hypocritical. What the Commonwealth is doing is simply providing additional funds for the States to allocate and, at the same time, withdrawing one of those specific tied grants that the States have found so obnoxious in the past. Comparisons need to be made in relation to block grants for pre-schools. As I said, other States have been prepared to accept their responsibilities for pre-school funding. 194 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

In fact, as Commonwealth commitments under the block grant have been scaled down— both under this Federal Government and the previous Federal Govemment—the States have come to the fore in accepting the prime responsibility for the funding of pre- schools. Across Australia today, for every $ 1 of Commonwealth funding for pre-schools and community kindergartens. State Governments provide $5. However, and so typically, Queensland is lagging behind. It is another example of the low level of services that the Leader of the Opposition pointed out so clearly in his address in this Chamber this aftemoon. For every $ 1 that the Commonwealth provides to Queensland for community kindergartens and pre-schools under the block grant, the State Government provides a lousy $2 compared with $5 per head for the pre-schoolers in other States. Mr Lee: The Commonwealth has reduced its funding. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Yeronga has suddenly woken up to the fact that the Commonwealth is reducing its funding. That is the whole point of my argument this afternoon. Under the present Federal Govemment and under the Eraser/ Anthony Government, funding is being and was reduced. Because the honourable member must have been asleep at the time, I remind him that the Commonwealth is reducing its funding because it only entered the area of pre-school block grants to meet the desires of the States to increase the number of child care centres quickly. It was agreed at the time that, as a temporary measure, the Commonwealth would provide funds for community pre-schools. Because the honourable member for Yeronga was a Minister at the time, he should remember that. He should also be aware that the State Governments have continually accepted responsibility for the funding of pre-schools. The parents and children of Queensland are suffering because of the parsimonious policies of the Queensland Government. Community kindergartens are justifiably con­ cerned at the removal of the Commonwealth block grant. They are concemed because the State Government has consistently avoided its responsibilities in providing sufficient funds to maintain the future viability of community pre-schools and kindergartens. When one considers per capita allocations of Govemment assistance to Government assisted pre-schools—the great bulk of community kindergartens come into this category— one finds that, in 1983-84, State Government per capita allocations rose by only 3 per cent, while the number of children being educated in community pre-schools and kindergartens rose from 18 872 in 1982 to 20 235 in 1983, a rise of 7.2 per cent. In 1984-85, a similar picture emerged. Per capita funding from the State Government increased by only 4.4 per cent—it did not even keep up with inflation—while the number of children in community pre-schools and kindergartens rose by 7.7 per cent, that is, to 21 798. The Government must remember that community pre-schools and kindergartens are taking the pressure off the State pre-school system. They are part and parcel of the integrated approach to pre-schooling; yet the State Government is continually starving these community centres of funds. Unfortunately, this must represent the priorities of what can only be described as a tired, old Government. Many of the Ministers obviously have no concern for the welfare of pre-school children. Maybe it is because they have passed that period in their lives and do not realise the pressures that are on many Queensland famUies. Those pressures include the need for adequate child care and pre-school education. Unfortu­ nately, it is obvious that the leadership of this State is totally out of touch with the needs of young families and young people to get a decent education for their future. After all, formal education must start in the pre-school sector. When one considers the level of education-funding in this State, one finds that education has been consistently accorded a very low priority. Although I was one who welcomed the increase, albeit meagre, in the allocation for education in last year's State Budget, 1 put on record again that a smaller proportion of consolidated revenue in last year's Budget was allocated to education than was the case 10 years ago. The State Address in Reply 27 August 1985 195

Government consistently sets that low priority for education. Again, as I say, it is the young people of the State who are suffering. I am deeply indebted to the kindergarten associations in my electorate, particularly the Ipswich Kindergarten Association, which provided me with some very useful and illustrative statistics on the costing of community kindergartens. For the information of honourable members I would like to table what is by any other name a petition—it is not in the standard form—from parents who are concerned at the lack of adequate State Government support for community kindergartens. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. The figures provided to me by the Ipswich Kindergarten Association illustrate very clearly the increasing burdens that are placed upon parents of pre-school children. The Leader of the Opposition has already spoken about the State Government's avoiding its responsibilities in the provision of such things as soap, toilet-paper and other materials needed for children in primary and secondary schools. The problem is even more acute in the pre-school area. In 1982, Government contributions to the operating funds of the Ipswich Community Kindergarten were 65 per cent of total costs. Each successive year it has gradually fallen. In 1984 it had fallen to 58 per cent of total operating funds provided by Government contributions. In 1985, it had fallen to 56 per cent. Unless the Queensland Government meets its responsibilities at the end of this year, the Government contribution will fall to 44 per cent. The reason for this is simple—the State Government subsidies attach only to the base salaries of approved staff. No assistance whatsoever is provided in meeting the other costs that have to be borne by parents of children in community pre-schools to pay for the ongoing operations of those centres. In 1984-85, almost $2m came to community kindergartens from the block grant— that is, $2m from the Commonwealth and allocated through the State to community kindergartens. As has been learnt from the Treasurer's May economic statement, from December that block grant funding will cease, which means that the State will have to look to its own resources. If it is to maintain existing funding levels, inadequate though they may be, the State will have to provide approximately $1.5m just to maintain the ongoing operation of these centres. I do not believe that that is a tall order. It is not an excessive impost on this State Government when it comes to looking after the welfare of young children in pre-schools. Remember that, although that block grant, which was introduced by the Fraser Government, has been decreased in real terms year after year since its introduction, the allocations to the States under the tax-sharing artangements have increased dramatically. If one looks at the untied tax-sharing allocations to the States over the period for which the block grant has been in operation, one sees that they have increased by $1,114.5m, or more than 144 per cent. Yet the State Govemment consistently refuses to provide adequate assistance to the pre-schools of this State. Some people might ask: Why is the Commonwealth leaving the area of Commonwealth block grant funding for pre-schools? The answers are really quite simple. Even the member for Yeronga (Mr Lee) would understand that—provided he could manage to keep himself awake for long enough. The Commonwealth Government is continuing to pursue its policy of establishing additional child care facilities in this nation. In fact, over the next three years the Commonwealth Government is committed to providing an additional 20 000 child care places in Australia. The emphasis of this program is on providing vacation care, before-school and after-school care and also—and this might be of interest to some of the Government members—on providing for child care in that neglected area of Australia in terms of child care facilities—mral Australia. So the Commonwealth Government has committed itself to increasing child care. I might point out that one of the greatest needs in Australia, particularly for famihes in which both parents have to go to work to support the family unit, is the provision of adequate, affordable child care facilities in the community. Thankfully, the Commonwealth Government recognises its responsibility to meet that need. 196 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

If the Queensland Government's record is compared with that of other States, it can be seen just how negligent the Queensland Government has been in providing adequate child care and pre-school facilities for our youngest Queenslanders. In other States, the assistance that is given to community pre-schools extends to operating costs and a whole range of other overheads. That is not so in Queensland. The funding that is provided in Queensland is 80 per cent of approved staff base salaries. No consideration is given by the State Government to providing assistance to community pre-schools to meet such things as leave, leave loading, and so on, that accme to their employees. Furthermore, the State Government provides a one-off $2,000 grant for equipment; $2,000 does not go very far. Mr Bailey: What about the cuts in the Federal Government subsidies to kinder­ gartens? You clearly missed that. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Toowong is really astounding. I thought that it was the honourable member for Yeronga (Mr Lee) whom I heard snoring before; it was obviously Mr Bailey. It has suddenly dawned on the honourable member for Toowong that the Commonwealth is going to cut the block grant system of funding for pre-schools. If the honourable member had been listening and not amusing himself with the honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge), who has already been exposed as a total fraud in this Parliament this afternoon by using the same speech that he used last Thursday—obviously he has not been able to get Mr Powell to write a new set of jokes for him to present to the Chamber—he would realise that the whole thmst of my address this afternoon is to show the total neglect by his Government to provide adequate child care and kindergarten facilities in this State. The whole point is simply that the State Government has received very substantial increases—144 per cent—in its tax- sharing arrangements during the period of the block grant implementation, and it has not provided an adequate level of funding to community pre-schools. When Government members desist from their bleating and realise that they have been exposed for the frauds that they are, I will proceed to show exactly how the funding provided in this State does not bear up to the level of funding that is provided in other States. As I said, the miserable Government in Queensland provides only 80 per cent of base salaries and a one-off $2,000 grant for equipment. That should be compared with the record of the Cain Government in Victoria. Mr Henderson: How much do they owe? Mr HAMILL: I will tell the honourable member exactly. The Cain Government obviously cares more for families and children than some honourable members opposite do. I am disappointed with the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson). I thought that he cared for children particularly. The Victorian State Government provides to community pre-schools a maintenance grant of up to $2,600 per year. In addition, it meets the fijll cost of staff salaries, not 80 per cent of the base cost. It also provides capital funding for new services of up to $30,000. That is not provided by the Queensland Government. I regard the Victorian Government's commitment as a real commitment to the needs of pre-school education and the needs of the community. The Queensland Government does not provide anything like that. As I have said, the Queensland Government is a Government of fraud. Opposition members have consistently shown this afternoon that it is a Govemment of fraud in that it claims to be a low-tax State. However, the record is quite the opposite; it is a Government of high taxes and high charges. Honourable members have seen that it is a high-tax Government in terms of motor vehicle registration fees, compulsory third- party insurance premiums, rail freights, and the new increases in driver's licence fees, which the Queensland Government does not have the fortitude to bring before the Address in Reply 27 August 1985 197

Parliament. It relies upon its Financial Administration and Audit Act to increase Govemment charges and taxes covertly. The services provided are abysmal. The Queens­ land Govemment stands condemned for its lack of funding. Mr Simpson: You think driver's licences are too high, do you? Mr HAMILL: Driver's licence fees are but one example of the sort of revenue that the Queensland Government raises covertly and behind the scenes by the use of the Financial Administration and Audit Act. The honourable member for Cooroora stands exposed once again. I suggest that he close his mouth before he proves to the world that he is the ignorant ass that I believe he is. It is time that the Queensland Government accepted its responsibUity. Queensland cannot continue to budget in cloud-cuckoo-land. The economic facts must be faced. The State Government is presiding over an economy on the slide and it is presiding over a community that is ill served by the lack of allocations of adequate funding for such basic community services as education, and community kindergartens in particular. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (3.45 p.m.): 1 am pleased to take part in the debate. I support the motion so ably moved by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt (Mr Henderson) and seconded by the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper). I pledge my support for Her Majesty the Queen and her newly appointed representative in Queensland, the Governor, Sir Walter Campbell. I support what they stand for, including the flag and our democratic way of life. Mr Hamill: You are wrong—sorry. Mr STEPHAN: Australians do have a democratic way of life. The honourable member for Ipswich has the opportunity to vote every three years. I believe that the honourable member has his name on the roll for local government. State and Federal elections. Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is too much noise and too much cross-fire. I ask honourable members to desist. Mr STEPHAN: I do not think that Opposition members like the thought of so many elections. When Mr Hawke came to power he promised that he would go the full three years and perhaps even four years. What happened after about 18 or 19 months? Mr Hawke decided that he would like to extend his term if at all possible. He got quite a shock when he finished up with a much decreased majority. That is an example of our democracy. I noted with interest the comments of several Opposition members. In particular, 1 noted the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) when he was speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). He contradicted himself At one stage he said that the Queensland economy was going from bad to worse. He said that Queensland was in a very serious position and that the Government was running out of money. He then went on to say that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Estimates of the Queensland Government are in fact at a healthy credit, with approximately $121m surplus to requirements. The Leader of the Opposition contradicted himself in that one speech. At one stage he said that Queensland was going out the back door. Five minutes later he talked about the enormous surplus. He said, "Let it not be said that the State Govemment is mnning out of money." Which comment does the Leader of the Opposition believe? The honourable member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill), who just sat down, spoke quite adamantly and at length on Federal Government funding of pre-schools. The Federal 198 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Government begins something and then throws it away, and leaves it to the States to pick up the tab. This is what has happened. If I am wrong, will honourable members opposite tell me how the Federal Government is supporting pre-schools at present? How is the Federal Government currently supporting the construction of pre-schools? Mr Hamill: You are wrong. Mr STEPHAN: I am not wrong. What funding is being provided for the pre- schools out in the country that are being built and are being utilised by members of the community? Honourable members opposite should remember that it was the State Government that supported the construction of pre-schools and is continuing that program. It is the State Government that is picking up the tab. I concur with the comments made by the Governor in his Opening Speech. He pointed out that the Queensland Govemment has maintained a balanced Budget. It has been able to do that by good house-keeping methods, by utilising Queensland's resources and by ensuring that over-expenditure has not occurred. The Governor went on to point out the effects of that good house-keeping, not the least of which is the favourable credit rating that Queensland has with overseas countries when it requires loan moneys from time to time. The Queensland Govemment has one of the highest credit ratings of any borrower in the world at present. That has not happened by mistake, and it shows supreme confidence by a great many people in the Queensland Government. I turn now to the recent Federal Budget, in which there was more rhetoric than performance. It is a confused, and confusing, document that falls between wishing to be attractive to the money markets and playing to those Labor Party traditionalists who labour under the delusion that social democracy is about redistributing income rather than creating it. So often one hears their cry, "Bring everyone down to the one level." It is their aim to keep everyone at the lower level rather than try to build the nation up. It is so much easier to knock down than it is to be constructive and build. That is the mentality and attitude emanating from Canberra at the moment. The Budget estimated an increase in business incomes of 11 per cent. If that happens and there is no significant cut in tax scales, tax revenue is likely to increase by far more than the 13.5 per cent estimated in the receipts from pay-as-you-earn tax-payers. The increase will be closer to 15 or 17 per cent. Mr Davis: Did you go to Canberra with all those farmers? Mr STEPHAN: No, but they highlighted the precarious position of farmers. That raises a point that 1 will refer to later. The Australian farmer is in a perilous financial position. He has the burden of a number of Australians on his back. Enormous productivity is required from him. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: No, I did not read the article to which the honourable member refers. I do not know who wrote it. The member for Brisbane Central maintains that he came from the land and spent a great deal of his youth in the country. He ought to know the problems associated with living in the country. Mr Davis: 1 am depressed because that report says that many of those 10 000 farmers spent their nights in the bordellos of Canberra. Mr STEPHAN: I do not think that is right. You say 10 000. 1 don't think you can count. If you were down there buying beer for those fellows Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Orderi I remind the honourable member for Gympie that he must address the Chair. I have been fairiy tolerant with the member for Brisbane Central. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 199

Mr STEPHAN: If the honourable member for Brisbane Central had been buying beer for the farmers in Canberra, he would have been paying for closer to 50 000 than the 10 000 referred to in the document that he has. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has attempted to sell Queensland down the drain by claiming that this State has been treated very generously in the Budget. He has ignored the fact that Queenslanders have not received their just rewards for the amounts of money they are paying in various ways. I refer first to the amount being received by Queensland under Medicare. What about the Budget's removal of the Medicare levy limit? For some, that will be going through the ceiling. What about the claimed 13.5 per cent additional tax—it is more Ukely to be 15 per cent or 17 per cent—received from PA YE tax-payers? What about the 869 additional jobs created in the Taxation Department? The Leader of the Opposition loses sight of those matters. He also overlooks the increases in fuel prices. Mr Davis: You are not blaming the Federal Govemment for world parity pricing, surely? Mr STEPHAN: No, but there is no need to stick to world parity pricing. For country areas, the fuel subsidy has been taken off. That has increased the price by 4c. In the last month or so, there was an increase in the price of fuel of 2c. The Federal Govemment then makes great play of its 2.4c a litre retum to farmers. What a great deal! Is it worth while to get a reduction of 2.4 cents when the most recent increase amounted to 6 cents? Mr Davis: There will be more next month. Mr STEPHAN: Taking into account the mentality of the Federal Labor Government in Canberra, I would not be surprised if an increase were imposed next month. Much the same attitude is being dished up in the taxation policies of the Federal Govemment, and that is one of the reasons why the Premier and Treasurer has supported the flat-tax scheme, which is receiving a great deal of encouragement and support throughout the community. The single rate of tax has a good deal in its favour, especially when it is realised that instead of the 30, 45 or 60 per cent that is being paid presently, the rate would be 25 per cent. No consumption tax or capital gains tax forms part of the proposal to introduce a scheme of single-rate taxation. Mr Davis: Do you support a flat rate of taxation? Mr STEPHAN: Yes, I do support a flat rate of taxation, and I am merely pointing out the benefits of such a scheme. A great deal of incentive would result from the implementation of such a scheme, and the benefits of that incentive would assist the wage-earner and every other member of the Australian community to the extent that a rebate of approximately 5 per cent a week would reduce the level of income tax imposed on incomes at a comparable level of about $25,000-$30,000. It is envisaged also that such a scheme would produce once- off economic growth at the rate of approximately 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent. If Opposition members close their eyes to the benefits of growth and to the need for encouragement and incentive to be given to the business community, they close their eyes to reality. Mr Davis: How many countries operate under a system of a flat rate of income tax? Mr STEPHAN: It does not matter how many countries operate under a flat rate of tax, because one could also point to the Australian States and ask how many States have a deficit similar to that in New South Wales. I would rather look to some of the other economic advantages. 200 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Economic growth would result from reduced unemployment, and I suppose that members of the Opposition do not like the sound of a proposal for lower levels of unemployment and the benefit in the balance of payments position that would result. Additional revenue could also result from the elimination of avoidance and evasion of taxation, and that is another example of measures for economic growth. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: If the honourable member for Brisbane Central is one of those who indulges in bottom-of-the-harbour schemes, he may go to the bottom of the harbour, too. The sorts of measures that I have outlined are concessions of a very different kind from those presented by the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Federal Government's white paper under option C, which was rejected across the board. When it is realised by members of the Australian community that many advantages are contained in a proposal for a flat rate of taxation, the Queensland Government can look forward to gaining support for that proposal. It may advantage all honourable members in this House to spend some time in studying the proposal—unless, of course, members of the Opposition would prefer to run the community down even further. Mr Davis: You know these measures will not be implemented. You make all the promises, yet you know that they will not be implemented. Mr STEPHAN: Members of the Opposition have criticised the State Government about death duties not being implemented. Many other measures have not been imple­ mented, either. However, from being proposals, they became a fact of life, and they supported a good deal of rriigration by Victorians and New South Welshmen, who came to settle in Queensland. I turn now to deal with difficulties being experienced by primary producers, and 1 shall deal specifically with problems associated with the fishing industry. Increased fuel prices have created many difficulties for fishermen in their efforts to earn a living. Over the last couple of years, reduced catches have led to a very tight economic situation, which has been exacerbated by extreme weather conditions and many other difficulties. Increases in costs, such as petrol price increases, have had the effect of pushing fishermen down the drain a little further. It should be borne in mind that some fishermen operate under conditions of high overheads, and it costs thousands of dollars a week just to keep the boat in the water. Profits have been reduced greatly and opportunities for increased returns have become very limited indeed. Any suggestion that these people are millionaires, or that anybody with a few acres of land is a millionaire, stretches the imagination, as well as the truth, to an unreasonable extent. Mr Comben: If a person has assets of $lm, that person is a mUlionaire. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member for Windsor maintains that such people are millionaires because of the assets they have acquired; but I point out that no employment opportunities will be created unless people in private industry have access to assets. It should also be remembered that the interest rate applying to loans required to maintain the asset is much higher than is considered desirable or necessary. Mr Davis: What about the property-owners who recently sold their property for $7m? They are the people who want more support. Mr STEPHAN: But the question remains: How much of it do they own and how much of that amount has interest payable on it? It is all very well for an honourable member to stand up in the House and say that the property has been sold for millions of dollars. What about the money the honourable member would get if he sold his house? He must be honest about this matter and look at it overall. Before the honourable member abuses others he should consider his own situation and realise what would Address in Reply 27 August 1985 201 happen if he were to sell his home. In turning to some of the problems associated with other primary industries, I will deal first with the problems concerning fmit and vegetable production. Mr Davis: If I opened up a business at a cost of $ 100,000 and went bad, how much support would 1 get from this Government? Mr STEPHAN: Much the same support as anyone else would get when, unfortu­ nately, he goes bad. If anybody opens up a business and goes bad, it is his responsibility. There is very little support for him. The honourable member must accept the facts of life. The fmit and vegetable growers are facing problems in finding markets. They will be greatly assisted in maintaining and developing local and overseas markets by the irradiation technology provided to the industry. Three main benefits are associated with that technology. Firstly, it results in the minimisation of post-harvesting losses without recourse to increasingly unacceptable chemical levels. Secondly, through their extended shelf life, it increases overseas and domestic markets for these products. The third benefit, which cannot be ignored, is that it guarantees to overseas consumers that Queensland products are free of harmful pathogens as well as insecticides and chemical residues so that they can buy with a high degree of confidence. The proven application of irradiation in the food and agricultural industry includes the destmction of various harmful pathogens and the destruction of insects in grain and horticultural products. The treatment is almost instantaneous. It also means the absence of residues, with no meaningful loss in nutrients. After markets have been created in South East Asia for fresh and chilled products it is ridiculous that, daily, orders are cancelled because of lack of freight space. It is very disheartening to realize that that is happening when the markets are available; that the markets cannot be supplied because the products cannot be delivered. The problems at Mudginberri could extend to many other meatworks in the country. The dispute at Mudginberri, which could easily destroy a very viable enterprise and the livelihood of dozens of workers, is a classic example of all that is wrong with unionism. It is a typical example of union madness. The employer and the employees are in complete agreement on the terms and conditions of employment, which have been ratified by the Australian Arbitration Commission. In spite of that, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, with the full backing of the ACTU, is hell-bent on destroying the arrangements, because it was not involved in the negotiations. It is akin to the little boy who wants to take his cricket bat home because, he says, he has not had a say in the discussions on the mles for the game. Some smaller meatworks are very efficient in maintaining a high quality product. I compliment Pat Nolan, of Nolan's Butchery in Gympie, on the work that he is doing and the support that he is receiving from his employees. In the last few months that company has spent almost $500,000 on expansion to meet export trade requirements and other market developments which it is exploiting in Australia. This company's achievements can be traced to the expertise of the management and the support that the management receives from the employees. I compliment all of them on their expertise. We are just emerging from a winter without power black-outs. I wonder whether there is a lesson to be learnt there. Mr Comben interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I am not surprised that the honourable member fails to recognise that, because of his support for the unions, he faces a huge electoral backlash. Many Queenslanders were disadvantaged during that strike. It is also interesting to note the large number of incorrect stories that are told about the number of SEQEB employees who are supposed to be still on strike. Perhaps these

68703—8 202 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

figures could be of interest to Opposition members. Originally, 1 551 electricity workers were employed by SEQEB. Because of the dispute, initially, 1 048 employees were dismissed. Of those, 109 dismissals were withdrawn reasonably quickly. That meant that there were 939 effective dismissals. In fact, 162 of those dismissed workers were re­ employed, and 172 new workers were employed by SEQEB. There were 946 employees at work and 32 employees on recreation leave, sick leave or other leave, making a permanent work-force of 978 employees. Contractors employed approximately 200 men and 30 vacancies existed. There is a shortfall of about 300 employees. There is a big difference between 300 employees and the 1 000 men who are supposed to be still on strike. Contractors have been maintaining power supplies, which is evidenced by the fact that during this winter, no black-outs occurred in the electricity industry. That brings me to the misleading concept about the right to strike. Some people have the notion that they have a right to strike, regardless of the consequences. This phrase is misleading insofar as it implies an unlimited or absolute right of any trade union to call a strike whenever it wishes, regardless of the issue. The so-called right to strike is not an absolute right. It is not a self-justifying procedure. When it is used, it affects other people and essential community services. It must carry restraints. Mr Fouras: Do you think that people who strike want to strike? Mr STEPHAN: Strike is a legitimate weapon for the union movement, and I am not saying that it should not have that weapon; but it should be used only as a last resort when genuine grievances are involved. Too often in Australia it is a case of strike first and talk later. How often have we seen that happen? Frequently it involves strategically placed unions whose members enjoy conditions that are vastly superior to those of most wage-earners. Often, the issues are not related to the wages or conditions of the particular employees. This brings in the secondary strike. Any consideration of industrial relations in today's society must acknowledge that those fortunate enough to be employed have their income and working conditions effectively guaranteed by legislation and awards, while many people in the community remain unemployed. Against the right to strike, which is a nebulous, misleading and much-abused concept, must be posed two much more meaningful rights: firstly, the public's right to essential services and, secondly, the right to work. A worker has the right not to be excluded from employment because of non- membership of a particular union and not to be discriminated against in employment because of non-membership. He also has the right not to be subject to arbitrary direction to stop work in support of indirect, vague and non-industrial aims. People in Queensland are adopting a much more realistic attitude to those matters. So often we hear that Queensland's growth rate is falling behind that of the other States. I shall look at the jobs that have been created in this State. There has been a 5.9 per cent increase in the number of jobs created in Queensland. That is in stark contrast to a figure of minus 13 per cent in New South Wales. Mr Palaszczuk: Give us some examples. Mr STEPHAN: If the honourable member has not noticed the activity going on in this State, I do not know where he has been.

Mr Comben: I have seen a 9.2 per cent unemployment rate in Queensland. Mr STEPHAN: In itself, that 9.2 per cent unemployment rate does not say too much. What about the new jobs that have been created? Address in Reply 27 August 1985 203

If the figure of 13 000 unemployed people who came here was deducted from the June unemployment rate, Queensland's figure would have been the second-best in Australia. Mr FOURAS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Gympie is misleading the House. In the last 12 months, Queensland suffered a net loss of 2 000 jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Orderi The honourable member for Gympie has expressed an opinion, and he is entitled to do so. Mr STEPHAN: It is surprising that Opposition members do not like to hear these figures. They do not like to hear about the growth that is being maintained. According to official figures, since January of this year, 28 per cent of all jobs in Australia were created in Queensland. In other words, of a total of 194 000 jobs for the whole of Australia, approximately 54 000 were created in Queensland. That is real growth. It must be remembered that Queensland's economic prosperity and development has seen an inflow of more than 130 000 interstate migrants in recent years. That has had an enormous effect on what is happening in Queensland. Many of those people are seeking employment here. Department of Social Security figures show that, in the past three years, a net figure of more than 13 000 unemployment benefit recipients moved to Queensland. One must consider the effect that those people have had on Queensland's unemployment rate; they have made a lot of difference. It behoves all honourable members to give some thought to the growth that is taking place. Very often people do not open their eyes to what is going on. The 1984-85 financial year was a record one for Queensland exports. Approximately 21 per cent of Australian exports came from Queensland. In 1984-85 Japan remained Australia's major trading partner by importing $7,000m worth of our goods. The European Economic Community imported $3,400m worth, the United States of America $2,800m, the ASEAN countries $2,060m. New Zealand $ 1,400m, and Korea, China and Hong Kong imported goods to the value of $900m, $800m and $700m respectively. These vital economic indicators show that Queensland is outperforming the larger States in the Commonwealth. The Queensland coal industry gives a very good example of Queensland's export success. New markets have been developed and the coal sales that have been made to the Philippines, Hawaii and Sweden total more than 400 000 tonnes. I am not surprised that Opposition members do not know what is going on in the coal industry, because they probably have not been to the coal-fields and are not aware of the developments that have taken place. They probably do not realise that Queensland sells coal to 30 different countries throughout the world. It is predicted that, by the end of 1985, Queensland will be exporting in excess of 50 million tonnes of coal, which wiU make it a clear leader in Australia's coal export trade. I turn now to consider what has not happened, and in doing so I will refer back to what Mr Hawke promised and what he has not delivered. The Federal Govemment is channelling funds to non-rural research areas at the expense of primary producers. I have already pointed out how primary producers are being disadvantaged. That is one example of the discrimination against the mral community. In addition, the Hawke Labor Government has removed a considerable number of concessions that were available. It has not kept many of its promises. Good examples of its broken promises are its failure to underwrite the sugar industry, the removal of depreciation allowances, the removal of tax incentives from the income equalisation deposits scheme, the abolition of the allowance for petrol storage, the abolition of tax-averaging provisions, the cutting of the subsidy for freight on fuel, the increase in meat export charges by 200 per cent, the cutting of funds for soil 204 27 August 1985 Address in Reply conservation, the removal of tax concessions for clearing and drainage, the removal of the drought fodder subsidy early to save money, and the tax imposed on lubricants and avgas. So the story goes on. Just as Labor members are shaking their heads, when I look to the future and realise the repercussions that will flow from those things, I, too, shake my head. Time expired. Ms WARNER (Kurilpa) (4.15 p.m.): I would like to be able to say that it gives me great pleasure to rise and respond to the Governor's Opening Speech; however, these are sad days in Queensland and this is a sad time in which we live. I wish to quote from a playwright who is actually a Queenslander who now lives in Sydney. He is one of Australia's best playwrights, Stephen Sewell, whose words, I am sure, will live on in history—unlike the constant repetition from Govemment members that misinforms this House. Sewell wrote— "One of the first scandals ever to rock the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment and which was to give the country a taste of what to expect was the Comalco shares handout in which senior Government public servants and Ministers, including the Treasurer, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Bjelke-Petersen family itself, were given the opportunity to buy shares at a face value which greatly understated their real market value. Coming at a time when the Government was pursuing an active policy of subsidising and assisting Comalco's commercial enterprises through low-interest Govemment loans, a 10-million infrastmcture package and the bmtal removal of Aboriginal people from the coveted bauxite reserves, these handouts could only be seen as a straightforward payment for services rendered—for services rendered at the expense of the Queensland people and the nation as a whole. Comalco got its bauxite reserves, its Gladstone refinery irreparably poisoned the environment and its profits were repatriated overseas and what Queensland was left with was a Government deeply committed to cormption and with an over­ whelming pride in its ability to outwit its own population and, in the following years, it has proudly done exactly that. The misdirection and reallocation of State resources and public money away from the people and into the pockets of Bjelke-Petersen's friends and backers has become a national outrage. Not content with simple graft or a situation where the Minister for Roads is also a gravel merchant to his own department, Bjelke-Petersen has presided over a massive redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest and, at the same time, engineered the economic destmction of his State. In the 16 years that Bjelke-Petersen has been Premier, Queensland has become the most foreign-dominated and, not coincidentally, the most economically depressed State in the Federation. At the end of 16 years of Bjelke-Petersen's policies, 84 per cent of its mineral wealth is under foreign control and 11.1 per cent of its workers are out of work. Across all major economic indicators varying from the number of new motor vehicles being registered to the amount being spent on new fixed capital, Queensland is the worst performing and the most mismanaged economy in the nation. Sixteen years of Bjelke-Petersen's free enterprise dream have brought the Queensland economy to its knees and made Queenslanders some of the poorest Australians on the continent. Bjelke-Petersen's dream has become Queensland's nightmare—a nightmare for which he has now found a scapegoat in the form of the union movement. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 205

It is irrelevant to point out that other States which have performed considerably better than Queensland also have unions because the attempt to blame the unions for the economic crises is a lie and Bjelke-Petersen knows it. Whatever power the unions have, they don't have the power to make investment decisions, they don't have the power to shift the location of a new power station into their own electorate and to use coal from their own mine and they don't have the power to lock up anyone who objects, expropriate their property and disenfran­ chise them from the political process." Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has just said that the power station was moved into the Premier's electorate. That is totally untme; it is in the electorate of the member for Lockyer. Her statement is incorrect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The honourable member's statement has been challenged. Ms WARNER: It is not my statement. As I said before, I am quoting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that it is the honourable member's statement this afternoon. The honourable member for Cunningham has drawn to my attention that the honourable member's statement is not correct. As it is not correct, I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Ms WARNER: I am sorry, 1 cannot withdraw it. I am quoting from the playwright Stephen Sewell. 1 will table it. I am quoting, and I will repeat what I have already said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, I did not know that the honourable member was quoting. Ms WARNER: It is art that you are trying to mess around with. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In that case, I will let the matter go. There is no point of order. Ms WARNER: The quotation continues— "But a lie is good enough for someone like Bjelke-Petersen; especially a lie which promises to further reduce people's living standards and prop up his friends' declining profit margins, for that is the heart of the problem. In the 12 months to December 1984, the rate of bankruptcy in Queensland increased by 26.4 per cent compared with a national decline of 8.2 per cent and, when profit rates are declining, someone has to pay and, in the Grand Order of the Free Enterprise System, it is always those who can least afford it." That is a real indictment of the Government for the situation faced by the people of Queensland. It is also an indictment of the Government for its mismanagement which has caused thousands of people in this State to forgo wages, to go on strike and to be pushed into total economic poverty, insecurity and depression. The last six months in this State have truly been a nightmare. Not only are individuals suffering and having to pay for the excesses of this Government, but also there is a worry that Queensland will never be able to recover from those excesses and that the living standards of the people in this State will decline irreparably for many years to come. It is totally irresponsible of National Party members, who continuously bleat their praises and their outworn hackneyed phrases of support for the Premier and Treasurer because he has been seen to be a political winner, and is short-term expediency on their part, to think that by not knocking what he says and what the multinationals demand of that Government, they will personally survive. It is unfortunate that the recent very sad incident involving the honourable member for Aspley (Mr Cahill) emerged. It is quite clear that his conscience has been pricking 206 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

him. His statements in this Chamber have been inconsistent. He has spoken consistently about the unionist qualities of his father and grandfather and how much he treasured the values and traditions of people who are free to be unionists, yet he has to support the excesses and the bludgeoning of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. It is that incon­ sistency or that lie with which he has had to live for so long that has caused him such confusion of mind that he does not know what he says from day to day. I feel very sorry for him. My heart goes out to the poor man. He has suffered the consequences of living with that type of inconsistency. That is the heart of the problem that faces all Queenslanders today. If one accepts what the Govemment says or even one word of its propaganda, one is giving in basically to a lie with which one cannot live in material circumstances. That lie cannot be covered up because that fundamental falsehood or the very deep con perpetrated by the Gov­ emment will force down the living standards of everyone in our society. In the process, the Government will also take away the very basic human freedoms and rights that have been enjoyed by Australians for generations. It is the removal of those basic freedoms and rights that will turn Queensland into a Third World country. Over a long period it has been very tempting Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive because they are a long way from the truth. Everything that has happened this year has happened because the union leaders and their members defied the State Industrial Commission. None of these problems would have arisen if they had abided by the rules of the State Industrial Commission—the law as far as the unions in this land are concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Orderi The Minister has taken exception to the words used by the honourable member. I think that the honourable member should withdraw those words. A dispute has occurred and I understand that it has been settled. I think that to claim that the Government did certain things is not correct. The Minister has taken exception to an expression of opinion. I ask the honourable member for Kurilpa to withdraw it. Ms WARNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, could you tell me the words that I am being asked to withdraw? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Minister state the words? Mr LESTER: The fact that the honourable member for Kurilpa was talking about oppression and putting Queensland up as being similar to a Third World country. 1 repeat that the reason that these things have happened to these unfortunate people is that they have defied the laws of the land by defying the State Industrial Commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Kurilpa may continue. Ms WARNER: I am not quite sure why the Minister finds the words offensive. I am simply speaking the truth. I am talking about Mr Menzel: What words? Ms WARNER: The honourable member will read the words in Hansard. The people of Queensland and indeed Australia are forcibly reminded of the situation that arose in Germany when Hitler took over in 1933. Hitler was elected to Government on a popular vote of 38 per cent. The Queensland Government has been elected on a popular vote of 39 per cent. I can find only one difference between the two instances. At least Hitler was honest; he burnt the Pariiament down and did not just mess it about. What is happening in Queensland is basic tyranny. It is a tyranny that is abhorrent to all free-thinking and freedom-promoting people throughout the world. Many people in this State are very worried and very perturbed about what is happening in Queensland. When those people try to protest, the big mallet comes down, they are locked up and Address in Reply 27 August 1985 207 their rights are taken away. I, for one, will not stand by in silence and watch that happen. I will try to defend those people and their democratic right to defend the democratic rights of all Queenslanders. That is the sacred responsibility of members of Parliament. If honourable members renege on that responsibility, they deserve to live under a tyranny. 1 do not believe that the people of Queensland deserve to live under a tyranny. I will not put up with it. That is why I will stmggle. Perhaps Government members have read the Human Rights Commission report on the legislation that was passed in this Chamber during the last session. The commission seriously considered the legislation. It did so because Australia is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and it has a duty to uphold the principles of basic, decent human behaviour. I will tell Government members why the United Nations was set up and why there is an international covenant—because the world lived through the most disastrous circumstances, in which millions of people were killed because some people thought that they had the right to make laws that were totally against human nature and totally against any kind of decent behaviour, and a world war was fought. After that, it was decided by the United Nations that it was necessary to lay down some type of guide­ lines to countries which did not seem to know better. I suggest that Queensland is such a place and does not seem to know any better. I will quote from the report by the Human Rights Commission on the Queensland Electricity Supply and Related Industrial Legislation. Mr Gunn: It is mn by a pack of coms. Ms WARNER: 1 understand that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer has said that the Human Rights Commission is mn by a pack of coms. I would like to ensure that that particularly choice remark is in Hansard because it shows the level of his ignorance, his bigotry and his total insensitivity. It will go down in history that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, with his blinkered view of the world, made that comment. Mr Comben: It is an attack on Dame Roma Mitchell. Ms WARNER: Yes. Such conduct will not be tolerated. I refer now to a finding of the Human Rights Commission, an intemationally respected organisation, although I would not expect the Queensland Govemment to recognise that. It says— " .. the Commission is of the view that the Queensland industrial legislation considered in this Report infringes a number of human rights guaranteed under the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). There is a breach of Article 19 which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, as the combined effect of section 14 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Act and of section 4 of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act Amendment Act 1985 is that union officials will be inhibited from making statements relating to industrial disputes to the media and the media may be discouraged from reporting industrial disputes. The effect of these provisions is to discriminate against unionists. The Commission is of the view that the statutory offences in the industrial legislation package have many features appertaining to criminal offences and that on a purposive rather than technical interpretation of'criminal offence', the reversal of the onus of proof effected by section 14 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Act 1985, breaches the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14 (2). Section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Act 1985 could, in the view of the Commission, erode a union's financial stabiUty in the long term. Accordingly, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 22, 208 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of a worker's interests. As a consequence of these breaches of human rights, the Commission also finds that unions in Queensland do not enjoy the same benefits as other unions registered in other States or under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It notes that a number of unions in Queensland are taking steps, under the Commonwealth Act, to have themselves removed from the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission .. " That, I suggest, is the end result of the Queensland Govemment's attempt to stamp out unionism in Queensland. The result will be that unionists will obtain coverage under Federal awards. Mr Gunn interjected. Ms WARNER: By exercising the State's jurisdiction in the manner that it is, the Government will erode the very State rights that it so proudly claims to preserve. Fortunately, the Queensland Government will be swept away in the tide of history. Australia is a federation. No matter how much the National Party wants it to happen, it cannot be a fascist Government. This is only a State Govemment. Therefore, it cannot prevail. Fortunately, we will have the last laugh. The National Party can enjoy its shenanigans and cause as much misery as it likes to individual people. It can victimise sections of workers—try the electricity industry workers today, try the teachers tomorrow and try the railway workers the next day—but, in the end, it will find that the human spirit and the spirit of justice and democracy that is within every worker in Queensland will rise to defeat the Govefnment. It will take time, because the Government bludgeons, coerces, intimidates and destroys. It will not be able to do it forever, though, because tyranny is essentially unstable. The Government will be hoist with its own petard. This whole mess has occurred because the Queensland Govemment has been incapable of managing the electricity supply industry. Its management since 1977 has been appalling. Its attempts to cajole wprkers into not striking—using a big mallet to prevent them from striking—is entirely the wrong way of preventing strikes. There have been more strikes since the implementation of the legislation than before. The reason is that people will not be cajoled. The only way of achieving better industrial relations in Queensland is by agreement based on an understanding of what is necessary for both sides of the industry. The Government does not have such an understanding. It does not have any idea how to consult the people it rules. Its idea of ruling is to come down with a heavy hand round a hard mallet. It is pitiful that it causes so much damage. Nevertheless, it will not win out. The Government's planning for the electricity supply industry has been based on planning models that are 15 years out of date, based on exponential growth and based on the assumption that the Queensland economy will continue to grow at the same rate as it has in the past. Unfortunately, that is not the case—although in some ways that is perhaps fortunate. However, it must be said that it is an expensive way to deal with the State's resources because they would be used up very quickly. It is not a question of resources being exhausted that has caused economic decline in Queensland. A different economic era now operates, and it is an era in which the idea of development for development's sake has gone by the board. The present idea is that Queensland should be husbanding its resources rather than opting for huge profits in the short term, thereby avoiding the risk of Queensland entering into the "bust" syndrome. The Queensland Government had expected a very high exponential growth, and, on that basis, it undertook to build new power stations to accommodate the growing requirements placed upon the electricity industry. When the Government later found out that that exponential growth was not to be the case, it decided that some power stations would have to be closed, because the projected estimates of growth could not Address in Reply 27 August 1985 209

meet the cost burden. The Queensland Government has wasted large amounts of tax­ payers' money by building unnecessary power stations instead of having the already existing power stations refurbished. Immeasurable damage has been done to the Queensland economy as weU as to the lives of people presided over by the Queensland Parliament. Moreover, in the process of its economic mismanagement, the Queensland Government has caused people to pay huge amounts for the domestic consumption of electricity. For instance, in Brisbane, residents pay more for domestic power than residents in any other capital city in Australia, despite the fact that power is generated from locally available cheap coal. The reason for that is that a debt of $280m associated with the cost of building unnecessary, new power stations, in locations that are convenient for Government members only, has to be met by the electricity consumers of Queensland. Such a policy is not only socially irresponsible, but it is also self-interest and self- seeking public expenditure. Much comment has been made about that in the House this week, and much of that comment will be brought to the attention of the Govemment and the public over a period. Honourable members must examine the fundamental lie that has been created by the Government. Yesterday, it was said that the South East Queensland Electricity Board would save thousands of dollars because so many people had been sacked. The Govemment has spent large amounts of money on building unnecessary power-generating installations, and it has created unrealistic expectations of growth. When the crunch comes, the Government sacks a thousand workers but, when the Government refers to savings effected in the electricity industry, it refers to how much has been saved by sacking thousands of workers. I point out that savings effected in such a manner are fake, and they reflect fake management techniques. It must be emphasised that the electricity industry dispute has cost the State of Queensland miUions and millions of dollars. If Government members do not understand that proposition, they certainly have their heads in the sand—just like the proverbial ostrich. In a typical fashion, the Government is simply not interested in looking at new planning models that are available because the Government is so unwieldy and does not take well to new information or new ideas. The situation that must be faced is the haphazard planning in the electricity industry which has caused thousands of workers to be out of work and thousands of jobs to be lost whilst, at the same time, the poUtical and civil rights of workers are being infringed. That must surely be the most expensive way in which to operate a Government. The whole problem with the Queensland Government is epitomised in the sorry state of the honourable member for Aspley (Mr Cahill). Brian Cahill cannot accept this lie in himself and has been forced to become a totally confused individual as a result. The Government expects its back-benchers to adopt standards that are basically double­ think. 1 feel sorry not only for Brian Cahill, but 1 also feel sorry for all Government members, because history will show that Government members went along with the irresponsible and immoral treatment handed out to the Queensland people merely because of naked self-interest. History will show that Govemment members did not have the guts to stand up and be counted when it was necessary to stop the rot; they just did not do it. I now turn to another topic that has also been the subject of a great scandal, and 1 refer to the iniquitous raids carried out at the Greenslopes fertility clinic. In engaging in that debacle of military imprecision at Greenslopes, the Queensland Government virtually said to the women of Queensland, "We don't care about you; we do not care about giving you facilities; we don't care about your privacy; we don't care about your medical records. We do not care very much about you at all. We want to see the letter of the law imposed as quickly and as brutally as possible with the maximum pubUcity so that we can distract attention from the other traumas and problems." That is not good enough. It is uncaring. 210 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

The Government has the people so hoodwinked with its fancy statements, its advertisements and get-rich-quick methods that people take a while to understand the import of its actions. However, the people will begin to understand. Those raids were scandalous. The people of Queensland know that that is so. Women came out in opposition to the Government, as they have on former occasions. They wUl continue to do so whenever the Government attacks them in any way. The whole scandal is based on the lie of the so-called morality of the Government. I prefer to describe it as hypocrisy, because that is what it is. The Government's hypocrisy in closing down the clinics means that it does not care whether there are unwanted children in the State. It could not possibly care; it has refused consistently and continuously to provide sex education in schools. Only half an hour a week in sex education is needed. If a sex education program were to be introduced, the children of the State would have the information necessary to make decisions about their lives. The Govemment denies them that right because it prefers an order of censorship to an order of dissemination of information. The Government is frightened of the light of day. It prefers to cover up rather than inform. Another scandal around the comer in Queensland concerns the State Govemment's lack of commitment to the implementation of a desirable AIDS policy. In all other States, Govemment departments are spending much time, effort and energy in trying to gain the support of the communities that are victims of this dreadful killer disease. Through co-operation and help they hope to eradicate the disease in the whole community. That is not the position in Queensland, where one poor, harassed individual is reponsible for conducting the whole Government strategy on this issue. I think he is going round the bend. He is probably the most overworked man in Queensland. Furthermore, he does not have the back-up staff, the facilities or the information. Mrs Chapman: He does not have the millions of the Federal Govemment. Ms WARNER: He is a State Govemment employee. I am sorry for him because he is not given the resources necessary to carry out a very serious job for the future of our people, for the future of humanity. This disease is no respecter of persons. It will go through the community unless the Govemment provides strategies and measures to prevent it. That can be done only if the Government has the confidence of the communities affected. If it does not have their confidence—and it cannot come down with a big stick as it did, as usual, in the legislation—it will not get the confidence of the people as a whole and the disease will continue unabated. Queensland will be shown to be totaUy irresponsible by failing to carry out its duty to stamp out this scourge to mankind over the next few years. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (4.44 p.m.): 1 congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. An Opposition Member: Why? Mr LEE: Because they made a better speech than the honourable member made. That is why I am congratulating them. 1 affirm my loyalty and that of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen. I wish the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell, and his good lady, well in their new venture. I take the opportunity to say, as the Governor said in his Opening Speech, that this year's Budget will be balanced. Although the Budget has not been presented yet, the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) has said that the Budget will be balanced. It will be easy to balance the Budget this year. The amount of coal exported will increase by 33.5 per cent to 44 million tonnes. If that level of exports does not eventuate, much juggling of the figures will have to take place. An enormous amount of the State's revenue comes from coal freight charges and royalties on coal. Because no new coal contracts are on the horizon, it is important that the Government does not depend too much on Address in Reply 27 August 1985 211 the revenue that it derives from coal. It is expected that coal tonnages will increase by 25 per cent to 55 million tonnes. During the past year, many Government charges, such as stamp duty, motor registration fees and the company registration fees imposed by the Corporate Affairs Office, have been increased. Honourable members were told that the charges for fire services would not be increased. Most Government charges have been increased. I am disturbed that most of those increases were not imposed in the Budget. The State Budget is similar to the Federal Budget, which is half a Budget. Heaven forbid that this Government takes actions that are similar to those of the Federal Government! The Federal Budget was full of deception. I do not want to see the Queensland Government introduce a Budget and then increase charges throughout the year. That is not the correct way in which to tax people. That is taxation by stealth. The tax summit in Canberra was a complete and utter farce. It took confidence away from private enterprise. How could people make judgments on how to mn their businesses? The tax summit dealt with options A, B, C and D, or options 1, 2, 3 or 4. Deals were thrown about like a yo-yo. How could any person in business make a decision about mnning his business? A very good friend of mine. Col Wilson, was very disturbed about the plight of the nation and, on 5 July 1985, he wrote to the Prime Minister in the following terms— "The Prime Minister, Canberra. A.C.T. Dear Mr. Hawke, The mis-statement by your Minister that 'cuts in Govemment spending are not related to the Tax Summit' illustrates a shortcoming in your Party's understanding of the problem." Mr Davis: Who wrote this? Mr LEE: Col Wilson. The letter continues— "The Tax Summit discussed every facet of tax gathering but offliandedly bmshed aside tax spending. There couldn't be any doubt that an over-riding concem of every resident in our Country is 'The Price of Government'. The realisation by taxpayers of the costs to fund governments has again brought about and hastened the search for a new and fairer system to lessen tax." Mr Goss interjected. Mr LEE: He certainly does not know the honourable member for Salisbury. I asked Mr Wilson if he knew the honourable member, and he said that he would not want to know Mr Goss because of his politics—not because of the man he is—the honourable member is not a bad fellow—but because he is so distorted in his politics. The letter continues— "Taxes are so high (too high) because the cost of govemment is too high. Governments at every level are the 'quick growing weeds' in Australia and have been for the past 25 years. 1. In 12 years the expense of the federal government has increased at about twice the rate of all other community costs. Federal budget outlays have jumped an outlandish 527.6 percent (between 1973 and 1985) while the CPI is reported at 233.8 percent. 2. In the same period Budget receipts as a proportion of G.D.P. have risen from 22.1 percent to 33 percent; national productivity groups (private enterprise) has had to find the extra 50 percent (22 to 33) to support the bureaucracy. 212 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

3. In the Federal Labour budgets (1983 and 1984), Budget receipts rose 31 percent—CPI about 12 percent; and in this period there were tax cuts." Those cuts were only very minor. The letter continues— "4. 501 persons receive some form of social security payment for every 1000 persons employed in Australia. Add to these numbers the people in full time government (public) employment and there is a total of 760 wholly or partially dependant on govemment payments for every 1000 employed." Mrs Chapman: That is scandalous. Mr LEE: Yes, it is scandalous. The letter continues— "5. Another interesting comparison shows the ratio of Public Service employees per head of population in Australia to some trading partners overseas— P.S. per 100 population Australia 9.83 U.S.A 7.77 Canada 6.22 France 5.73 Only Denmark, Sweden and the Communist countries are higher." Those are the countries that Opposition members love and worship. The letter continues— "6. A further disturbing statistic shows that over the past 30 years household goods are now about 50 percent cheaper in comparative terms to earnings while taxation similarly related has risen 389 percent. It is my intention to widely circulate this letter to attempt to make it loud and clear to all taxpayers that we must impress our elected representatives of the urgent need to improve the cost effectiveness of the bureaucracy and to curb every rising government expenditure OR any tax reform that will prove an exercise in futility." That is reference to the summit. Mr Wilson continues— "The Government's insatiable appetite has to be diminished, not satisfied, or taxes will rise to 'revolutionary' heights. Tax Reform Gatherings, Accords and Summits are political ploys designed to turn our attention away from bureaucratic mismanagement. As in all things let's start at the beginning— 'Reduce the Cost of Government' " The letter is signed by Col Wilson. Because that is such a very good letter, I had to read it into "Hansard". It gives the very basis for the nation's problems of unemployment. One of the reasons for so many people being out of employment is that the Federal Government is not getting at the root of the problem. This morning, 1 listened to a speech by Mr Howard. Mr Davis: By John Howard! Mr LEE: It would do the member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis) good to go and listen to him. 1 know that the honourable member would not understand what was said and would have to be taken aside and have it explained to him; nevertheless, it would do the honourable member a great deal of good. I could have taken him aside and given him all the ins and outs of the difficulties involved. Then the honourable member would have been able to understand it. The Opposition objects to that sort of concept because it is not socialist. Mr Howard said that he would do away with Medicare and other such things. Much has been heard about the floating of the Australian dollar. I agree with that in principle. It is claimed that that has made it easier for Australia to export its products. The devaluation of the Australian dollar, which resulted from its floating on world Address in Reply 27 August 1985 213 markets, has made it easier for Australia to export its sugar. Unfortunately, the European Economic Community subsidises its home-grown sugar by five times the cost of pro­ duction, which causes the Australian sugar industry a great problem. The floating of the dollar was also aimed at helping beef and other mral products, but most of all it should help Australia's manufacturing industries. Only last week I had the occasion to go out to a quarry on the outskirts of Brisbane where a new rotary cmsher was being erected. Mr Davis: The old quarrying business! Mr LEE: That is right; it is in the blood. I asked the quarry-owners why they did not buy the new cmsher in Australia, and they said, "Why should we? There are the prices." Imported from Sweden and delivered onto the wharf in Australia, that cmsher cost $95,000. The Australian manufactured cmsher, which is almost exactly the same to the last nut and bolt—although it may not be quite as good, but for the sake of the argument I will say that it was just as good— cost $138,000 fo.r. Melbourne. The cmsher was bought from Sweden, a country which we are told has a larger bureaucracy and is more over-governed than Australia. So, what is the problem? It must be the fact that Australia is not getting productivity from the people who are doing the work. That is what it adds up to. This nation lacks productivity. The Australian worker must take hold of himself, look at himself in the mirror and say, "We have to produce or go out of business." If the latter happens, unemployment will double again and the country will continue to be worse off. Workers' wage demands are like a dog chasing its tail. The workers cannot dodge the fact that they have to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. All that workers seem to want to do is demand higher wages. I do not mind people gaining better conditions and so forth, but they want fewer working hours as well. Not very many years ago—I do not want to see us go back to it—it was a 44-hour working week; now it is a 36-hour week. Mr Lester: Do you know that since 1977 productivity in Japan has increased at a rate 10 per cent better than Australia's? Mr LEE: That could be so. Because of the short time that I have had to study the subject, I could not be expected to know that is tme. However, if the Minister says that, I totally accept that it is correct. People want to retire at an earlier age. However, productivity has not increased. Soon people will need to be trained in what to do with their leisure. People will not be trained to obtain employment; they will be trained in what to do with their leisure-time. That is how bad it is getting. Each week has only 168 hours. When 36 hours' working time is substracted from that total, 132 hours are left for leisure. Taking holidays into account, about 80 per cent of the week is available for leisure. Mr Campbell: 1 do not understand that. Mr LEE: 1 know that the honourable member does not understand. Although a member of the ALP has said that he does not understand, he will demand that people receive more pay for fewer hours worked, as well as a lower retirement age. That cannot be sustained by the nation. The increased costs that are gripping this nation will cripple it. The Federal Government should take hold of itself I agree that Queensland's electricity cost are high. Those high costs have been caused partly by the large number of man-hours lost each year in the electricity industry. The report of the Queensland Electricity Commission states that 45 444 days were lost as a result of strikes. That is not the only reason why electricity charges in Queensland are high, but it is one matter that concerns me greatly. Man-hours lost in the electricity industry help to increase costs. 214 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

It is interesting that, following the dismissals during the last electricity industry strike, productivity increased dramatically when some of the men retumed to work. The workers were not dismissed for the reasons stated by members of the ALP; it was nothing more than a power struggle between union chiefs. It was a stmggle between contract labour and day labour. Members of the Electrical Trades Union were like sacrificial lambs being led to slaughter. The union chiefs could not care less about them. The members of the ACTU made a few noises in Canberra about the ETU workers. They do not want to hear about them, because they know that a power stmggle is taking place between union chiefs. The Queensland Electricity Commission report states— "Total employment in the Queensland electricity supply industry fell to approx­ imately 12 300 positions at 30 June, compared with a level of 13 100 the previous year." That is almost 800 persons fewer. As I said, that was caused mainly because of the February disruption. The report continues— "Employee numbers declined across the whole industry in distribution, gen­ eration and transmission areas." Earlier, the report stated— "Total time lost in Queensland Electricity Commission operations amounted to 12 710 mandays, of which 9 938 mandays were lost through Commission employ­ ees supporting dismissed former SEQEB employees. Total time lost by contractors' employees at the various power station con­ stmction projects was 31 263 mandays at Tarong and 1 471 mandays at Callide B. There was no loss of time at Stanwell site." Because the workers knew that Stanwell was not going any further, no time was lost there. The report stated that just over 10 000 man-days were lost by all union groups during negotiations for the renewal of the Tarong site agreement. .A. protracted strike by members of the Electrical Trades Union over its rejection of new terms contributed to an extensive loss of time. With the exception of the ETU, all unions became signatories to the renegotiated agreements registered with the State Industrial Commission. As I said, it was not an argument among ETU members. The ETU officials just wanted to have an argument to find out who was the most powerful at the top of the tree. I turn now to quangos—one of my pet hates. They have concerned me for many years. Queensland has 626 quangos Mr Campbell: More than that. Mr LEE: I am informed that Queensland has 1 028 quangos. Perhaps my figures are too old. That just shows how conservative I am; I do not try to exaggerate. Queensland has 134 local authorities, 30 Aboriginal councils—now I am getting up to 1 000—and 242 primary industry boards. The other day the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Turner) took up most of question-time to list all the regulations tabled and the board reports. Mr Cooper: What do you suggest should be done about it? Mr LEE: Fifty thousand staff are employed by quangos. That is a large number of people. The Queensland Government promised legislation controlling quangos that would include provisions for reporting to Pariiament and the winding-up of authorities that had served their purpose. Such legislation has not been introduced. I ask the National Party Government to do something about it, because these quangos are a slug on the community. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 215

The latest Govemment study of quangos is the fourth in three years. To December 1984, only one quango—the Metropolitan Transit Authority—has been wound up. Many others should be wound up. Privatisation or abolition of many authorities should occur. I am sure that all honourable members will agree with that. I consider that some of the boards are quite necessary. However, many of these quangos are nothing more than a slug on the tax-payer and they should be privatised or done away with. Legislation setting up every quango or board should contain a sunset clause. Mr Innes: They are usually to do with market forces. Mr LEE: They do interfere with market forces. Mr Cooper: Let's talk about Roma; do not forget that it is the best in the west. Mr LEE: Yes. Out of courtesy to the honourable member for Roma, I leave that area to him. I know that it is in good hands. When it is not I will form a branch there and oppose the honourable member or something of that nature. While the honourable member for Roma keeps doing the right thing, the Liberal Party will leave him alone. Undoubtedly, Roma is the best in the west. Some beautiful cattle are bred there. Medicare is nothing less than an indirect tax. Mr Innes: It is a direct tax. Mr LEE: I accept that interjection. It is direct. It is on top of what we already pay. There is no tax deduction. This year Medicare will cost an additional $ 1,280m, rising to $3,61 Im. That was not a burden on the tax-payer when the Liberal and National Parties were in power. Mr Fouras: Stop knocking. Tell us what you would do. Mr LEE: I would cut Medicare out. It is a blot on our society. When the Liberal and National Parties are returned to power in Canberra, they will immediately abolish Medicare. They have pledged to do it. The cost of Medicare will increase by 12 per cent a year for the next three years. The present Federal Government will have to stop grabbing that amount of money out of the Budget. It will cause the Budget to blow out disproportionately or cut into the funding that ought to be available to other departments. Ministers will complain and put pressure on the Government. It wiU then increase the levy from 1 per cent to 2 per cent and then to 3 per cent. Before we know it, the levy will be 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 7 per cent. Medicare encourages over-servicing. People go into a doctor's surgery saying, "This is free. It has been given to us for nothing." They have a tendency to over-use the services. Some doctors—not all—are inclined to encourage over-servicing. That unnec­ essary servicing costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Thank goodness the Liberal and National Parties will remove that rude and crude tax. Responsibility for that field should be handed back to MBF and other private organisations, which do a very good job. I sometimes wonder at the reporting of the press, with due respect to the reporter presently in the gallery. I am reported as having done something that the ALP has been trying to accomplish for the last 14 or 15 years—put the Premier on his back. The ALP has been doing everything in its power to put the Premier on his back. A recent press headline read, "Joh has an 'L' of a flu!" This article followed— "Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has influenza 'Type L'. 'L' stands for Liberal Party . , and Norm Lee. According to the Premier's associates, it was Mr Lee, a Liberal Party backbencher and former Industry Minister, who passed on the virus to Sir Joh at a function for the Governor, Sir James Ramsay, on Tuesday night. 216 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

'The Premier kept trying to tum his head away,' one of the Premier's associates said today." Mr Fouras interjected. Mr LEE: All I say to the member for South Brisbane is that, while the ALP has been trying for years to put the Premier on his back, I just went up to him and went, "woof" and he was on his back for two days. The ALP is weak. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to make an inquiry about whether the member for Wolston (Mr R. J. Gibbs) should resign. He was guilty of receiving eight days' pay whilst in gaol. Could that be regarded as an office of profit under the Crown? That is totally against the law of this State. Mr Lickiss: Are you saying that he got free board and lodging? Mr LEE: Yes, at the expense of the Queensland tax-payers. We all know how much it costs to keep prisoners in gaol. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (5.15 p.m.): The appointment of a Queenslander as Govemor of Queensland is a most welcome appointment and I hope that it is a practice that will become a tradition and be continued into the decades of the future. I wish His Excellency and Lady Campbell a happy and successful period of service in the interests of all people of Queensland. The Opening Speech provided by the State Government for the Govemor could be regarded largely as irrelevant to the present depressed economic situation in Queensland and the incompetent management of the State Govemment. Two major issues that I will develop in this debate are the need for a positive youth policy and the National Party State Government's total loss of credibility in the eyes of cane-growers of Queensland. Firstly, I wish to refute some of the points that were made in the Govemor's Opening Speech. The statement "Queensland ... a healthy investment climate" is not based on fact. I have a table that illustrates the poor investment level in Queensland. I shall seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Queensland Australia Change on previous year Building approvals March Quarter 1985 -19.8% + 1.0% Construction works December Quarter 1984 - 7.0% + 3.6% Mining Investment September Quarter 1984 -47.7% -17.5% All of the categories of building approvals, construction works—which mainly include Government public works, railways and harbours—and mining investment showed Queensland to be lagging behind the rest of Australia. In contrast to that, in the bankmptcy stakes, Queensland leads, and that demonstrates an inadequacy on the part of the State Government in its support for small business. The statement that the National Party Government places importance on education is baseless. The truth of the matter is that the Queensland Government spends only 76 per cent of the Australian average on secondary education and only two-thirds of the Australian average on technical and further education. It is our children, the future workers, who will suffer from such neglect. The report by the Premier and Treasurer's own department entitled "Towards a Strategy for Technological Development in Queensland" stated that, by comparison with the rest of Australia, Queensland has a lower skilled workforce and 57 per cent of Address in Reply 27 August 1985 217

Queensland's population left school at 15 or earlier, as compared with 49 per cent for Australia as a whole. Queensland is losing in the education stakes. In the eyes of the ordinary Queenslander—the pensioner and the house-holder— Queensland has changed from being the low-tax State to the low-tactics State of high State Govemment charges that are imposed on the basic necessities of life. In effect, the low tactics of the State Govenment impose consumption taxes on the essentials of life. I have a table that illustrates the high cost of living in the low-tactics State of Queensland. I seek leave to have that table, too, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

Brisbane Sydney Melbourne :b :? :D Motor Vehicle registration insurance 6 cylinder car .. 319.00 280.00 248.00 Litre of Milk .78 .74 .72 Electricity average householders per quarter 126.61 86.58 98.00 Electricity—Single pensioner 69.93 29.82 50.74 House insurance ($40,000 house) Stamp Dutv and Fire Levies ' ...... 67.80 16.76 21.33 The table illustrates that for a six-cylinder car, the cost of motor vehicle registration in Queensland is $319, whereas it is $280 and $248 in Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The table also clearly illustrates that Queensland has become a high-cost State in the view of the ordinary Queensland family and the pensioner, due largely to the disguised consumption taxes imposed by the State Government. Queensland leads all of the high- cost-of-living States, yet it comes last in respect of wages that are paid to workers in all Australian States. I wish to emphasise another cost in the table. For a house worth $40,000, house insurance, stamp duty and fire levies amount to $67.80 in Queensland compared with $16.76 and $21.33 in Sydney and Melbourne respectively. That is a more telling indication of the failure of the State Government because of the total lack of competence displayed by the Premier and Treasurer. He has failed to provide the expertise, time and effort that are necessary to succesfuUy argue Queensland's case for a better deal from Com­ monwealth funding. For more than a decade, as Premier, and now Treasurer as well, he has failed miserably to put Queensland's case, especially in relation to Australian Loan Council programs, and has failed to get a fair deal for Queensland. The 1985 Federal Government Budget Papers reveal the low proportion of Australian Loan Council funds that have been provided for Queensland over many years and, subsequently, the lower capital grants that have been made. Capital grants account for approximately one-third of the total loan funds provided by the Commonwealth Gov­ ernment to State Governments. For the year 1985-86 Queensland's capital grant is $74m, or 13.25 per cent of the total allocation. On a per capita basis, it should have been $92m. Over the past 10 years, Queensland has lost $ 133.6m in Commonwealth capital grants because of the poor quality of Queensland's representations. Queensland cannot afford to lose these grants because of poor or incompetent Treasury and State Government submissions. The Queensland Government has failed miserably for more than a decade to successfully argue for and receive its full entitlement on a per capita basis. The Premier, now Premier and Treasurer, has been too busy trying to raise funny money through Saudi Arabian loan connections and Japanese financial institutions. The National Party Government, by itself and formerly in coalition with the Liberal Party, has, either 218 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

through ignorance or poor representation, denied Queenslanders $ 133.6m in Australian Loan Council grants. That amount of money could have been utilised for the education of our children or for services for the aged. The Premier and Treasurer will be remembered as the worst Treasurer in the history of Queensland. The initiative taken by the Federal Government in the training of youth is very welcome. Although I recognise that the State has provided a $24,000 grant to the Bundaberg Unemployed Workers Support Group, I believe, however, that its initiatives in the interests of youth employment are seriously discredited. The State Government has announced the payment of $lm to be applied towards initiatives to generate employment for youth. However, it must be pointed out that that allocation has been funded by the Government's reducing its own apprentice intake. Over the period from 1982 to 1984, the number of apprentices employed by the State Government dropped by approximately 50. The savings gained by employing a reduced number of apprentices have been used to offset a major portion of funding announced for the State Government's new training schemes. Youth should be regarded as an asset not a problem. A new approach is needed to ensure that our young people are given a meaningful life. Australia, with many other developed countries, has reduced youth to a problem. In contrast, youth in Third World countries forms a major asset of the development process, owing to the higher proportion of youth in the total population and scarce capital resources. If we continue with the attitude that youth is a problem, we will continue with the aimless policies irrelevant to youth, and not develop a positive role for youth to play in our community. Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I take issue with the honourable member, who claimed that youth is a problem. We do not consider youth to be a problem. In fact, we have pioneered the traineeship system in Australia. I might also refer to the Work Skill Olympics and many other initiatives that we have taken. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Menzel): Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is making a statement rather than taking a point of order. Mr CAMPBELL: The Govemment must change its attitude immediately so that, instead of thinking only in terms of the problem of youth and unemployment, it becomes concemed with defining the role and meaningful contribution youth can make as part of the wider community. If the idea that youth is a problem is encouraged, youth will be further isolated or prevented from fully participating in the community. The key, therefore, is to give youth a meaningful and purposeful role to play in our society. The lack of foresight by our economic planners in the past decade leaves much to be desired, because this type of problem was predicted. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes wrote of technological unemployment in his essay titled Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren— "Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well. The strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance. But it will be those peoples, who can keep alive, and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the art of life itself, who will be able to enjoy the abundance when it comes. Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society." Address in Reply 27 August 1985 219

For over 27 years the State Government has lacked imagination and foresight relative to the changing needs of youth, with the result that its enthusiasm for youth has been dimmed by the passing of years. An identity for youth must allow contact with, interest in, and access to, the broad cross-section of the community in order that youth may maintain a high expectation of a meaningful role to play in our society. In November 1984, at Cairns, Senator Susan Ryan said— "Young Australians want to work. The (ANOP) survey showed that they are concerned with jobs, homes and families—in short, in finding a useful niche in our society." Youth can contribute to our society, and work is accepted as a path to adulthood. A denial of this passage to adulthood leads to feelings of resentment, apathy and isolation. A youth policy should provide a transition to adulthood so that youths may use their time constructively and develop skills for participation in the work-force and society. Above all, permanent work is needed, be it flexible in respect of working hours or employers, and work must be acknowledged as being a meaningful contribution to society. Future job opportunities are best described by Barry Jones, the Minister for Science, in his book titled Sleepers wake: Technology and the future of Work, which can be summarised as follows— (1) education, including recurrent education and training for the semi-skilled and unskilled; (2) craftwork, the arts and entertainment; (3) individual social, welfare and counselling services; (4) care of animals, including selling, breeding and growing pets; (5) conservation and environmental related work, including gardening (home and city) and care and preservation of national parks, wilderness areas and coastlines; (6) manufacture of leisure and solar-energy equipment; (7) individual transport systems; (8) hobby-related work; (9) services to the home; (10) leisure and sport; (11) tourism, entertainment and gambUng; and (12) public service—defence, law and order and general. I shall now refer to the employment oportunities that would make a meaningful contribution to the Bundaberg region. Firstly, I refer to the establishment of a road safety youth corps. Queensland's road toll is currently 24 higher than it was at the same time last year. A major proportion of people killed on our roads are under the age of 25 years. I am advocating a training scheme for youth to be employed in a road safety youth corps. They could act as traffic wardens for children and youth cyclists, and they could provide road safety education and pre-licence driver-training. The Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) should be nominated for the "Pontius Pilate Award" for 1985. He continues to perform a regular public ritual—now almost weekly— of washing his hands of any responsibility for the spiralling death toll from motor vehicle collisions. His attitude can be described only as reprehensible and highly irresponsible. He has said, "I've done all 1 can, but the motorists keep on killing themselves. We have sung jingles at them." It is road safety on the cheap for the Government, but it is expensive in terms of Queensland lives. Presently, just over 5 per cent of the money collected from traffic fines is spent on the Road Safety Council—a pitiful amount. 220 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

My family and I are nauseated by the continuing newspaper and television reports of single and multiple deaths showing people and motor vehicles twisted and cmshed beyond recognition. The Minister may have given up trying to reduce the high death rate from road accidents, but I am here and now advocating a positive policy not only to reduce the long-term slaughter but also to provide a meaningful role for youth. They can be part of a road safety youth corps. My second proposal concerns the establishment of a national parks (development and public facilities) youth corps. The Bundaberg district has several national parks and potential national park areas, with poor or non-existing facilities for the public. A youth corps could be utilised, firstly, to develop public facilities, and to service those facilities for the public and tourists. That would provide long-term youth employment. My third proposal concerns beach beautification. The district's beaches are safe and, because of the volcanic rock, they are unique. A youth corps could provide improved public and tourist facilities, weed and grass control, and shmb and tree plantings. Fourthly, I propose the establishment of a horticultural college. Horticultural industries have expanded into a $60m income-earner for the district. Technology transfer is needed to educate our workers, farm-supervisors and managers to implement the new technology being introduced on farms. Fifthly, I propose the establishment of a floriculture centre. A project under the Community Employment Program could provide long-term employment based on the propagation of native plants and the provision of tourist arts and crafts. The project could maximise the equable climate, which would minimise environment control (glasshouse) costs, and optimise tourist potential. My sixth proposal concerns paid community work for youth. It would include extension of the home care nursing services, the home handipersons service, and the river and parks beautification works. My seventh proposal concerns tourism. Youth could act as hosts and hostesses for coach tours and help to develop the tourist potential of the sugar industry—the rum distillery, Qunaba Mill as a sugar museum and tourist cane-farm facUities. Educational youth tours could be conducted on the Great Barrier Reef and in the sugar and horticultural industries. They could include historical and zoological aspects, including lung-fish and platypus. Further areas for youth employment include education, sport, music and leisure. Those suggestions are just a few projects that could be implemented to provide long- term meaningful employment for youth in the Bundaberg district. 1 now turn to the sugar industry. The most glaring omission in the Governor's Opening Speech was no reference to the desperate plight of the sugar industry, an industry of vital and immense importance to our cane-farmers and provincial cities and to the economy of coastal Queensland. The Queensland Government has administered the sugar industry to a state of disaster. By its neglect and ignorant short-sightedness, it has led the sugar industry down a confused path of market vulnerability and price instability and has exposed it to a volatile and insecure worid market. The decade of inaction, weak-kneed inability to make decisions and a conflict of putting National Party political interests before the interests of cane-growers and the welfare of the sugar industry has been disastrous. In fairness, no-one can blame Federal Governments of any political persuasion of interference in the present financial and vulnerable plight of the sugar industry. The Federal Government cannot be accused of being the architect of the industry's troubles. The Queensland National Party Government has solely dictated an expansionary program through successive Government recommendations and legislation. The Queensland Government has total control of production in Queensland and the sale of every grain of sugar produced in Australia. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 221

The leader of the demise of the Queensland sugar industry has been Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. On the eve of the 1977 State election, the Bjelke-Petersen Government claimed to have saved the sugar industry because it had negotiated an intemational sugar agreement, despite warnings by Labor Party members—Messrs Casey, Blake and Jones—that an international sugar agreement without the United States of America and the European Economic Community could be disastrous. The State Govemment bathed in self-opinionated praise. From that time, the industry started to go backwards. It was not saved; the rot had set in. The Premier's sell-out of the cane-growing industry was demonstrated further in his support since 1975 for the development of the Ord River sugar scheme in Westem Australia. After lengthy discussions with Sir Charles Court, BB—bosom buddy—it was the Queensland Premier who was confident that the two Governments could reach, "a very happy, mutually satisfactory arrangement" Fortunately, the Federal Govemment was not as forthcoming in its support for such a development. By 1982, the excessive political influence of the National Party and the mUling interests controlled the sugar industry. Sir Joseph McAvoy outlined publicly at that time that the last three appointments to the Sugar Board were National Party members or supporters. They were Harry Bonano, cane-growers' representative and unsuccessful candidate for the National Party; chairman Ron Camm, a former National Party Minister, and deputy chairman Eric White, a former secretary to a National Party Minister. Sir Joseph also pointed out that Sir Roderick Proctor, trustee of the National Party, was managing director of Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd, president of the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association, vice-president of the Australian Sugar Producers Association and chairman of the board of directors of the Sugar Research Institute. Sir Joseph McAvoy, a former chairman of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, slammed the request made to the Minister for Primary Industries in 1980 by CSR, the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association and the Australian Sugar Producers Association for an inquiry by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board into a prudent expansion of the sugar industry. That request was made without consulting the QCGC. Those recommendations were a foregone conclusion and cause for deep grower dissatisfaction. Mr De Lacy: They still want an increase in production. Mr CAMPBELL: That is right; the milling sectors and CSR—those prominent supporters of the National Party—do. The most telling sell-out of cane-growers by the State Government came in October 1982 with the amendments to the Sugar Acquisition Act. I quote from the The North Queensland Register of 15 October 1982 as follows— "A Bill before State Parliament will mean the ultimate min for many cane- growers, according to the former chairman of the QCGC, Sir Joseph McAvoy. Sir Joseph said he had to intervene to try to avert a situation arising in the sugar industry which would cause diversion, strife, hardship and ultimate ruin to many cane-growers." Sadly, Sir Joseph McAvoy's predictions are coming true. Through the amendments to the Sugar Acquisition Act, the Queensland Government allowed previously illegal expenditure on sugar quality research in mill undertakings to be two-thirds financed by cane-growers. Five National Party members who are now Ministers, namely Katter, Muntz, Powell, Tenni and Ahem, spoke in support of the Bill to take money from cane-growers. To quell back-bench opposition to the Bill, the National Party, including those members who represent sugar electorates, voted for a two-year sunset clause and a committee of inquiry into the legislation. The then Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem) said at the time— "The terms of reference of that inquiry will have a time limit so that it has to report back in sufficient time for the Government and Parliament to consider the 222 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

report prior to the expiry of the sunset provision. . certainly these provisions operate only for two years." In 1984, when the sunset clause elapsed, lo and behold, the National Party Govemment, through sheer ignorance of cane-growing interests, had done nothing—no inquiry, no recommendations, just a sell-out of cane-growers. With cane-growers, the depths of the credibility of the Queensland Government had reached a new low. However, worse was to come. The State Government further refused to shoulder its responsibility for the Queensland sugar industry. In 1983, in place of a too-busy Premier, the Queensland Government's delegate to the International Sugar Agreement was the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn), who stated publicly in the Bundaberg News-Mail before his departure, "I don't know much about sugar." What an insult that was to the sugar industry! The total loss of credibility of the National Party State Govemment in the minds of cane-growers was stemmed only by a massive and deceitful propaganda campaign paid for by the Queensland tax-payer. The glossy pamphlet Facts about Sugar, which was produced in late 1984 under the signatures of Bjelke-Petersen and the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Turner), contained deceitful half-truths and downright lies. The manipulation and attempted cover-up of millions of dollars being ripped out of the Rural Reconstruction Board, being put into Government coffers and, subsequently, lower amounts being returned as new State Government funds for farmers resulted from the adoption of the "rob Peter to pay Paul" principle. In that way, more that $16m was manipulated. The $10m loan to co-operative mills, which was taken out of the funds of the Rural Reconstmction Board, most of which were provided by the Commonwealth Government at 8 per cent, was lent to the mills at more than 14 per cent. What a benevolent money­ lender the National Party State Government is to the sugar industry! It ripped 6 per cent off those mills. In November 1984, the deceitful gutter tactics of the National Party reach even lower depths. The mischievous member for Mulgrave (Mr Menzel) asked the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer whether the Federal Government— ".. is having a new sugar-mill built in a factory in Victoria, at a cost up to $100m, and intends to donate that mill to Bangladesh to help that nation expand its sugar industry, in spite of the fact that world stocks of sugar are at record high levels and cane-growers are marching to Brisbane to highlight their plight?" In reply, the ignorant Mr Gunn said— "No sugar-mill should be in Victoria for Bangladesh, yet that is what has happened ... I ask the honourable member for Mulgrave (Mr Menzel) to relate those matters to the people of north Queensland." Although on the same night in Parliament 1 put the record straight—that is, that the aid was a $20m humanitarian project commenced in 1977 by the Liberal-National Party Government, with full Queensland Government support, with the use of Queensland sugar industry expertise and with Queensland companies providing the great majority of technical aid—the member for Mulgrave and other National Party members began scandal-mongering and spreading deceitful lies through National Party wimps and lackeys in the cane-growing industry. Those National Party lies were regurgitated by the president of the Australian Sugar Cane Technologists at that association's conference this year. The unchristian, selfish sentiments spread for blatant political purposes even gained the support of The Sunday Mail columnist Sylvia da Costa-Roque. So good is the National Party sugar industry propaganda machine at spreading lies and deceit that in the May 1985 Australian Canegrower Journal, the Queensland Cane Growers Council had to counter those mischievous National Party lies with an article containing the facts. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 223

Even today, the Premier and Treasurer continues his blatant and deceitful lies about the sugar industry. The supposed $31m State Govemment support is still being publicised by the Premier and Treasurer, although he has been discredited totally. He has referred to the Federal Government supposedly taking from the sugar industry an unbelievable figure of $700m annually, although the millers and growers received gross payments of only $800m last year. Sadly, media outlets continue to publish such unsubstantiated claims, and sugar industry organisations refuse to condemn those lies. The deceitful and cunning propaganda campaign has been abetted by the deafening silence of National Party-controlled sugar industry organisations. The Queensland cane-growers are the losers in the Bjelke-Petersen chocolate war as the 100 000 tonne New Zealand sugar market is now to be suppUed by Fiji, not Australia. The National Party should now have lost all credibility with the cane-growers. On 13 July 1985, The Courier-Mail columnist, Mr Peter Morley, commented on the sugar industry as follows— "The Government has quite rightly been criticised for not having in Cabinet a Minister who has a direct involvement with, and a knowledge of, the industry. In fact any follower of Parliamentary proceedings finds that the sanest submissions on the industry come from the Opposition benches

There should be no backing away from the politically unpalatable subject of rationalisation of mills. It is therefore timely that the State Government stop paying lip service in the area of political representation. The State, after all, controls every aspect of the industry. But the Govemment tends to ignore it, especially when it is not running sweetly." Any blame for the delays that have occurred lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the State Government and particularly the Premier and Treasurer. The Industries Assistance Commission report was released in November 1983. No action was taken on it. The delays that have occurred have proved to be against the long-term interests of the sugar industry. Many of the recommendations contained in that report are similar to those found in the sugar industry working party report released in August 1985. In many instances, the National Party spokesmen have missed the whole concept of the report, because they have forgotten the terms of reference. The terms of reference of that working party included the examination of the industry to determine methods of restmcturing the industry. Deregulation and price support are two aspects of that report on the need for restructuring. It is time that the industry took notice of the terms of reference and the report. The Queensland Government should accept some of the responsibility for the future of the sugar industry, as it must undeniably accept its responsibUity for the past and the present. The Queensland Govemment, through its delays, neglect, deceit and ignorance, has administered the sugar industry into a state of disaster. Hopefully, the State Government will repent and work actively and co-operatively with all parties concemed to raise the industry out of its present financial distress and build a more stable, more secure and more efficient sugar industry for the benefit of all Queenslanders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Menzel): Orderi On two occasions the honourable member for Bundaberg sought leave to incorporate certain documents in Hansard. The honourable member to should have shown them to me so that, in accordance with practice, I could have viewed them. Mr CAMPBELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, for your information, I point out that I showed them to the previous occupant of the chair and he said that they were OK. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (5.44 p.m.): I congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. They made marvellous speeches and 224 27 August 1985 Address in Reply reflected the thoughts of Government members. I pledge my loyalty and that of my constituents and all the people of Queensland to the Crown. I congratulate Sir Walter Campbell on his elevation to the position of Governor of Queensland. I wish him well. He has a standing invitation to visit my area. His predecessor. Sir James Ramsay, visited many parts of Queensland. He visited my area many times, as well as grazing and sugar areas and the mining fields. Sir James Ramsay was warmly welcomed by ALP members as well as by National Party and Liberal members. He was a man of the people. He got to know all of Queensland; he travelled to every part of Queensland, and he knew the people. I wish him well in his retirement. Before I return to some of the points made in the Governor's Opening Speech, I put on record that tonight honourable members had the misfortune to hear from the honourable member who preceded me in the debate the greatest load of garbage and hogwash that I have ever heard. It would be amusing if it were not so stupid. It was just utter mbbish. The honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) would not know a stick of cane from a head of lettuce. Everything that he has learnt has come from a book. He has got it in theory. Honourable members need only talk to the farmers in Bundaberg to know what he does. A man who pretends to support farmers and then puts in a submission to the Federal Government for a wealth tax and a capital gains tax is only a hypocrite, and I wish that he was in the Chamber to hear that. How dare a man of the calibre of the honourable member for Bundaberg criticise Ron Camm, the most knowledgeable man on the sugar industry in Queensland. Ron Camm would have forgotten more about theories relating to sugar than the honourable member for Bundaberg will ever know. What the honourable member said wiU hang him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Menzel): Order! There is too much audible conver­ sation and cross-firing. I do not object to sensible interjections through the Chair. However, I think that the honourable member for Mirani deserves a bit of silence and a bit of order. Mr RANDELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the interjections of honourable members opposite amuse me; as a matter of fact, they stimulate me. They are quite stupid. Mr Stephan: Do you think that the honourable member for Bundaberg made any submissions to the Federal Government for any of the money that it promised to the sugar industry? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Bundaberg would not have enough brains to do that. If what honourable members have heard tonight is the best that Opposition members can manage on the sugar industry, the ALP does not have much future. When Government members get round to the honourable member for Bundaberg, they will let him know what it is all about. 1 turn to a few of the points made in the Governor's Opening Speech. The Governor said— "Queensland has completed the 1984-85 financial year with an accumulated surplus in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $166,000. Its two other accounts the Loan Fund and the Trust and Special Fund are either balanced or in surplus." It is very pleasing that, once again, the Government has produced a responsible and balanced Budget. It is just a pity that the Federal Government could not follow Queensland's example. What is happening down in Canberra is a shame. Later in my speech I will mention a couple of things that experts on economic affairs have to say about it. Mr Davis: Did you go to Canberra with the farmers? Address in Reply 27 August 1,985 225

Mr RANDELL: No, but I would have liked to. I did not have the time. I congratulate all those who did go, because they brought to the attention of everyone in this country that the nation depends on the rural areas. Recently, 1 was interested to hear the honourable member for Mackay (Mr Casey) compare the people who went to Canberra with the rent-a-crowd who were outside the gates of Parliament. All Government members are ashamed of such comments. Members of the Labor Party dare to compare the honest rural people who went to Canberra, fighting for their lives, with the rent-a-crowd who had to be paid to demonstrate at the gates of Parliament House. Even more shameful is the fact that while being paid by the people of Queensland, members of Parliament went out and joined them and demon­ strated against the Queensland Government. Earlier this evening, an honourable member opposite said that there is no freedom in Queensland. Honourable members opposite have the freedom to do whatever they choose, yet they denigrate the Government. Mr De Lacy: Do you know that 30 000 went to Canberra and only 20 000 turned up to the rally? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Caims would not know what he is talking about. In referring to the work being carried on in Queensland, I point in particular to the $600m main line electrification project in central Queensland, which will generate 9 000 man-years of work. Contracts worth $480m have already been let. The main part of the work is in my electorate and has provided a great many jobs. In years gone by, when those coal-fields were developed, the ALP protested. I attended one meeting in Sarina at which the ALP did everything it possibly could to stop the coal-field development. Now the hinterland has new towns with schools and police stations, not to mention the jobs. I commend Don Lane for the job he is doing. Anyone who can take hold of a rail system, pick it up the by the scruff of the neck, give it a good shake and turn a deficit into a profit must be commended. He has done a marvellous job and 1 congratulate him. 1 hope he carries on. Mr Ahern: Unique in Australia. Mr RANDELL: Yes, However, members on the other side of the House do not give us any credit or one bit of incentive to carry on. Mr Elliott: The old railway guard from Gladstone won't give you any praise. All he can do is make unkind remarks. Mr RANDELL: We do not expect much from him. The central Queensland rail electrification will tap the coal-fields. Despite reduced prices for some export minerals, the mining industry has continued to create new production records. I would like members opposite, who preach doom and gloom, to pay particular attention to "new production records" Coal production rose by almost 25 per cent to a record 55 million tonnes last financial year. That eclipsed the then all- time record achieved in the previous year. Production is continuing to rise. I ask Opposition members why they do not give credit instead of denigrating Queenslanders— the workers they are supposed to represent. Our coal exports were also a record. Much of the export coal leaves Queensland through Dalrymple Bay and Hay Point, which are in my electorate. Last year, 44 million tonnes was sold overseas, representing an increase of 33.5 per cent over the previous year. Several areas in my electorate contribute to that production—Norwich Park, German Creek and Saraji. Those coal exports have created jobs and new towns, but the the ALP has continually opposed such development, to its eternal shame. I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) today. It was written for him and was all hog-wash. He could not have believed what he said. It 226 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

made no sense. He should go out and see the real Queensland. He might then change his mind. Recently he undertook a tour of north Queensland. One had to pemse the newspapers very carefully to follow his movements. He was an abject failure. He was supposed to hold a meeting in Mackay, which was heavily advertised. About 20 people turned up. Mr Veivers: I am not going to give you a mention at the meeting I go to at Sarina next year. I gave you a big plug. Mr RANDELL: I did not hear about that. As another Government member said earlier in this debate, when Opposition members talk about Queensland unemployment they overlook the migration from other States. One only has to visit my area to be aware of the number of people from Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales. There is no way in the world they will ever return home. They are pleased to be in Queensland. I wonder where the 500 000 jobs are coming from that Hawke talks about. I will deal with that later. I ask Queenslanders to consider the cuts Queensland has suffered in health, housing, education and Medicare. This year, Queensland will receive $60m less under Medicare. Opposition members dare not criticise that. I wonder what they are doing to try to help. They should get behind us and assist us to get some of the money that Canberra is taking from us, instead of saying that the Federal Ministers are good people. There are also the cuts in road-funding. The Grants Commission has cut $62m nationally. For some reason or other, the Government introduced legislation last year reducing the amount of personal income tax returned to local govemment from 2 per cent to 1.8 per cent. Members of the Opposition ought to talk about that reduction because, despite the fact that they know that it has happened, they do not say, "Let us get a bit back for Queensland." Not one thing has been said. Mr Elliott: I have never heard the honourable member for Caims defend Caims, let alone Queensland. He and Mr Gayler ought to get together and do something about it. Mr RANDELL: Not one thing has been done, and members of the Labor Party will know about that when it is time to have the next election. I will educate members of the Opposition by saying that a review of the Common­ wealth Grants Commission is presently being conducted by Professor Self However, I fear that the provisions of the Federal Government's legislation may have cut the ground from under his feet. The Commonwealth Grants Commission allocation has been cut nationally by $62m. Members of the Labor Party ought to get out into mral areas and talk to councillors, council chairmen, and all of those who attempt to produce employment opportunities, so that they can estimate the effects of such measures. In smaU towns such as Nebo, St Lawrence and Carmila, people employed on a permanent basis are being put off. The same thing is happening in places all over north Queensland. In addition to that, many small businesses have been forced to close. Yet not one word of that has been heard from Opposition members. Experts from the Main Roads Department have calculated that the real dollar cut­ back in Federal grants in 1985-86 for Queensland amounts to almost $4m. When the factor of rising inflation in the road construction industry is taken into account, that results in an effective cut-back of $20m. The Federal Government contribution towards the cost of Queensland's roads has fallen from 61.6 per cent of the total construction and maintenance budget for 1983-84 to only slightly more than 50 per cent this year. The only reason why the figure for 1983 was so high was that it was the first full financial year of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, which was introduced by the previous coalition Government at the Federal level by a National Party Transport Minister. That is a point that is never mentioned by members of the Opposition when the subjects of roads is raised. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 227

It is also interesting to note the effects of the 30c a litre excise imposed by the Commonwealth on consumers of petrol. All of that money goes to the Federal Govern­ ment, and only a fraction is reimbursed to the States. It is obvious that members of the Opposition like to criticise the National Party Government in Queensland for not doing enough. It must be borne in mind that the Government receives no help whatever from the Opposition, because the Opposition says not one word about the revenue taken by the Federal government. I now wish to refer to some figures that will illustrate the Commonwealth and State contributions that have been applied to road constmction and maintenance in Queens­ land. For the year 1979-80, the Commonwealth's contribution was $117.4m, or 56 per cent of the total. In 1985-86, the Commonwealth's contribution was $251.5m, or 50.4 per cent. The Commonwealth's contribution in percentage terms indicates that there has been a reduction in real terms. In contrast to that, over that period, the State's contributions rose from $92.Im, or 43.9 per cent, to $256.7m, or 49.5 per cent. Those figures illustrate that the Queensland Government has made up the shortfall created by the reduction in the Commonwealth Government's contribution to the extent of 6 per cent. Yet members of the Opposition still criticise the Queensland Govemment. I ask them to be fair, at least, and to support the State Government in its efforts to achieve something for Queensland. After all, members of the Opposition are Queenslanders too—I hope. Mr De Lacy: The Government is doing such a bad job that we might just have to do that. Mr RANDELL: Is the honourable member saying that that is what the Queensland Government should do? Mr De Lacy: I think we might just have to get behind them because you are making such a mess of it. Mr RANDELL: I have never heard such a statement as that. The honourable members for Cairns said that he thinks the Queensland Government should make up that shortfall, that the Queensland Government should pick up the tab for the money that is going to Canberra, and that members of the Opposition do not want any of that money back. Is it any wonder that the honourable member is a member of the Australian Labor Party? Without doubt, I have never heard such a disgraceful comment. I think tjjat the honourable member's party should disown him. 1 turn now to the Australian Bicentennial Water Resources Program, which has been slashed completely Mr Palaszczuk: Have you joined the National Farmers Federation? Mr RANDELL: I wonder whether the honourable member for Archerfield knows what that organisation is. He knows nothing about it all, because he lives in the city, and he should stay there. All he has in his backyard is a kitten. I am extremely disappointed by the decision of the Federal Government not to provide additional funds for the Eton irrigation project. That decision was based on the Federal Government's view that water resources have already been provided to the most drought-prone areas within the Eton irrigation project region. Mr Davis interjected. Mr RANDELL: I have listened to the honourable member for Brisbane Central, and he was the man who spoke about whinging farmers getting subsidies. In any event, I will come back and deal with the honourable member later. The decision of the Federal Government in relation to the Eton irrigation project will evidently result in the completion of the project being put back by one to two years. It was originally estimated to be completed in the 1988-89 financial year. 228 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Davis: I have been misquoted by Brian CahUl. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member has never been misquoted. I heard the comment that that he made, and he will never be allowed to forget it. In previous years, the grants allocated by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the Eton irrigation project amounted to $2.7m a year, and in the projections made by the Queensland Water Resources Commission, it had been assumed that such a level of funding would be carried through until the 1988-89 financial year. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m. Mr RANDELL: 1 was speaking about the Federal bias towards Queensland and the savage cuts that have been imposed. I was speaking also about the Bicentennial Water Resources Program and the affect that it has had on the Eton irrigation scheme. The current estimated cost of that scheme is $70. Im, of which almost $40m wiU be expended by 30 June 1985. In the 1985-86 and 1986-87 years, the Queensland Government will be providing $9.9m and $9.5m respectively. Mr Davis: So it should. Mr RANDELL: Why should it? Water in this country is a national asset. In two years, $10.5m of that expenditure has been provided by the State's Special Major Capital Works Program that was established in the 1984-1985 Queensland Budget. So much for the talk by Opposition Members about nothing being in that major capital works program! Mr Davis: Isn't it National Party policy to divest itself of all Federal dual responsibility? Mr RANDELL: All we want from the Federal Govemment is a little of the funding that it takes from us. More of the money that goes to Canberra should be coming back to Queensland, but it does not. It goes to other States. The Federal ALP Govemment has victimised Queensland in every way. There is no way that Opposition members can get away from that. They do not support the Govemment in any way.They are biased against Queensland, biased against Queenslanders and biased against the workers. It will be seen from the figures to which I referred that the State has been assuming that over the years to completion, the injection of funds would be on the basis of two dollars for one dollar. That is what the State always understood and planned on, and it hoped that the Commonwealth would contribute $10m of the $30m needed for completion. The decision of the Commonwealth not to do so flies in the face of one of the major recommendations put to it in the Water 2000 report that priority for future funding should be given to those projects that are currently underway. That cannot be denied. The Queensland Government has taken up the challenge by allocating an additional $ 10.5m over the next two years. The Commonwealth has now determined to cease any fresh injection of funds into the Eton area. The decision will mean that many farmers already hit by the current recession in the industry will have to wait up to two years to receive badly needed water. It is a pity that the member for Bundaberg is not in the Chamber to add his support on this matter. Because Queensland will not be getting anything from the Commonwealth, I appeal to the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services to try to provide an injection of funding from State resources to complete this vital project. As on so many other occasions, the Federal Government has walked away and turned its face away from rural people. That is but another example of the Federal Government's deceit and bias against rural areas. One has only to look at the Federal Budgets since 1983 to note 40 areas in which that Government has disadvantaged the rural people. In the 1983 mini-Budget, the Address in Reply 27 August 1985 229

Federal Government removed the tax incentive from the income equalisation deposit scheme, and it cancelled the Bicentennial Water Resources Program. Those are but two of the eight ways in which the Federal Government disadvantaged mral people. In the 1983 August Budget, the Federal Government increased the cost-recovery percentage of export inspection to 50 per cent from 1 October 1983, thus doubling the cost of export inspection charges from $18m to $36m. Mr Davis: What is this Govemment doing? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member is not even worrying about this matter. In the August Budget, the Federal Government provided only $lm for a national soil conservation program instead of the promised $4m. It also removed the tax concessions for clearing and cultivating new land and swamp drainage, although that work was building up a national asset for the State and for the nation. I could go on and on. In the 1983 August Budget, the Federal Government also increased the price of aviation fuel. Mr Davis: The member for Bundaberg is back; you attacked him earlier. Mr RANDELL: I am pleased to note that he is back in the House, because he does not spend very much time here. When he is here, he talks a lot of drivel. We listen to him for amusement. I can see that he might be waiting to attack me, so I will leave it at that. In the August Budget, the Federal Government increased the excise duty Mr Pre^t: You're stmggling, Jim. Mr RANDELL: I am waiting for some sensible comments from Opposition members. I thought they might make a few sensible comments to keep me going. In the 1983 August Budget, the Federal Government increased excise duty on aviation gasoline. Mr Campbell: What are you doing? Mr RANDELL: What about the assets test, which seriously discriminated against pensioner farmers? Has the honourable member for Bundaberg seen the "pensioner" farmers who have nothing and cannot even get the pension? Mr Campbell: What are you doing? Mr RANDELL: Instead of doing something to help the farmers, the honourable member for Bundaberg made a submission to the Federal Government to introduce a wealth tax. My God! And he talks about farmers! They ring me up to let me know what they think of him. In the 1984 August Budget, the Federal Government cut $40m from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program. It reduced by $8m the payments under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program. 1 see the Minister for Northern Devel­ opment and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter) in the Chamber. He could outline the actions taken by the Federal Government that have disadvantaged Queensland. It cut by $24.9m the funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It abolished the Western Queensland Air Services Subsidy Scheme. Now I come to the great Federal Budget that was introduced this year. Hawke said to the mral people who were gathered in Canberra, "We will do something for you. We will come back and give you something." Do honourable members know what the Federal Government gave rural people? It reduced the price of diesel by 2c a litre. Before that, the Government increased the price of diesel by 4c a litre and, in some western areas, by as much as 12c a litre. On the one hand, it increased the price of diesel by 4c 230 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

a litre and, on the other hand, it reduced the price by 2c a litre and said, "By gee, we are good fellows!" There are 41 items to which I could refer, but time does not permit me to do so. When I refer to the Federal Government, 1 refer to the Federal coalition Govemment in Canberra, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions being the senior partner. I wish to refer to some interesting comments made by Professor Gmen on the economic position of Australia. They should cause great concern to the members of the Labor Party. Professor Gruen is one of Australia's leading academic economists and a long-time adviser to Labor Governments. The following article appeared in yesterday's press— "Prof Gmen sounded this warning at a private gathering of senior Canberra public servants at a post-Budget meeting of the Canberra branch of the Economic Society.

Third worst He told the meeting that Australia now had the third worst per capita current account deficit (the balance of trade plus outgoings for freight, insurance and repatriation of dividends) in the industrialised world after Greece and Iceland. He quoted the Budget statement assessing Australia's interest obligations and debt repayment on its net overseas borrowings of $52 billion at 33.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product in 1984-85. Five years ago debt servicing was only 8.3 per cent of GDP on debt of $7.3 bUlion. He warned that this was such an alarming growth rate that IMF intervention "was becoming more of an eventuality'." It is no wonder that Australia is being called a banana republic. Mr Hamill: Did you hear Professor Gruen on the radio this moming? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member had his chance. Professor Gmen said that five years ago Australia's debt was only $7.3 billion. Today, it is $52 billion. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr RANDELL: With his great education, the honourable member should sit and listen. Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates Australia's debt at about $50 billion. There is no doubt that everyone in Australia is becoming alarmed at the way in which the country is going. Even Labor people are becoming alarmed and, if the trend continues, after the next State election there will not even be a cricket team on the Opposition side. For all the contributions that Opposition members make in this Chamber, we might as well have a real cricket team sitting over there. Once again, 1 congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion and pledge my loyalty to the Crown. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (7.24 p.m.): When I was elected to this Chamber and took the oath, I pledged my loyalty. Tonight, I wish to refer to the Opening Speech that was delivered by the Govemor last Tuesday. Fortunately, I did not attend the old Legislative Council Chamber to hear the National Party propaganda address that was read to the gathering. I was disgusted at the treatment that the police meted out to the citizens of this State. No doubt they were acting on instructions from the Government. How any person with any principles could stomach the garbage that was read out by the Governor in his Opening Speech is beyond me. For example, part of the speech read— "For, in a free and democratic society, diversity is our strength." Address in Reply 27 August 1985 231

This police State has two laws: one for the supporters of the fascist Govemment and another for those who dare to want free speech and the right to demonstrate peacefully to retain the rights that their forefathers—both men and women—had fought and died for so that their children and grandchildren would be able to live and work in a better environment, enjoy better conditions and receive a just wage for their labour. The intention of this Govemment is to wipe out the principles of unionism and do away with the arbitration system. The provocative action taken by the police last Tuesday afternoon resulted in the arrest of approximately 100 people. Even when the crowd moved from the footpath on the corner of George and Alice Streets into the gardens, the poUce followed them, provoked the gathering and continued making arrests. It was shown clearly that this is a police State. Instead of performing their usual duties of highway and traffic control, the apprehension and pursuit of drug offenders and thieves involved in breaking and entering offences and armed hold-ups, these 200 police officers were busy provoking and arresting people in the gardens for chanting. Do Queenslanders live in a free society? Where is the free democratic society that the Governor spoke of? In this State, laws are considered to be broken only if one does not belong to the National Party or does not subscribe to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. The speech read out by the Governor for the National Party was only Government propaganda. From listening to this debate, one would gain the impression that Queensland is a wonderful State. If that is the case, why does our society have so many problems? I refer particularly to an increasing dmg problem and growing crime rate. Why are so many people killed annually on the State's roads? Why are so many people unemployed? Why are so' many people, particularly children, subject to abuse? Why does society have so many problems? The reason is that the Government believes its own propaganda. Unfortunately, Government members continue to criticise the Federal Labor Government. If it was not for the Federal Government, the people of this country would be in a very sorry state. After all, it was when the Liberal-National Party Government lost office that the nation was told how bad the deficit was. Because of the work of the Hawke Labor Government, inflation has been reduced, the unemployment situation in most States has improved, and the deficit has been reduced dramatically. In this regard, I will quote from an article from Andrew Kmger in New York, which appeared in The Courier-Mail of 23 August, as follows— "Australia continues to lead the international economic scoreboard for nine selected countries both in economic performance and expected growth. The latest analysis released by the Conference Board in New York last night shows that the Australian economy improved significantly in the last month for which statistics are available. The index of current economic performance prepared for the board by Columbia University's business school confirms predictions that the Australian economy would face a mid-year upswing. The economy grew by 7 percent in May, compared with only 7 percent in April. A more complicated index which charts future trends in the economy based on business plans and other key indicators suggests that the expansion should continue for some months but may eventually taper off. By how much is not clear at this stage. The leading index, which predicts future growth, is by no means precise and can only be used as a general gauge of economic trends. When the index was released last month, it projected Australian growth at 14 percent late this year or early next year. The latest leading index is running at 13 percent. 232 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

What is impressive is Australia's overall economic performance and anticipated growth when compared with the other eight key economies used in the scoreboard. Leading indices for Japan and Italy, for example, are cUmbing by only 10 percent, followed by Canada at 8 percent. West Germany and France are expected to experience economic growth of 5 percent and Taiwan 4 percent. Britain trails at 2 percent while the United States is last with projected growth of only 1 percent." Australia is virtually leading the world. However, according to some newspaper headlines, Queensland men are the lowest on the pay scale. Although the unemployment figures showed a bright national trend, the Queensland figure showed a slide to 9.3 per cent, the highest unemployment rate in Australia. Over the last 12 months, Queensland was the only State in which the unemployment rate worsened. Mr Scott: And on that side of the House, they do not care. Mr PREST: That is quite tme, they do not care. These are the latest figures, published on 9 August 1985. As well as that, the number of bankmptcies recorded in Queensland in the financial year 1984-85 has hit the 1 000 mark for the first time. Senator Maguire, an economist, has said that the new bankmptcy figures just compiled are a further indicator of how the Queensland economy is faltering. He said that that high total is almost twice the number of bankruptcies recorded in the mid-1970s and represents a substantial increase of 15.6 per cent over the number recorded in 1983-84. This marked increase in Queensland's bankruptcies has occurred at a time when the rest of Australia has experienced a reduction in the number of bankmptcies. In spite of all that, the Queensland Government says that the State is doing well. In dealing with welfare in the State—the Salvation Army is fully stretched to give food and warmth and has an uphill battle to help people who are hungry and cold in Brisbane, on the Gold Coast and in other places. That happens in a State in which, according to those on the other side of the House, everything is going well. In his Opening Speech, the Governor said that something would be done for the youth of this State by way of an apprenticeship scheme. The Governor mentioned Gladstone, where $18,000 has been made available for a scheme this year. However, nothing has been done about that. An officer of the department is there. The mayor of the city is the chairman of the committee, and the president of the Trades and Labor Council is a member of this committee, but nothing has been done about it and they do not intend to do anything about it until next year. That means that those who are unemployed this year will meet further competition from those who leave school at the end of this year. The scheme will take those young people who leave school at the end of this year, and those who have been unemployed for a long time wiU miss out. One of the things that the Government is trying to do is to reduce the wages of youth. If the Government thinks that youths should work for half the usual wage so that twice as many can be employed, will the Government halve the cost of living for those youths? Will the Government give those youths motor vehicle registration fees and such things at half price? The Government cannot have it both ways. If Mr Bruce Siebenhausen wants to cut the cost of the wages of youths and intends to get the support of the Government for that, he has to look at the other side of the coin. As I have said, the rate of unemployment in Queensland is 9.3 per cent, which is an utter disgrace. That rate is well above those in other States, yet the Government says that everything is all right. If it were not for the Federal Labor Govemment, through the Community Employment Program, this State would have a higher unemployment rate than it has. The Federal Government has not received any recognition for the money allocated to local authorities and other organisations in this State through the Community Employment Program. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 233

Recently, Gladstone city received the Tidy Towns Award. No mention has been made about that great honour that was bestowed upon Gladstone. Last year Gladstone city had to spend only $300,000 to attract an allocation of $1,241,000. Were it not for the Federal Labor Govemment making such money available, Queensland would be in a sorry state. Queensland has the slowest and the worst economic recovery rate of any State. That matter was ably detailed last Thursday and today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton). He also referred to it last Wednesday in the Matters of Public Interest debate. He said that Queensland has the worst unemployment rate. However, at times convenient to them. Ministers have said that the reason for the high rate of unemployment in Queensland is the large number of unemployed southemers who have flocked to this State. In the next breath, those Ministers use the same figures to boost Queensland's tourism statistics. Those southemers are used in various statistics when and where it suits the Govemment for propaganda purposes and to make it look good. What has the Govemment done to create employment? It has done nothing to assist the unemployed. As I have said, were it not for the money allocated by the Federal Labor Govemment, nothing would be happening in this State. Mr Menzel: Don't you think they ought to give something now and again? Mr PREST: Yes. I must admit that the Govemment in Canberra is sympathetic. The same thing happened in 1972-75 with the RED scheme. At that time. National Party members thought that it was a shame that that money was being wasted. However, they can see now that schemes such as the Community Employment Program provide great assistance and create employment, even though it is only on a temporary basis. The Govemor, in his Opening Speech, did not refer to child abuse in this State. The problem is serious and has been for a long time. The Govemment has known about the problem and has endeavoured to sweep it under the carpet. It has been indicated that a committee chaired by the honourable member for Greenslopes (Mrs Harvey) will investigate the matter and report to the Govemment. The honourable member for Greenslopes said that her notice was drawn to the problem by a composition written by a child. Where has that lady been over the years, particularly as a teacher, if it is only now that she has learnt that Queensland has a child-abuse problem. I suspect that child abuse will be allowed to continue because it may be bad electorally for the National Party to act on the matter. A number of reports have appeared in the press relating to child abuse. In May 1985, the following report appeared— "Nearly 120 cases of child abuse have been handled by Brisbane's Mater Hospital between January and March this year. The hospital's child abuse team member, Mrs Merrelyn Bates, said more than 600 cases were recorded in 1984. And an 'unprecedented rise' in cases was reported for 1983-84 by the Royal Children's Hospital team. In the hospital's annual report, 270 new cases and 90 sexual assault cases were reported." On 20 June 1985, a report appeared in the press under the heading "Major Child- Abuse unit 'near collapse'" The unit has been operating very successfully for some time. Unfortunately, it does not have the ear of or receive support from the Queensland Govemment. The article states— "A major Brisbane child-abuse treatment unit is in danger of collapsing. Hospital officials said this week that the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect unit was short of money and overloaded with child-abuse cases.

68703—9 234 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mater Children's Hospital representatives yesterday said the hospital may have to restrict its involvement with the SCAN operation. A Mater Parents Aid unit spokesman, who refused to be named, said yesterday that SCAN was at the point of collapse. 'It looks like it's going to fold completely at the end of this month because of lack of funds,' the spokesman said. 'I can't believe it's happening.' The Govemment was virtually denying that there was such a thing as child abuse in Queensland." After some time it is decided that a committee will be set up to investigate the matter. Surely there are already enough committees and enough evidence to prove that a problem exists in Queensland. Dr Paul Wilson, a criminologist from the university, attended a seminar on the matter. He said, according to a press report, that children cannot be believed, that they might lie about abuse. The report also contained the following— "A Juvenile Aid Bureau spokesman, Mr David Jeffries, said moves were being made to ensure children did not have to recount their stories 'over and over again.' 'We would like to see interviews videotaped to avoid the chUd having to repeat the story, as it's a difficult process for children,' he said. 'However, we see there is more of a problem of children speaking out and not being believed, than children lying. The adults are usually the ones who are lying.' " Of course, that is tme. It is a sad situation when young children are being sexually abused in private where no witnesses are present and, because of the age of the child, no evidence is taken irrespective of whether or not the child is examined by a doctor. The culprit is advised by a solicitor to plead not guilty, and there is no evidence against him. The evidence of the child will not be taken and the culprit is let off scot-free. I believe that something must be done about it. So on 17 July the Govemment decided to set up a committee. As I said, the honourable member for Greenslopes is to chair the committee. It was a 14-year-old schoolgirl's English essay detailing the sexual abuse of her by a close male relative that helped to spur the State Govemment back-bencher into taking that action in regard to child abuse. Unfortunately, it took a long time. Child abuse is one of the problems that is swept under the carpet in Queensland. Further, the Govemor's Opening Speech devoted about Vh lines to road safety. That clearly shows that the Government has no intention of doing anything at all to save the lives of road-users. It is a pity that the police who, through their union, have repeatedly said that they are understaffed, do not have the manpower to handle the problems, or the machines and the facilities to carry out their duties effectively. Yet, on Tuesday aftemoon, 200 police and machines were used to provoke and harass Queensland citizens. It was a disgrace. If the police force, under the same direction from the Premier and Treasurer, put as much effort into apprehending dmg-pushers, especially the growers and suppliers, as they do into apprehending people who burglarise houses, this State would be a better place to live. On 2 June 1985 Terry Lewis said— "Queensland needs 400 extra police immediately to cope with the increasing crime rate." The Budget is about to be brought down. Surely the Minister for Police is aware of the situation and will do something about it. On 31 July, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) reiterated what the Police Commissioner said in relation to the shortage of police in this State. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 235

I refer to the big headline in today's Daily Sun, "Burglary Boom Bite on Way". The article reads— "Insurance companies will vet prospective customers' security measures and raise policy excesses or premiums to deal with one of the State's boom industries— burglary." Why would there not be burglary in this State when every real estate agent who has a house on his or her books for sale gets as many keys to the house cut as he likes, and gives each member of his staff a key to the house? The house might be in the hands of any number of real estate agents, so goodness knows how many keys are cut. When the house is eventually sold, who goes round and collects those keys? In many instances, nobody does. Real estate agents are not the only people who may have keys to a house. Friends and relatives who may look after pet animals or the house from time to time might also have keys. Consequently, my advice to anyone who has bought a house is to replace the locks. If that is not done, nobody knows how secure he is in his own property. It is said that burglaries in Queensland have soared by 1 000 per cent in the last 10 years. A vast industry has grown up, using dmg addicts and unemployed teenagers. Mr McElligott: There are plenty of those. Mr PREST: Yes, there are in Queensland, which has 9.3 per cent of its work-force unemployed. There are not sufficient police to deal with the crimes committed. The Govemment claims that Queensland is a low-tax State. However, I remind the House that Queensland has high charges. The Govemment rests on its laurels. Some little while ago the coal industry was certainly flourishing, with the development of new mines and new railways. It was an important income-eamer for the State. The other day, however, it was reported that the Utah and Blackwater mines are working at between 60 and 70 per cent of capacity and are having problems. Why wouldn't there be problems? I refer to the 1984 annual review of the Queensland Chamber of Mines, in which the president, Mr Gavin McDonald, said— "The mining industry has no problem about paying taxes—at a fair, reasonable and equitable level. It is the projected resource rent tax the coal export levy and such like taxes aimed specifically and exclusively at the mining industry which cause concem. This is one charge levied now on one company only. The charge per tonne of coal equates to about one third of the cost of getting that tonne to the other side of the ^obe. The tax is discriminatory and so far as we are aware, unparalleled in any other industry, certainly in Australia. State Govemment charges—" that is, Queensland State Govemment charges— "have been mentioned in many different forms over the last few years. State Mines Department charges on the industry in many cases although relatively small indi­ vidually, have accelerated over the past few years at rates which are multiples of the community inflation rate. The area to which most attention has been given by this industry in the recent past has been the rail freight rates. It must be unique in business to have an industry provide the initial capital of a transport system in which, after constmction, it has no equity. A system to which it pays not only operating costs but a capital repayment charge and a profit component which would gladden the heart of most businesses. A system in which a large proportion of the total payments are escalated at rates beyond national inflationary levels in some cases by association with circumstances not connected with the industry it serves." The same document includes figures of the State revenue receipts. The mining industry contribution tojhe State's revenue-raising in 1982-83 was 13.19 per cent; in 1983-84, 16.09 per cent; and, for 1984-85, it was estimated to be 20.71 per cent. It also gives rail freight comparisons. To carry a tonne a kilometre costs 1.6c in Canada, 2.1c in South Africa and 7.5c in Queensland. 236 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Those figures leave us in no doubt that the coal-mining industry in Queensland has been the Govemment's milch cow. The Government may claim that it does not have high taxes, but it certainly has severe charges. It is not necessary to dwell on the coal-mining industry alone. One might refer to compulsory third-party insurance, the fire levy or electricity charges. Is it any wonder that those charges did not rate a mention in the Opening Speech given by the Govemor last Tuesday? All levels of government must raise revenue though taxes or charges; but this Govemment stands alone, condemned for the massive charges it imposes on the community. I tum now to the topic of the fire services levy. That matter was first discussed at the Bundaberg conference, and it was only the Australian Labor Party that stood against that fires services levy at the time. However, now that the fire services levy has backfired, two Liberal Party members, namely Mr Terry White and Sir William Knox, have come out and said how unfair such a levy is. In answer to a question asked this moming by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton), the House was informed that no consultant was involved. That statement forms part (2) of the answer to question No. 3. In contrast to that, the publication Locgov Digest reports as follows— "Firstly, a presentation by officers involved in the Working Party. They are: Mr Gayle Paltridge, former Adviser in Fire Services, Mr Bmce Wallace, Assistant Valuer-General, Mr John Chapman, Deputy Shire Clerk, Boonah. Following these presentations we will break into discussion groups and finally there will be a panel session at which group leaders report on the discussions and put questions to the panel of speakers." The working party referred to in that report was the one that went round Queensland to advise local authorities about the fire services levy. It was that group of people— among them, Mr Gayle Paltridge—that advised the local authorities how the fire services levy should be implemented. Now the State Govemment is saying that it was the local authorities who did it. Mr Paltridge is a fake and an imposter, and, without casting any aspertions on the honourable member for Barron River (Mr Tenni), Mr Paltridge is smarter than Mr Tenni. An Honourable Member interjected. Mr PREST: That is right. Mr Paltridge is too smart for Mr Tenni; yet honourable members have been informed that Mr Paltridge was not acting as a consultant to the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Adminstrative Services. Apparently, Mr Pal­ tridge could not carry out the job successfully, so he commenced work as a private consultant. Because he made no money doing that, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrtive Services (Mr Tenni) took him back again as a consultant to give advice about the fire services levy. Of course, it has blown up in Mr Paltridge's face, and the State Government is trying to protect him again. I am quite certain that he and the Minister must be bedfellows. Mr Smith: The Government might have given him the golden handshake. Mr PREST: That could also have been the case. It may be that at some later time an opportunity will be given to debate that matter. However, in June 1985, stage 2 of the levy came into operation. Stage 2 consisted of 12 categories and that was not acceptable to those who were hit hardest by the fire services levy. What did the Government do? On 10 August, it gazetted a new set of charges. Categories 1 to 3 had not changed, but categories 3 to 12 changed in the respect that they had not been reduced; instead, they have been dramatically increased. Categories Address in Reply 27 August 1985 237

13 to 16 are listed as other prescribed properties to be specified by name and location. Those categories remind me of something that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) spoke about this moming. He said that a select few will receive a great benefit as long as they belong to the right political party and as long as they are in the know. A good example of that attitude was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and me this moming with relation to third-party insurance charges. I wish to tum my attention now to a gas pipeline that was mentioned in the Speech delivered by the Govemor last Tuesday. Subsequent to that, the honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper) said that I had said the gas pipeline was a pipe-dream. It was an article published in The Courier-Mail that referred to the proposal as a pipe-dream and, although I do not think it will ever come to fmition, I wish to refer to something else that was said earlier this year or late last year by the honourable for Roma. He said that gas could never compete with electricity because coal was so inexpensive. Time expired. Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (7.54 p.m.): Firstly, I wish to express to the Crown my loyalty and also that of my constituents. I will refer to some of the speeches that have been made by members of the Opposition. I am unsure about whether I should take them seriously or simply be amused by some of their comments, because Opposition members seem to have an obsession about people being in the know and whether or not people subscribe to a fund. It is obvious from those comments that, at all times. Opposition members must be thinking of what happens in Canberra. Of course, as everyone knows, unfortunately the Prime Minister of the Federal Labor Govemment gets his tail twisted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Prime Minister cannot make a decision, because he is continually howled down and pushed around by the ACTU. Everyone was aware during the tax summit that Bob Hawke needed a conference with the ACTU before he could decide what his new tax package would be as it related to what Keating came up with, and, of course, he left Paul Keating high and dry. I wish to speak at some length about the funding needed for the sugar industry and the lack of Federal Govemment assistance. Without doubt the Federal Govemment has a responsibility. Much has been said about State responsibility. I do not deny it but, without doubt, the responsibility rests largely on the Federal Govemment, because the sugar industry is a national industry. Last week, I said in this House that the State Government should pay the cost of increasing the delivery price for sugar from $150 to $180 a tonne, because the Hawke Labor Government, as everyone knows, will not assist in increasing the delivery price. Last year, the Federal Government was asked to assist with half the cost, but it refused to do so. The stage has been reached at which we can no longer fool around with Canberra, which, although the growers need the delivery price increased to let them grow a crop, will not help. I appeal to the State Government to look at this matter urgently. I spoke about it last week, and I do so again because Canberra will not help and it is useless wasting time on Canberra. The Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries have stated that they are waiting for the response of the sugar industry to the Savage report. It was reported to me that last Tuesday, 20 August, the meeting in Townsville of aU cane- growers and mill suppliers committee representatives largely rejected deregulation. The meeting certainly rejected the $220 as proposed in the report. I repeat that the report is not only Savage by name, but also savage by nature. In fact, the grower representatives are strongly against deregulation and the proposal to abolish the Sugar Cane Prices Board. ^ Mr Randell interjected. 238 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr MENZEL: I agree with that. Unfortunately Mr Kerin was not in favour and the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland said that it should be acted on without the industry having to discuss it. I did not hear that being said, but I read press releases to that effect. I do not know whether or not I can believe them, but if it was said, it is unfortunate. It was also stated at the meeting in Townsville that the Savage committee expected, on the basis of the report, that the annual production of sugar in Australia would fall within three years from 3.4 million tonnes at present to about 1.8 million tonnes. In other words, the report findings, which have the blessing of the Commonwealth Gov­ emment, mean the scrapping of about 40 per cent of the industry. It is disgraceful that 40 per cent of the industry is expected to be phased out within three years. That is the guts of the report, the basis of the price and the deregulation. It is taking away the protection from the growers with respect to the mills. In this House I asked a question of the Premier and Treasurer about this matter to find out whether the Queensland Govemment supported the idea. I am pleased that he disagreed. It is well known that the Federal Labor Govemment is trying to reduce the industry production from 3.4 million tonnes to 1.8 million tonnes within three years. I repeat that that is a disgrace. The cane-growers must be made aware of the situation before it is too late, before they agree to a phased-in deregulation. That is only a trick. I want to know who will get the chop—which individual growers will get the chop. Who make up the 40 per cent of the growers who are to get the chop? Who will decide that? Will they simply be thrown on the scrap-heap? In the Financial Review of Thursday, 15 August 1985, under the heading "Support plan for sugar industry inadequate", some interesting information came to light. The article stated— "By the admission of Brisbane Accountant, Mr Russell Savage, Chairman of the Sugar Industry working party which compiled the Report, the price support calculation was arrived at by covering the cash cost and living cost of 43% of sugar growers who produce more than 60% of the nation's sugar." Mr Casey: Whose quote is that? Mr MENZEL: Russell Savage's. In other words, the Savage committee is planning to reduce the sugar industry by 40 per cent within three years. Mr Comben: As it should be. Mr MENZEL: Did I hear the member for Windsor correctly? Did he say, "It should be."? Perhaps he should allow other members in the Opposition who know a little more than he does to speak about this matter. Mr Randell: That is the thinking of the ALP. Mr MENZEL: For the good of Queensland and the 40 per cent that is to be thrown on the scrap-heap, I hope that it is not the thinking of the ALP. Mr Randell: I think that you should repeat what he said to get it in Hansard. Mr MENZEL: It is in Hansard and no doubt people will tear the Labor Party apart. I hope that the member for Windsor is not the Opposition spokesman on Primary Industries. That suggestion of the Savage committee is a disgrace, and it must not be accepted by cane-growers. They must all be told about it, and that is why I am again drawing it to the attention of this Parliament. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 239

In his speech last week, the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) spoke of the tremendous effect that the sugar industry has on the Queensland economy. In fact, even in this crisis time, it is worth about $800m a year to Queensland. The Savage committee and the Federal Govemment, in trying to dismantle the sugar industry, will affect the economy still more. I wish to make a few comments on other parts of the report. Recommendation No. 28, which deals with a review of the refining arrangements, and recommendation No. 29, which deals with the removal of tariff on imported cane-harvesters and a bounty paid on locally produced harvesters, are probably worth looking at. In fact, they are two of the few points worth looking at. I do not think that an expensive committee needed to be established to come up with those recommendations. Those matters have been canvassed by the Queensland Cane Growers Council and sugar industry bodies for some years. However, recommendation No. 30, which suggests that agricultural research levies be voluntary, is a load of mbbish. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that levies to fund the Sugar Experiment Stations Board or other bodies that carry out research into better varieties of cane and the general upgrading of agricultural standards should be voluntary. It just would not work. Such levies should be compulsory. Recommendation No. 31 states that the cane-testing service of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board should be abolished. That would lead to cheating by the mUls and, therefore, must not be agreed to. That is what happened 60 years ago; that is why cane- testing was introduced. Mr De Lacy: The biggest cheats got out of the mills. Mr MENZEL: The biggest cheats are probably sitting on the Opposition side. On page 105 of the report, the proposal to set up a new sugar industry authority to replace the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board is outlined. Another sugar body vfill then be constituted, and, as I understand the recommendations, it will have the authority to set up a further body. It appears that two bodies are being abolished and two bodies are being established. That is difficult to understand. Perhaps it is window-dressing to please the Federal Govemment, which has bright ideas about deregulation. Opposition members have referred to the good regulation of the sugar industry. It has been tried and proved. Mr Casey: That is right. Mr MENZEL: I thank the honourable member. Obviously there is a conflict in the Labor Party. Mr Casey: Do you realise that your Minister for Primary Industries said in this Chamber last week that he was not criticising the report and that he congratulated the chairman, Mr Savage? Mr MENZEL: The Minister for Primary Industries has allowed the report to be discussed. He will not criticise the report until it has been discussed and opinions have been expressed by the industry. If the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board is thrown out, the protection that it has offered growers for half a century will be tossed overboard. Tuming to other matters—the Federal Govemment is robbing Queensland of money for roads and of money that is needed by the Health Department. I request that the Premier and Treasurer continue to fight Canberra to give Queensland a fair go. It is well known that the Hawke Labor Govemment is prepared to sacrifice its only seat in the sugar-growing area, that is, Mr Gayler's seat of Leichhardt, rather than be fair dinkum about helping the sugar industry. Because of Mr Gayler's dismal performance, the Federal Govemment is not particularly worried about whether he goes. From the Government's point of view, it would be better off spending money in Canberra, Sydney 240 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

and Melboume, where it holds more seats. It is not particularly worried about the one Labor seat of Leichhardt. The Federal Govemment is trying to squeeze Queensland by not giving it its proper share of funds. The Medicare agreement is a good example, and Queensland is being short-changed by about $52m per year. Opposition Members interjected. Mr MENZEL: Opposition members may laugh, but they are laughing away $52m. The Federal Govemment is trying to cause unemployment in Queensland by squeezing Queensland out of its proper share of funds. That is what the Federal Govemment is aiming to do, and it wiU wear a little bit of flak. Although it points to the unemployment rate, it will not give the Queensland Govemment any money to solve the problem. The Federal Govemment is squeezing Queensland deliberately. Mr Randell: It is our money. Mr MENZEL: Of course it is our money, and it is hard-eamed money, too. The action is designed to cause unemployment in Queensland in an effort to embarrass the National Party State Govemment. The defence of the America's Cup is to receive $30m of tax-payers' money, and $17m was aUocated in the last Budget; a car race in South Australia is to receive $5m; yet the sugar industry gets nothing—not one cent. That is a disgrace on the part of the Federal Govemment. If that $3 5m was given to Mr Jennings: It is a disgrace. Mr MENZEL: It is a disgrace, and the people of Queensland have to know that. It is no wonder that the nation has unemployment when the Federal Govemment is wasting $30m on the defence of the America's Cup and $5m on a car rally that wiU bum petrol, smash cars and probably cause death or injury. I wam the sugar industry not to agree to compromise on deregulation. The dairy industry made that mistake of trying to be reasonable and thinking that it could compromise with John Kerin. Every time it compromised with Mr Kerin, he demanded a further back-down of the industry. Eventually, it told him to go to hell, because it realised that it had nothing left with which to bargain. Ultimately, the dairy industry rejected deregulation. Mr Randell: Wouldn't Mr Kerin be mnning out of excuses in now saying that the Cabinet will not back him up? Mr MENZEL: That is tme. It is said that he is a nice guy; but he must be a weak Minister, because he cannot get anything through Cabinet. He is always putting up a case—he is the greatest put-up of all time. It seems that the State ALP will do a complete circle, and that is amazing. Although it has always supported regulation, the Leader of the Opposition is giving his support to Mr Kerin to adopt the report on the sugar industry, which includes deregulation and a price that is far too low. As I have said, $220 is far too low. In fact $240 is not enough, but that is what the industry has asked for, and that is a bare minimum. If the industry is to be held together, that should be the first consideration. The regulation of some primary industries has made them the stable and progressive industries that they are today. It is the low world market price that is crippling the sugar industry, not regulation. I have read press reports, and it appears that the secretary of the Queensland Cane Growers Council (Ron Belcher) and its chairman favour phased-in deregulation of the sugar industry. I hope that that is not tme. If it is, I will be very disappointed. It appears Address in Reply 27 August 1985 241 that that is what will take place. Rumours abound that both of them have been promised jobs on the new sugar industry authority. I hope that that is not the reason for their agreeing with the report. As I say, I hope that they are just mmours; but that has been said, and those gentlemen may deny them if they wish. I am not accusing them. Mr Casey: Who is promising them the jobs? Mr MENZEL: The Federal Govemment. Mr Casey: No; it is State Govemment legislation. Mr MENZEL: It is the Federal Govemment. On 3 September, John Kerin wiU address a meeting of cane-growers in Brisbane in an attempt to railroad them into submitting. I hope that the cane-growers tell Mr Kerin that $220 per tonne of sugar is too low, that deregulation is not on and also that the suggestion that the industry be reduced in size by 40 per cent is not acceptable. If that is ever allowed to happen, it will be an absolute crime. The people of Queensland should be reminded that the Federal Labor Govemment introduced a 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments and an assets test on pensioners—horrible taxes! Those are cmel taxes that are hurting people in their retirement. They do not hurt young people; they hurt only those who are in the later years of their lives, those who cannot defend themselves and who cannot start again. Those taxes are worrying old people, usually those who have managed to save for their old age to try to ease the burden on others in the time of their retirement. The Labor Party has knocked those people flat on the head. For many years, many of them had been great Labor supporters. Never in their wildest dreams did they think that the Labor Party would tum on them like a taipan. The Labor Govemment in Canberra has introduced a mle that if a public patient is in hospital for more than 35 days, a doctor must sign a statement that the patient is in need of acute care. The problem is that because the Commonwealth health officers come to the doctors and demand that those doctors justify the declaration, the doctors are scared to sign them. I have received many complaints about that, as, no doubt, have many other honourable members. Although very few people bring the matter up, it should be put on record. If, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Health Department, the patient is not in need of acute care, the doctor may be fined $10,000. The Gestapo, jackboot tactics of the Federal Govemment against doctors is to be deplored, because, once again, usually it is the old people who need extended care. Because of the threat of a fine and deregistration, many doctors are now refusing to sign a declaration for acute care. That is the worst type of intimidation. The doctors will stiU be all right, but the patients will suffer. The Federal Govemment is screwing everyone to the wall and not giving proper medical care to the elderly. That is a disgrace. I will not be political about it. Opposition Members interjected. Mr MENZEL: Instead of members of the Labor Party laughing, they should take this matter up with their Canberra coUeagues so that something can be done about it. I am sure that all honourable members would like to see the problem remedied as soon as possible. Mr Randell: That has happened through Federal economic mismanagement. Mr MENZEL: That is tme. We live in a banana republic, and the value of the Australian dollar is dropping. The Federal Govemment's treatment of the elderly is a means of saving money at the cost of some lives of old people. It deprives of proper medical care those who are most in need. That is the action of a Federal Government that claims that it cares for people. 242 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

I wish to raise the need for the upgrading of the road to Bramston Beach by raising it above the average flood level. This has been a problem for some time, and I understand that plans are being drawn up by the Main Roads Department. Unfortunately, it appears that the Mulgrave Shire Council is playing politics by not putting the upgrading of the Bramston Beach road high on its priority list. When the plans are completed, I ask the Minister for Main Roads to proceed with the upgrading of that road at the earliest possible time. Mr Casey: You have a beach house there, have you? Mr MENZEL: No, I cannot afford a beach house. I would love to have one. Mr Casey: It's a pretty spot. Mr MENZEL: It is. It has a couple of motels. I hope that at some time members of the Opposition spend a holiday there. The place is going ahead and it needs a decent road. Opposition members can lead their parliamentary delegations there, stay overnight and spend their money. It is important also that the Govemment proceed with a four-lane highway between Gordonvale and Caims. Traffic is increasing every year and, to attract tourists, good roads are vitally important. Yet this year Canberra has cut back road-funding by $10m. Although Opposition members know about that matter, they do not say anything about it. They should urge Canberra to retum that $10m. Once again, Canberra is starving Queensland of funds to deliberately cause unemployment in Queensland. I draw the attention of honourable members to a trip to Caims by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (BUI Hayden) in an air force VIP jet, at a cost of about $35,000, to confer Ufe membership of the Australian Labor Party on Councillor Tom Pyne. I understand that Bill Hayden arrived in Caims, conferred the honour and left without attending to any Govemment business. He attended a purely ALP function. That was a blatant waste of tax-payers' money. That is an absolute disgrace. Mr Randell: Shame! Mr MENZEL: As the member for Mirani said, shame indeed. Mr Randell: How many old people would have got something out of that? Mr MENZEL: The honourable member is right. That money would have paid for acute care for many elderly people who have voted Labor all their lives. . It is my understanding that Bill Hayden performed only that duty for the ALP and then retumed south. It is similar to Bob Hawke's recent fishing trip to Caims when he travelled in a VIP jet. I understand that he obtained an air force propeller-driven plane to fly him around north Queensland. Mr HamiU: Who is this—the Premier? Mr MENZEL: Our Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. As the local Federal member (John Gayler) was hosting him, I hate to think what the liquor biU was for that fishing trip. The honourable member for Bundaberg is not in the Chamber. He is not a bad chap, so I will not be too rough on him. Mr Randell: As usual. Mr MENZEL: As my colleague says, as usual. I will not be too rough on him. I promise not to be nasty to him. He raised the matter of foreign aid being provided by the Federal Labor Govemment to the Ban^adesh sugar industry. I uncovered that matter in Parliament and drew it to the attention of Address in Reply 27 August 1985 243

the people of Queensland. The honourable member disputes whether it was $100m or $20m. He was silly enough to raise that matter again. Queensland cane-farmers should be reminded that, whether it was $20m or $100m that was thrown away in foreign aid to Bangledesh to cause futher overproduction Mr Comben interjected. Mr MENZEL: The honourable member for Windsor (Mr Comben) is talking about cutting back production, yet the Federal Labor Govemment is providing a sugar-mill so that Bangladesh can produce more sugar, which will have an effect on production in Queensland. That does not make sense to me. Mr Randell: That's why he might be suggesting a wealth tax. Mr MENZEL: That is tme. He thinks that all cane-growers are wealthy, and that is why he wants to tax them. However, he is a little way out there. Opposition members have made a great deal of reference in this Chamber to Queensland's unemployment level. I said that the Federal Govemment is deliberately causing unemployment in Queensland. Where are Hawke's 500 000 new jobs that he promised to create? He is always coming up with a new package and a new scheme. Honourable members can be assured that he will not hold any more summits. However, he always has these new ideas. Where are the half million new jobs? They do not exist. Mr De Lacy: In Victoria and New South Wales. Mr MENZEL: The honourable member admits that he is creating new jobs in those States and discriminating against Queensland. Opposition members support that. Why do they keep doing that? In a north Queensland newspaper I read that two local ALP politicians are claiming that the State Govemment is charging an interest rate of between 12 and 14 per cent on Rural Adjustment Scheme funding. Every time a statement is made, the figure varies. Everyone knows that that is a lot of crap. The Rural Adjustment Scheme is charging 8 per cent. Unfortunately, one is a commo and the other one Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. I understood the honourable member for Mulgrave to use a term which I would have thought would be unparliamentary. I find it difficult to mention the word myself Mr MENZEL: I will certainly withdraw any unparliamentary comment that I may have made. As I said earlier, the Hawke Govemment is dictated to by the ACTU, just as some factions of the Labor Party in Queensland are dictated to by the ETU. In Queensland, ALP members must pay their respects and front up every so often at demonstrations and such things. However, I believe that the Labor Party did help Sallyanne Atkinson get elected Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Credit must go to some Opposition members who tried hard and supported the strikers at SEQEB, the demonstrators and rent-a-crowd who helped Sallyanne Atkinson to get elected as Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Probably Opposition members did some good. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. That was the side effect. Labor Party members helped the Liberals in Brisbane. The Labor Party always tries to denigrate the Liberals, yet they helped them to get elected and beat their own Lord Mayor. I understood that the honourable member for Yeronga (Mr Lee), who is presently in the House, said that the Govemment should abolish all quangos. I do not know exactly what he means by that. Does he mean the Peanut Marketing Board, the sugar boards and all the marketing boards? I hope that he does not, because they have done an excellent job. Mr Lee: You knew I didn't; now be fair. 244 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr MENZEL: The honourable member has said that that is not right. I am pleased that he has clarified that matter because those marketing boards have done an excellent job in Queensland. They have helped with orderly marketing and helped to stabilise markets for primary producers. Mr De Lacy: Don't you believe in free enterprise? Mr MENZEL: I do. It helps to promote free enterprise and private enterprise. The Govemment wants that to continue in Queensland. It does not want Canberra wrecking private enterprise. Canberra wants to deregulate, and that would wreck private enterprise. The Federal Govemment wants to abolish all primary industries. It condones 40 per cent of the sugar industry going down the drain. A few years ago at an ALP conference in New South Wales, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that it would be cheaper to import sugar, fmit, wheat and the like. The Federal Labor Govemment could not care less about primary producers. That is why the National Farmers Federation demonstrated in Canberra. When Bob Hawke made an appearance he was surrounded by 25 or 50 policemen. The farmers booed him. When the Queensland Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) appeared, the farmers cheered him. That is the support that the National Party has got. The Queensland Premier and Treasurer did not need policemen to protect him from the farmers, but Bob Hawke certainly did. The Prime Minister was surrounded by 50 policemen. If he had not been, the crowd would have tom him apart. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (8.23 p.m.): I express the loyalty of the citizens of Rockhampton to the Govemor in exercising his official duties under the Constitution. However, it is my deep regret that, in the course of this speech, I have to reflect on the Govemment's continual abuse of the democratic system which again occurred in this House today. I refer to the Govemment's rejection this moming of the request to debate the behaviour of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing in relation to the TAB affair. The National Party, through its members in the Parliament, continues to pay lip- service to the Queen, the Govemor, the flag, the Westminster system and many other symbols of constitutional monarchy and democratic Govemment. We have seen today that, in reality, the Govemment pays no respect to the real depths of constitutional monarchy and to the democratic system. It is easy to pay lip-service to the symbols; but, when one examines the reality, what is it all about? The Govemor—and I wish him well in his service—can be thankful that the Opposition, at any rate, pays real respect to the democratic traditions of the Westminster system. In my speech, I shall examine the Govemment's behaviour today in relation to the TAB affair to ascertain whether the behaviour of the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, and the Government's endorsement of it, have enhanced or diminished the democratic system of constitutional monarchy prevailing in Queensland. Mr Jennings: You must be short of something to talk about. Mr BRADDY: National Party members must have been short of something to talk about. They were not game to debate this issue. One-fifth of the matters that should have been discussed were discussed by the Minister alone. Those on the Govemment side were so short of something to talk about that they were not game to carry out the proper functions of a Govemment in the Westminster system and debate what has been a shameful episode in this Govemment's history. That is how short they were of something to speak about. It is a travesty that one of their members should now suggest that we are short of something to speak about. Let us consider the matter as it has unfolded over the last week. I deal first with the principle of conflict of interest. It is now conceded by the Minister himself that possibly there was a conflict of interest involved in his behaviour. It will be recalled Address in Reply 27 August 1985 245 that last Thursday, immediately after the member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) raised the matter in the House, the Minister did not come into the Parliament. He called a press conference in which he argued piously that he had arrived at a decision which was proper, that he was proceeding with his application, that there was certainly no conflict of interest and that he had legal advice to that effect. That was last Thursday night. What is the position now in relation to conflict of interest? He now says that, having thought about it over the week-end and having had the opportunity of discussing it with his fellows in the Cabinet, he has decided that there was possibly a conflict of interest and he has therefore withdrawn his application. He even tries piously to suggest on occasions that he would have withdrawn his application, irrespective of what we in the Opposition did. What are the facts? The member for Salisbury raised the matter, and it was only after he did so that the Minister informed the Cabinet, the media and the Parliament of his intentions. I refer to a transcript from the radio program "PM" of 26 August 1985 on the matter of conflict of interest. Mr Hinze is reported as saying— "Now my reasons for doing that was I had a family discussion yesterday and it appears as that's the most sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Now to get round to this position we find ourselves in I refute emphatically that there's been any conflict of interest." Then he includes this remarkable sentence— "Had I have signed the documents after they were conveyed to me last week, it may have then been interpreted as a conflict of interest." What is the Minister saying? He is telling us that he has been saved from his own folly—he has been saved from his own impropriety and misconduct—by the loyal Opposition raising a matter that had to be raised in all conscience.

Mrs Chapman interjected.

Mr BRADDY: Indeed it is a strong word.

Mrs Chapman: The wrong word.

Mr BRADDY: The right words are Mr Hinze's— "Had I have signed the documents after they were conveyed to me last week, it may have then been interpreted as a conflict of interest."

What an incredible admission—that he knew so little about what he was doing that he was saved from his folly only by the member for Salisbury drawing the matters to his attention.

I now quote from a transcript of The National of 26 August 1985. At that time, the Minister was questioned about conflict of interest, and part of the transcript reads as follows— "I made up my mind during the week, I thought well there's no way that I'm going to sign and allow myself to be in a position which may be constmed as a conflict of interest." I now ask: Which week was the Minister referring to? This week? Last week? Nobody knows. Again, it is a lot of nonsense, and the Minister has said so many contradictory things. Moreover, the Minister has not had the courage to debate the matter in Parliament but has preferred to make statements outside Parliament because the issue of confUct of interest on the part of the Queensland Govemment is a complete and utter mess. 246 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Perhaps the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing was hoping to rely upon Mr Ian Callinan, who happens to be the chairman of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board. Today, the Minister tabled a news release from Mr Callinan in relation to the establishment of a subagency at Oxenford. Two paragraphs of that news release clearly indicate that what Mr Callinan is saying is this: "It is not my responsibility, as chairman of the TAB, to give legal advice to the Minister. It is not my responsibility, as chairman of the TAB, to tell the Minister when he is likely to be acting in a manner that would raise a conflict of interest or in a manner that is likely to constitute any other kind of ministerial impropriety." I have no doubt that Mr Callinan would be kept very busy if he were to continually advise the Minister about the likelihood of ministerial impropriety. The two paragraphs to which I refer appear at the top of the second page of the news release and, after dealing with the merits of the Hinze application, Mr Callinan goes on to say— "The Board, therefore, is of the view, and has informed the Minister accordingly, that the application which would best serve the interests of the TAB as a business enterprise is the Junefair application." That sets out the judgment by the board with respect to the merits of the application. Of course, another matter must be dealt with because the appUcation involves a Minister, and the Minister has had the advantage of knowing what has occurred in relation to the matter of a subagency over a period of years. It is therefore no wonder, in one sense, that the Minister's application is the best; but it was by no means proper, as the next paragraphs of the news release ought to have indicated. They read— "It is not, of course, for the Board to do other than consider the business advantages attached to a betting facility and service to the public. This the Board has done. It would ordinarily now be a matter for the Minister to determine whether to approve the estabUshment of a sub-agency which, for the reasons stated, the Board has recommended. Any sub-agency so established would, of course, be on the usual conditions of the Board and would be subject to aU necessary planning approval." Mr Callinan is dissociating himself from what the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing must do in his ministerial capacity. Of course, I will have more to say about what the Minister has done and, more specifically, what he has not done in his ministerial capacity in his management of this particular portfolio. Apparently, the Minister has never asked himself about the question of conflict of interest. It was only when the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) raised the matter in the House that the Minister became aware that a problem existed with his proceeding with an application. The other day, I was in the House when notice of a motion seeking a pecuniary interest register was again given by the Opposition. What was heard from the Govemment side of the Chamber? All that could be heard was laughter and contempt for the suggestion that such a register would serve a useful purpose in the Parliament. Yet, within a matter of days, Govemment members, with their tails between their legs, whipped across the floor of the House in an effort to avoid debating the issue of a Minister who had been caught in a pecuniary interest conflict, fairly and squarely by the Opposition. This moming, Govemment members sat in the Chamber without so much as hardly a whimper, because they were embarrassed and they avoided their responsibility as a Govemment to have the matter debated. Mr Katter: The Opposition is having a fair mn at it tonight. Mr BRADDY: The Opposition may well be taking a fair mn at it tonight, but I point out that this debate should have taken place at a much earlier time today on a motion. However, no-one who sits on the same side of the House as the Minister for Address in Reply 27 August 1985 247

Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs had the courage to debate the matter in Parliament. The Govemment stands condemned before the people of Queens­ land and will continue to do so while it avoids debating this matter. Even members of the Liberal Party joined with the Opposition this moming to urge the Govemment to debate the matter. Moreover, Sir William Knox appeared on television this evening in a further attempt to urge the Government to debate the matter with the Opposition, but Govemment members lack the courage to do so because they know they are on the wrong side of the debate. Mr Goss: Does Mr Katter's interjection indicate that he wiU stand up and defend the Minister's position this evening? Mr BRADDY: I should think that the likelihood of the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs or any other Minister or back-bencher having the temerity or courage to debate this issue is very remote. Govemment members have avoided all the main issues that have been raised and they have avoided a debate. On ministerial responsibility—we heard the Minister today refer to a code of conduct. I will refer to a code of conduct relative to Ministers that is simUar to codes of conduct used by all responsible Parliaments. This is not adopted in Queensland because Queensland does not have a code. The Govemment does not require a code of conduct because it knows that it cannot live up to it. The code I refer to is contained in the House of Representatives Practice. It appears at pages 178 and 179 of the practice. Several sections in that code would have been instmctive if the Minister for Local Authority, Main Roads and Racing had read them many times in the past, and certainly before he acted in this matter on which he has been caught and embarrassed and embarrassed the Govemment. I refer firstly, to section 3 of the code recommended by the House of Representatives for the Australian Parliament. It reads— "An office holder should avoid situations in which his private interest, whether pecuniary or otherwise, conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duty." Obviously the Minister does not know about that classic statement or he does not care about it. Section 7 of the same code reads— "An office holder should not use information obtained in the course of official duties to gain directly or indirectly a pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. In particular, an office holder should scmpulously avoid investments or other transactions about which he has, or might reasonably be thought to have, early or confidential information which might confer on him an unfair or improper advantage over other persons." Did the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing ever believe in that principle? Did it not occur to him that people could think he might gain an unfair advantage, by reason of the knowledge that he would obtain as Minister in charge of racing, in getting his family to apply for a TAB licence? If he did think about it, he treated that principle with contempt. The Govemment cannot defend and has not defended him in the House. Section 10 of the code reads— "An office holder should not allow the pursuit of his private interest to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duties." In the evidence laid before the House, it can be seen that in many ways the Minister aUowed the pursuit of private interest to take precedence over pubUc duty. For a number of years, because of his feud with Sir Edward Lyons, he did not even know he was not carrying out his duty to approve licences. To say the least, his explanations in that regard are pathetic. 248 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

With reference to the code of conduct that the Minister had the temerity to cite to the House today, I suggest that the Govemment should look to its laurels and adopt such a code. The sooner the Govemment does so, the sooner it will not have to face the embarrassment of a Minister being caught as this Minister was, and the even worse embarrassment of the Govemment having its tail between its legs, not game to debate the matter with the Opposition. Mr Casey: There is no chance of adopting that while the Premier sets the pace. Mr BRADDY: Indeed, the Premier has always rejected the notion that the Parliament needs a code of conduct. Over the past weeks we have seen the results of the Premier's insistence on that matter. I come now to another matter arising in this context which was not even mentioned today by the Minister in his statement. It is a matter that the Govemment is avoiding in the whole issue. I refer to the allegation of political interference in this matter. This allegation arose from notations and statements that have been placed on official TAB documents. In relation to the application of Mr and Mrs Frith in 1982, a memorandum dated 7 July 1982 states— "At the time of writing, poUtical sanction has yet to be given to this estabUshment. Therefore, the proprietors are not to be advised of the move untU the anticipated approval is forthcoming. Signed J. Swinson, Actg. Operations Manager." On 13 July, the following endorsement was placed on the memorandum— "G/M says not to go ahead—political interference." What do we have? We have official documents that carry the words "poUtical interference". Today in this Chamber, the Minister could not say one word in his defence or in the defence of his Govemment in relation to political interference. He could not explain why the evidence was not as damning as obviously it appears to be. He avoided the issue. This again shows the contempt with which the Govemment treats the people and the ParUament of the State. Every time the Opposition raises serious allegations, Ministers go to the media and give their version of the facts. They allow very little cross- examination. Then they come back into this Chamber, make a half-baked ministerial statement and refuse to debate the issue in the Parliament. Govemment members then have the temerity to get up and express loyalty to the Govemor, the Crown and the Westminster system. It is just lip-service. It is not out of contempt for proper values that I am standing here at this hour of the night making this speech. If the Govemment allowed debate in a proper manner, this speech would have been made at about noon today. The Govemment is contemptuous of the real expression of democracy. It treats with contempt the people in the proper institution of democracy. I then tum to the third serious item, which again was not mentioned by the Minister today in his ministerial statement. It has not been debated by the Govemment in this place, and the Govemment has indicated that it will not debate it. I refer to the failure of the Minister to carry out his ministerial responsibilities over a considerable period of time. As honourable members are aware, and as the Minister now admits he is aware, the Racing and Betting Act requires the Minister to give final approval to any TAB agency licences. On page 1 of today's Courier-Mail, the Minister made some amazing admissions. Again he made them outside this Chamber, contemptuous of this Parliament. He did not make the statements in here; he made them to the media outside. The Premier and Treasurer and his Govemment backed the Minister to the extent that he has not been dismissed and the matter has not been debated in this Chamber. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 249

Page 1 of today's Courier-Mail contains quotations allegedly made by the Minister relative to the question of his not signing TAB agency applications. He is reported as saying— " 'I think everybody should know that I had a period whereby Sir Edward Lyons referred nothing to me at all,' Mr Hinze said. 'I have never granted or disapproved sub-agency or agent's licence in the total period Sir Edward Lyons was chairman. 'Someone might claim all the actions that have been taken over the last three or four years have been illegal. 'I felt all along I should have been consulted,' he said. Mr Hinze said he told Sir Edward this to no avail. The Minister said he could do nothing more because the board had decided to take this course." Then he made a remarkable statement. Is this the statement of a strong Minister, which we are told he is? This doyen of the National Party, this strong character who bestrides the National Party benches and is subservient only to the Premier and Treasurer, said— "I can't go and intmde, can I? I can't go into the TAB and say have you got anything for me to sign?" This strong Minister, this strong character, did not have the intestinal fortitude to confront the chairman of the TAB and demand that he be given the document, which is his right as a Minister of the Crown. He did not have the courage to go to the Premier and the Govemment and say, "The chairman of the TAB will not comply with the law. Either he goes or I go." What did he do? Mr De Lacy: Do you know what the Premier would have said? "You go." Mr BRADDY: Exactly; that is the answer. The Minister would not do it because he was scared of the result. As a result, three or four years of illegaUty or impropriety have occurred. No justification has been forthcoming from the Govemment, and there has been no dismissal. Not even a whimper has been heard. Mr Casey: In the same period, he took all the cheques for the $60m for the Racing Development Fund. Mr BRADDY: It was more important for the Minister to be mnning round the State spending the money; it did not matter that he was not doing his duty as Minister. The Minister said that he could not work it out, that he could not do it, that he did not have the ministerial responsibility to demand of Sir Edward Lyons that he comply with the law, and that he could not resign because the job was too nice or too good and he had to continue. It suited him. If anything indicates a breach of the code of conduct with which this culprit does not comply it is this— "An office holder should not allow the pursuit of his private interest to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duty." All through his term of office, Mr Hinze aUowed his private interest—his obsession with racing—to intmde above his public duty. Mr De Lacy: Do you think that it is fair to say that he was intoxicated by the smell of ministerial leather? Mr BRADDY: I think that the Minister was intoxicated by the smell of ministerial leather, horse manure and the hard cash that he could carry round with him, making a 250 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

big fellow of himself right through the State; and he has made a big fellow of himself But he did not do so today; he crawled out of this Chamber without the courage to face the members of this Assembly and debate the matter. I suggest that the Minister gave one of the weakest defences that one would ever hear in any Parliament on a charge of ministerial impropriety. Mr McElligott: Do you reckon that Mr Gillies misrepresents him? Mr BRADDY: In 1986, Mr GiUies will have to come to terms with the deflated Mr Hinze that honourable members first saw in the cartoon in this moming's Courier- Mail. It will be much more difficult for Mr Gillies to whimper than to carry on with a great bang, as he has in the past. Mr FitzGerald: Can't you make a speech on your own? Mr BRADDY: I can make a speech on my own, and many of my coUeagues would have spoken on the same subject-matter if the Govemment had had the courage to give them the opportunity today, as I keep reminding honourable members. The Minister for Racing and the Govemment stand condemned—the Minister for his failure over a period of years, on his own admission, to carry out his responsibilities; the Govemment for its failure to make sure that he did and, more importantly, for its failure to dismiss him or to allow the matter to be debated to decide whether, at the end of the debate, the Minister should be dismissed. At the end of the day, looking at the matters raised in the best possible light for the Minister after his inadequate defence in ParUament, he stands condemned for at least three reasons. Firstly, there was a manifest conflict of interest at all times if the Minister was to apply for that particular TAB licence. He now concedes that himself, but could not see it before. Secondly, the Minister and the Govemment stand condemned for failing to satisfy the Parliament that there was no political interference in the rejection of the Friths' application. No defence or explanation has been given to this Parliament against the charges of political interference. In addition, no defence can be found in the media, to which the Govemment mns rather than to this place where it should be making its explanations first. The Govemment and the Minister have contemptuously not dealt with the allegation of political interference. While it remains a charge unan­ swered—the Opposition says that it cannot be answered—the Govemment stands condemned for allowing political interference to override the rights of the citizens of this State. The third charge on which the Government stands condemned is that over a period of years the Minister, on his own admission, has failed to carry out his responsibilities as Minister for Racing. He allowed his desire to defeat Sir Edward Lyons, his desire to be a big fellow and spend racing money, and his desire to continue in that portfoUo, to outweigh his cortect political responsibility. Because the Govemment has supported the Minister, has not removed him and has not justified its actions, it stands condemned on that charge, also. Members of the Govemment sit here and behave as though the Govemment in this State is the guardian of parliamentary democracy. In this Address in Reply debate I say to the Govemor that the responsibility of asserting parliamentary responsibility in this place has again fallen to the Opposition, as it has on too many occasions over the years in which this Govemment has been in power. Without the Opposition, there would have been no responsibility whatever in the handling of this matter. The Govemment will continue to talk about the flag, the Govemor, the Queen, the Westminster system and the royal corgies—anything at all that relates to royalty—but what will it ever do about parliamentary responsibility? What will it ever do about ministerial responsibility? Mr Casey: They are even going to put Mr Cahill up as court jester. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 251

Mr BRADDY: Yes, indeed. That was the light side to last week. There was the heavy jester—Mr Hinze—ducking and diving in his ponderous manner in reacting to these charges. He failed to satisfy anybody. As a bit of comic light relief, Mr Cahill behaved and cavorted in the way that he did. In any event, in this Address in Reply debate it is appropriate to say to the Govemor that the Opposition will continue to assert the right of an Opposition to debate matters in the Parliament; it will continue to attempt to force this cowardly Govemment to debate in the Parliament; and it will continue to raise breaches of ministerial impropriety in this Parliament. One can only hope that over the next 12 months the Govemment will behave more responsibly and with more propriety than it has shown over the last 12 months. Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (8.52 p.m.): Although this debate should cover every facet of the development of Queensland, which is a major area of Australia, all that the honourable member who preceded me could speak about for his entire 30 minutes was a little TAB agency down at Oxenford. That shows the length and breadth of the scope of the Opposition. Not once did the honourable member acknowledge the fact that the application was withdrawn. He was supported by other members of the Opposition when he spoke about the millions of dollars that have come from the Racing Development Fund. Some of the members of the Opposition have asked whether that expenditure was illegal or wrong. I say to the members of the Opposition, "Would you cancel those cheques? Would you cancel the development that has occurred at the country racecourses round Queensland? Would you do that?" That is funny; I cannot hear any argument from them. Would they do it? Would they cancel all the good things that have been done with money from the Racing Development Fund? Right round Queensland, from Cape York right down to Brisbane and out to the west, would they cancel the expenditure from those funds and cancel those developments?

Opposition Members interjected. Mr JENNINGS: It is all very well for honourable members opposite to squeal now, but when I asked them the question, "Would you or would you not cancel them?", I heard not a word from them. Of course they would not! They know as well as I do that, because of the Minister for Racing, the racing industry has never been better. They would not retract one dollar that has been spent on racecourses throughout Queensland. They would not retract one dollar that has been spent on improving facilities. They would not retract one dollar that has been expended from that Racing Development Fund, which was dreamed up by the Minister for Racing. That was the best stunt for racecourses that has been dreamed up in this country. Every other racing fratemity round Australia will agree with that.

Mr Veivers: A stunt? Mr JENNINGS: I am told that the member for Ashgrove is the spokesman for the Opposition on racing matters. Would the Opposition not have proceeded with any of the racecourse developments that have occurred in Queensland? There is not a word coming from Opposition members. That is the answer. There is no doubt that what has happened in the racing industry in Queensland has had dramatic effects right round Australia. Opposition members know as well as I do that more than 200 000 persons are employed in the racing industry in Australia. Mr Milliner: What about getting down to all-night trading on the Gold Coast? Mr JENNINGS: The honourable member talks about all-night trading. He might know about those places that do. I do not attend all-night shows. 252 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Govemment members can prance about and talk about the Queensland Budget with pride. It is the only Budget in Australia that has a large surplus. Although there is no need to emphasise this matter, I state that loyalty to the Crown is important, because it is the basis of our Constitution. The Canberra colleagues of Opposition members recently woke up with a jolt. The ACTU said that it would blockade Queensland. It forgot about one simple little law of this land, which is the only basic reason why a Governor-General and a Govemor are appointed. When members are elected to this Assembly, they take an oath. That is the mle of the land. The mles of the land are simple. The Constitution is simple and clear. Recently the ACTU said that it was going to blockade Queensland. The Federal Govemment was not going to take any action. Suddenly it realised—-r- Mr McElligott: Come on, get worked up. Mr JENNINGS: The honourable member should not worry. I was singing during the week-end and I now have a dud voice. The Federal Govemment suddenly realised that there was something in the Con­ stitution that referred to free trade between the States. It states that there shall be no discrimination against a person moving from one State to another. There is reference to persons living in different States being treated the same. It is the law of the land that the Commonwealth Govemment must uphold that law. Suddenly, it woke up to that fact and the blockade was lifted. If the blockade had not been lifted. Opposition members know that what Kerr did would have been infinitesimal by comparison. The Govemor- General could have gone along to Bob Hawke and said, "Give me your commission. Another election will be held." Opposition members should live by that Constitution. If they do not, they should say so. I live by it and every other person Uves by it. Many things are happening in Queensland, including Expo. A great deal of devel­ opment, such as the casino, is taking place on the Gold Coast. Opposition members can only speak about a TAB subagency at Oxenford. That is the scope of the matters referred to by Opposition members. Govemment members are positive. We know where we are going. The honourable member for Kurilpa (Ms Wamer) said that Queensland industrial legislation infringes human rights. She did not say anything about the rights of people who pay their electricity accounts to obtain power. She did not refer to the husband or wife who comes home at night, tums on the switch and finds that there is no power. The ETU employees said, "We are not going to give you power until we get what we want—what we got last year, the year before that and the year before that." They were thick enough to think that they were going to get away with it again. However, they did not. One lady telephoned me and said, "Mr Jennings, is it right that my husband has lost his job?" I said, "Well, I am sorry, madam, but if he did not go back to work yesterday, he has." She suddenly changed her tune. She said, "Serves him right. He would kill me if he knew that I had telephoned you. Do you know what they used to do? They would go out the back and play cards during working hours in the aftemoon, come home and shop in working hours and then go and work on contract on the nine day fortnight week-end." Opposition members know that. They can verify that. That was the rort that was being carried on by these ETU fellows right round the State. That is why it was costing every Tom, Dick and Harry more for power. That is a fact. Opposition members know more about that than I do; they are mixed up with them. The honourable member for Kurilpa accuses us of trying to stamp out unionism. The Govemment does not even have to try. The unionists are doing it themselves. They are killing themselves because they are irresponsible. People do not accept them now. People realise that if, at a union meeting, the members are told, "This is a democratic Address in Reply 27 August 1985 253 meeting. What do you think about this?" and someone puts his hand up and says "no", before he gets home someone has mng his wife and threatened her. Opposition members know that that is the tmth because they are laughing. The honourable member for Kurilpa called Govemment members fascists. Let us face it, she ought to know! That is how stupid she is. However, she admitted that the dispute is costing Queensland millions and millions of dollars. Why does she not tell her mates? She then canned the Govemment over the cost of power. That is something that the honourable member for Kurilpa has to Uve with. I can say one thing about Opposition members; they really know how to describe themselves. Bob Hawke went over to New York and was scathing in his remarks about his lunatic Left. The Prime Minister, who now realises that he cannot do without these lunatics, told top US business executives a Uttle while ago to ignore the lunatic fringe in the Left of his party, according to Mr Milliner: You are the lunatic Left of the Liberal Party, aren't you? Mr JENNINGS: I am talking about the Prime Minister. Opposition members have been squealing about penalty rates Mr Milliner: How many leftists are over there? Mr JENNINGS: It depends on the degree. It is a degree of left. Mr Scott: What political philosophy do you subscribe to? Ayn Rand? Mr JENNINGS: I will tell you my political philosophy in four simple sentences. No. 1 is the security of this nation. If this nation has not got security, it has got nothing. No. 2 is our intemational alliances. That means our friendship with the United States. If Australia has not got intemational alliances, it has got no defence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Randell): Order! I have given honourable members a fair amount of latitude this evening. However, I ask them to desist from cross-firing. I also ask the honourable for Southport to direct his remarks to the Chair. Mr JENNINGS: No. 3 is simple. With a strong private enterprise economy, which we must have, Australia should have a social welfare system better than anywhere in the world. That is what politics in this country is all about. The Prime Minister got up and said that penalty rates should be reviewed. Members of the Labor Party talk about the cost of everything. The VIP airfleet was doubled by the Labor Party in April 1983. I refer to an article by Peter Gibson which states— "Australia's overseas VIP air fleet is to be doubled with the purchase of two more Boeing 707 jets. The Govemment said last night it will spend $9.1 million buying and modifying two Canadian 707s. In 1979 the ALP vehemently attacked the former Liberal govemment's purchase of the first two VIP 707s." What a lot of hypocrites! What a lot of double-crossers! Mr Miller: What do Opposition members say about that? Mr JENNINGS: Not a word! The Deputy Prime Minister is great! He really is a great advantage to us! He has not only embarrassed us in Australia—and in a moment I will mention what he has said about the sugar industry—but he has also embartassed the Japanese Govemment. He embarrassed it and our own Govemment in May 1983 with his suggestion of an Australia/Japan peace-keeping force in Kampuchea. He wanted to set up another Vietnam. How crazy was he? Do Opposition members agree with that? 254 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Miller: Silence! Mr JENNINGS: Dead silence! That is their Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Scott: Where did you dine this evening? Mr JENNINGS: I always enjoy my dinner at Parliament House. Some of the company may be a bit rough, but one cannot have everything. At that time the editorial in The Australian said that the best approach that the Federal Govemment could take to Mr Lionel Bowen's suggested solution to the problems of Kampuchea would be to forget the whole silly idea as quickly as possible and to hope that it is not long remembered by countries with whom Australia has to deal. What followed? The Combe/Ivanov affair! Opposition Members interjected. Mr JENNINGS: Well may they laugh! This is a matter of personal liberties, which Labor people are not worried about. In my opinion, that is one of the most disgraceful things ever to happen in the history of this country. Tapes of conversations with every Tom, Dick and Harry were exposed by the media. David Combe made the statement that the Govemment was appallingly inept. He lashed out at the Prime Minister, accusing him of misleading Parliament, of not giving the full reasons and also of denying him of his civil liberties. The Prime Minister admitted that the ASIO transcripts of David Combe's bugged telephone conversations had been edited inadequately. Mr De Lacy: Are you sure you're reading the right speech? Mr JENNINGS: I certainly am. This affects our costs up here. This affects our Supply. This affects our way of life. Unfortunately, we are lumbered with those lunatics. Mr Hawke said they are lunatics, not me. Mr Kruger: In the matter of lunatics, you're the No. 1 contender. Mr JENNINGS: I might be a contender, but I have not been labelled as a lunatic. Hawke labelled his own mob as lunatics. Nobody on our side has labelled us as lunatics yet. I quote the following— "To understand Thursday's performance of Mr Hawke one has to appreciate that the Prime Minister and his political advisers are under siege. The behaviour of David Combe and the Govemment, between them, have just about managed to convince the press and many in the Labor Party that David Combe has suffered a terrible injustice." Mick Young is one of the real wheeler-dealers of the Labor Party. We all know Mick. He knows how to wheel—and deal. A Government Member: Fumbling Mick. Mr JENNINGS: Except with Paddington bears. He admitted that there were big mistakes in the Russian spy affair. A Government Member: John Brown's bears have made it, too. Mr JENNINGS: Yes. David Combe said that the Prime Minister was inept and had lied to Parliament. What has happened? David Combe has now been appointed as the trade commissioner to Vancouver. The integrity of every one of David Combe's statements in that whole sordid affair must be honoured. He said that the Prime Minister Ued to Parliament, was inept and was wrong. Talk about human rights! The Prime Minister did everything to Address in Reply 27 August 1985 255 destroy the human rights of everyone who made a telephone call to David Combe. Even if I were crazy enough to make a telephone call to one of the members opposite Mr Kruger: You are a new boy in Queensland though, aren't you? Mr JENNINGS: Yes. I fell into the joint a while ago. I mention that matter because it is so important that we see the reasons why the Federal Labor Govemment is suffering enormous problems at the moment. Those problems must be examined in relation to the Queensland economy because all of the matters involved relate to money and to the reasons why the Federal Labor Govemment is trying to strangle the Queensland Govemment and to screw and squeeze the Queensland Govemment in an effort to ensure that Queensland does not get a fair allocation of funds for the services that the people of Queensland deserve. In 1984, the Federal secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Bob McMuUan, said that although the Labor Govemment had been in office for 12 months the Australian Labor Party had not yet come to terms with being in Govemment. He went on to say— "Labor has traditionally adopted an Opposition approach to politics." It could be that Mr McMuUan was also referring to members of the Queensland Opposition, but the main point he makes is that, despite having been in office for more than 12 months, the Federal Labor Government at that time had not yet adjusted. A fiirther example of what is going on in the Australian Labor Party is contained in the headline, "War for Hawke: Right, Left fighting for control" Mr Milliner: I point out to the honourable member for Southport that he has not made the fourth point he referred to yet. The honourable member mentioned that there were five basic principles. Mr JENNINGS: I said that there were four basic principles, and I have already given the four of them. Can the honourable member for Everton not count? If that is so, I cannot help it. Opposition members really ought to be able to count up to 10, but up to four would be enough. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Randell): Order! I ask the honourable member for Southport to retum to the context of his speech. Mr JENNINGS: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must point out one thing about the Labor Opposition members. The important feature of the Labor Party is that aU of its members are united. There are no splits in the party anywhere at all, and that is what I love about the Australian Labor Party. I do not wish to bring personalities into the debate, and I do not wish to get stuck into members of the Opposition, because it is better to leave them alone. I realise that they are all united. However, I will give an example that emerged over the week-end of the typical problems of the ALP socialist factions. Mr SCOTT: I rise to a point of order. I am fairly certain that the honourable member for Southport did not commence his speech with the mandatory regard that is paid to the Govemor, and I am quite concemed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Randell): Order! No point of order has been made out. Mr JENNINGS: I thought I had made it quite clear about loyalty to the Crown on the part of Govemment members and the importance of the oath of office. Such matters are reflected in the Constitution, and I thought I had adverted to that. Perhaps the honourable gentleman did not hear. However, as I said earlier, there can be no doubt about the loyalty of the people in my electorate of Southport, and that expression of loyalty relates to the Constitution. 256 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

The Constitution stands above everything done by every citizen, and Opposition members know as well as I do that it is the role of the Governor-General to uphold the Constitution. I will reiterate my support for that principle again and again. The consti­ tutional crisis that involved Sir John Kerr was one thing, but to give all honourable members some idea of what is happening in that political party, I now wish to refer to a problem that is typical of the problems experienced by the ALP. The Victorian ALP President, Mr Gerry Hand, admitted yesterday that he had misled the Premier, Mr Cain, over his intention to call an extraordinary State conference to debate the Norm GaUagher issue. Mr Hand said that he had told certain groups in the party that he would convene a conference, and last night Mr Cain conceded that he had been misled by Mr Hand. Mr Cain said, "I was bloody angry, I can teU you." I know John Cain because he had an office next to mine in the Victorian Parliament. I got to know him quite well when Liberal Party members would not speak to me, and I can assure honourable members that John Cain does not ordinarily swear. People often refer to the "Cain Mutiny" Mr Kruger: What about the cane in Queensland? What are you going to do about that? Mr JENNINGS: I wiU teU the honourable member for Murrumba something about the cane in Queensland. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made a statement at the June 1983 New South Wales State Labor conference, and this is why Queensland is experiencing problems with sugar-cane. Mr Bowen said, "We can do without beef and sugar farmers because we can import beef and sugar more cheaply than we can produce it." What contempt for Australian industry! Arguments arose about what he said. It was said that maybe he did or did not refer to beef The transcript was produced. This is the transcript. Mr Kruger interjected. Mr JENNINGS: The honourable member asked me. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen of the Labor Party, said in Canberra— "And it is about time the mral producers of this country woke up. That if we decided to import wheat or import sugar, pineapple juice, citms juice, we could do without the lot of them because we can get it cheaper somewhere else. And they ought to realise this." That is what the Labor Deputy Prime Minister said about the sugar industry. The honourable member can stick that in his pipe and smoke it. No wonder we are not getting anything from Canberra! The honourable member asked me about the sugar industry. Mr Kruger interjected. Mr JENNINGS: The honourable member asked me about the sugar industry. The riff-raff in Canberra, who are supposed to represent the country, are trying to destroy Queensland by living off the back of the cane-growers. That is what they are trying to do. Mr Kruger interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Randell): Order! I ask the honourable member for Murmmba to restrain himself I should like a little more silence from the Opposition side of the House, and I ask the honourable member for Southport to get back to his speech. Mr JENNINGS: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is so much noise from the Opposition that it is hard to know who is speaking. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 257

Is Senator Walsh a member of the Labor Party? He was the acting Primary Industry Minister on 23 June 1983, when he said— "The National Farmers Federation is being outrageously greedy in seeking a continuation of the Commonwealth Fodder Subsidy Scheme." He further said— "It is a misuse of public funds to assist millionaire farmers." He was prepared to let the drought-stricken farmers round the country starve. Mr De Lacy: He said, "millionaire farmers". Mr JENNINGS: He was referring to every one of them. Mr De Lacy: He said, "millionaire farmers" Mr JENNINGS: He categorised every one of them. The honourable member knows that very weU. That is the sort of man who was the acting Minister for Primary Industry. What a disgrace! What a let-down for the Australian people! The honourable member knows as well as I do that this country was built on the primary industries, by fellows in the bush. This country was not built by Govemments or bureaucrats sitting in city buildings; it was built by people who were prepared to face up to working hard out in the scmb, out in the big mgged mountains. But Senator Walsh, as acting Primary Industry Minister, said he would not help them. In May 1985, McMuUan said, "The brawling in the ALP is over." In Queensland we have something of which we can be proud world-wide in our policy on Aboriginal land rights. It is absolutely right. What we have done and are doing is give the Aboriginies the right to a house and land in the same way as anyone in the city. We have taken a dramatic step of world-wide significance. All Opposition members, even the honourable member for Cook, knows that that is so. Mr Scott: Ask how the deeds of grant went down in Cherbourg. It was like a lead balloon. Mr JENNINGS: I was up there. We talked to these people. They are getting something that is not available elsewhere. The honourable member for Cook should ask them. I say to the member for Cook, "You ask them whether they want Clyde Holding's land rights or the Queensland Govemment's policy." There is no argument about it; they want the Queensland Govemment policy. It is the most dramatic, fair and futuristic policy that has ever been introduced in this country. Everybody, including Clyde Holding, knows that, but he does not know how to handle the matter. Recently, a beaut little comment was made in The Sydney Morning Herald. Under the heading "With friends like Dr Caims...", the editorial states— "More sobering than any appeal by the Prime Minister, or waming from the ALP national secretary, must surely be the ringing endorsement of Dr Caims: On listening to Bill Hayden I had a feeling of pride I have not had in Australian politics for well over 10 years." That referred to the Murphy case. It was a sad situation. It was terrible that that matter became public and that so many people commented on it. I criticise everyone who commented on it. Mr De Lacy: This is the worst speech that I have ever heard made in this Chamber. Mr JENNINGS: I do not doubt that. Before I sit down, I wish to refer quickly to one other matter. The Builders Labourers Federation contains the greatest henchmen and standover men in this country. I congratulate the builders labourers on the Gold Coast who, in June this year, continued to work after they were thumped to go on strike. Many of those men have come to the 258 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Gold Coast from the south. They are sick of the ratbags, standover men and heavies in the south. They are working and doing well. Jobs are completed on the Gold Coast probably quicker than anywhere else in the world. So many good things are happening there. Work is continuing on the casino and the stabilisation of the Southport bar in my area and new roads are being built to connect with the Gateway Bridge. I congratulate the Govemment on the Speech delivered by the Govemor. It was excellent. It detailed the futuristic approach that the Govemment is adopting towards the development of the State. Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (9.22 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not envy you the task that you have to perform in supervising the debate tonight. The last speaker was irrational and provoked every other member in the Chamber. I will try to be a little more rational and practical. Firstly, I draw the attention of the House and, in particular, the Govemment to a very well-known Queenslander named Mr Tony Festa. He has plagued this State for more than a decade and the Govemment has tumed a blind eye to his operations. Regularly, the Govemment produces a police issue on the 10 most-wanted criminals in the State. It is time that the Govemment produced a police issue on the white-coUar crooks in this State. Mr Tony Festa would probably be the No. 1 public enemy. I shall give a brief outline of Mr Festa and his numerous companies, which, in the main, can be described as fly-by-night house-and-roof painting contractors. On many occasions they operate as home-cladders. His modus operandi is to door-knock the community, particularly in provincial cities, with an offer to upgrade homes. Very often he does that in the older suburbs in which the people are much more vulnerable. Mr Festa offers long-term guarantees on his products and workmanship. People find it very difficult to achieve satisfaction because, when complaints arise, he is nowhere to be found. Generally, his work-force is unskilled. At this point, I wish to refer to some quotations in Hansard conceming Mr Festa. In 1973, the then member for Bundaberg (Mr Jensen) asked the Minister for Justice whether he had received any complaints about a company known as Festa Constmctions Pty Ltd of Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley. The Minister replied— '"(1) Festa Constmctions Pty. Ltd. was incorporated on Febmary 1, 1972. The Memorandum of Association authorized it to carry on any trade associated with the erection and/or renovation of industrial, commercial or residential premises.' '(2) According to records held at the office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs the paid up capital of the company is $2.'" In March 1975, the then member for Rockhampton (Mr Wright) asked the Minister for Industrial Development, Labour Relations and Consumer Affairs a further question in respect of the Door to Door (Sales) Act and a company called Benlux. The Minister (Mr Campbell) answered that question as follows— " 'As the Honourable Member is aware, previous questions have already been asked in respect of this matter by his colleague the Honourable Member for Rockhampton North. Having studied the history conceming complaints in regard to coatings, held by the Consumer Affairs Bureau, I repeat my concem of the implications contained in advertisements such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member. Similar advertisements in the past have in some cases been the cause of grievous financial losses to unsuspecting persons. I have already directed that the matters to which the Honourable Member refers be investigated and following the finalisation of these investigations, I shall inform both the Honourable Member and the Honourable Member for Rockhampton North of the outcome thereof " It is pertinent to point out that the response by the Minister was made in March 1975, and Mr Festa is still operating in Queensland in the same brash manner. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 259

On 26 April 1978, the member for Townsville (Mr WUson) asked the Minister for Labour Relations— "(1) Will he have an immediate investigation carried out into the itinerant paint firms known as Therma Tex Paints Pty. Ltd., Vynaflex (Australasia) Pty. Ltd. and Festa Constmctions Pty. Ltd. Brisbane, as complaints are being made in the Townsville area that (a) pensioners are being pressured into entering into contracts for up to $2,500 to have the exterior of their houses painted." On the same date, the Minister was also asked— "How many complaints has the Consumer Affairs Bureau received conceming firms in which Mr Tony Festa is involved?" The Minister answered as follows— "(1) The firms Fibreline Industries, Festa Constmctions Pty. Ltd., Vynaflex (Australasia) Pty. Ltd. and Thermotex Paints Pty. Ltd. are well known to the Consumer Affairs Bureau, with Mr A. Festa being involved in each company. I would also mention that Mr Festa is a director of Excelsior Finance Pty. Ltd. (a) I am unaware of pensioners being pressured into entering contracts. However, if the honourable member supplies me with substantiated details, I will certainly have these investigated. (b) This is not a matter coming within my jurisdiction and should be directed to the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General." The Minister went on to say— "I am advised that the interest charged by Excelsior Finance Pty. Ltd. is at the rate of 16 per centum per annum calculated on monthly balances." The Minister then went on to name 15 to 20 companies that Mr Festa was involved with, and stated— "At this point I can only reiterate my previous wamings to consumers that they should be wary of firms offering long-term warranties as these firms may not continue in business and be able to honour these warranties. Furthermore, before entering into any contract for house-coating, cladding or roof-painting, consumers should never act in haste but give themselves plenty of time to consider all aspects." This is a bit like a fairy story; the activities of this person have been raised in Parliament for over a decade. A further complaint was raised by Mr Bertoni from Mount Isa about actions against Mr Tony Festa. Mr Davis: Who is he? Mr YEWDALE: He was the former National Party member for Mount Isa. He was concemed about the activities of Mr Festa and asked a question on this matter in Parliament as follows— "What are the names of all registered companies or co-operatives in which Mr Anthony Festa is involved?" The Minister answered that question by listing the names of the companies concemed and then went on to say— " (2) The Consumer Affairs Bureau is administered by my colleague the Honourable Minister for Labour Relations and the honourable member should direct this part of the question to that Minister. (3) Thirty-three claims have been finalised by the making of orders." Most honourable members are aware of the functions of the Small Claims Tribunal and the court system. The Minister indicated that 33 claims had been finalised through the courts so that the Festa companies would honour their commitments. 260 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Last week in Rochampton, I was advised that Mr Festa's company was operating in Biloela and Rockampton. He has given many quotations for home improvements ranging from $4,000 to $6,000. One quotation in the Rockhampton area is for $9,000. As early as 10 a.m. today, I was able to act on behalf of one of my constituents in Rockhampton and was successful in having her contract cancelled. When I rang the local phone number for the company, it was answered by a very young person who obviously had no business acumen and had a dead-pan response to my inquires. Other than to say that he would accept my request to the company in relation to that lady, that I could take it for granted that that lady's contract would be cancelled, he knew very little about the company's activities. I should point out that although the contract did not contain any provision from the Door to Door (Sales) Act— there is no legal requirement for that— many reputable companies include in their contracts a provision that advises customers of their rights under that Act. That does not happen when one deals with Tony Festa. Over the many years that the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment has continued to ignore this operation and others, people of this type have been allowed to continue to form companies that pursue stereotyped operations throughout the State. The Govemment is quite active when it comes to union-bashing and propping up a mixture of crooks, mad inventors and white-collar criminals, but it does nothing to clamp down on the white- collar con men who knock on the doors of Queensland residents. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs and the Consumer Affairs Bureau have persistently called for the buyer to beware. The time has arrived for the Govemment to drop that cliche and get down to doing something in respect of white- collar criminals—I deliberately call Festa a white-coUar criminal—because they have been allowed to operate in this State for a decade or more. The Govemment has done nothing about Festa. The last inquiry made in this House about Festa elicited the reply from the then Minister that Festa had gone back to New South Wales, so the Govemment did not intend to worry about him any more. If he did retum to New South Wales, he did not stay there; he is back in Queensland. Anybody who wishes to register a company name simply has to go through the normal procedures. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Govemment continues to allow people of this type to operate under the guise of a registered company in this State. Surely the Govemment has enough intestinal fortitude to take on these white-collar criminals and to drop the common cliche of "buyer beware". Unfortunately, many people in the community are not able to assess situations. They are totally overcome by high-pressure salesmen who knock on their door to try to sell a product or home-improvement schemes such as those pushed by Mr Festa. The Govemment continues to allow a motley group of crook' :o reap money from the middle and low-income groups, including pensioners. I feel that the greatest concem should be for those elements of the community. The Government allows people such as Mr Festa to form company after company over more than a decade without the least bit of concem for honest people. As I have pointed out before, the officers of the Consumers Affairs Bureau give lip service throughout the State and will not bite the bullet in relation to these matters. Mr Lee: Does he do shoddy work, too? Mr YEWDALE: Yes, he does shoddy work. Things have not changed; he has always done shoddy work. He uses totally unskilled labour. Obviously, he has one or two people who do the supervising and control the labour. Mr Davis interjected. Mr YEWDALE: No, I do not know that the member for Yeronga (Mr Lee) was involved. Address in Reply 27 August 1985 261

My information is that Mr Festa operates with unskilled labour. He moves through the State on a regular basis. It is not as though he has operated in this State and has flitted from the scene. Again and again, he has retumed to Queensland. The Govemment has continued to ignore the issue. Mr Casey: Would it be correct to say that he has a propensity for preying on old widows? Mr YEWDALE: Yes. I recall that many years ago, in the town of Mount Morgan, a representative of Mr Festa approached an old lady who lived in a tin home and asked her whether he could spray the roof with sUver paint at a cost of $100. She said, "Yes. The roof needs painting." He painted the roof for $100. He climbed down from the roof and said that he would paint the rest of the house, which was galvanised iron, for another $500. The lady said, "Paint the house for $600." Through the generosity and courtesy of a very active member of the Criminal Investigation Branch who went to Mount Morgan, interviewed the person concemed and demanded the $600, the man was chased out of Mount Morgan and the money was retumed to the lady. She finished up with a silver-frosted house as well as her money. That is only one success story. My concem is that persons continue to do such things. The Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter) has a serious look on his face. Mr Katter: I experienced a similar case. Mr YEWDALE: In that event, I suggest that the Minister do something about the matter within his own rank of Cabinet Ministers. He should discuss the matter with the responsible Ministers, particularly the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. The problem is being perpetuated. Any person who has been a member of this Assembly in the last decade would recall the name Festa. At the time, the honourable member for Mount Isa was very concemed about the matter. Obviously Festa has moved into Mount Isa and done some work at some time. Any responsible Govemment would not have perpetuated this problem. I have deliberately raised this matter tonight. It may sound a mundane subject to which to refer in the Address in Reply debate. However, the only way in which I can help people who will be subjected to such activities is to urge the media to do something publicly about them. That would save many people the heart-bum resulting from shoddy jobs and a lack of guarantees for work done on houses and buildings. Festa has a telephone connected to a flat in my electorate. I hope to ferret him out publicly while referring to him. Tomorrow, once I have finished saying what I intend to say about him, I will follow up the matter again. Festa has appeared before the Small Claims Tribunal on numerous occasions. Once a magistrate gives a mling in respect of a claim, in many cases a refund or rectification of work is ordered. Most people who are subjected to shoddy work by white-collar crooks are not inclined to have the work rectified, because in many instances the rectification work would probably be not as good as or even worse than the work carried out in the first place. In most instances, claimants request a refund to carry out the rectification work because the work was not carried out properly. The figures that I have obtained from the Small Claims Tribunal conceming findings in favour of the claimants show that the Festa company was ordered to repay aproximately $17,000 to people on whose homes it had worked. Today I was advised that in many instances the Festa company was ordered to refund money that had been paid. However, many refunds were not made. Those persons who do not obtain a refund must go back to the court to obtain the refund from the company. 262 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

Mr Katter: He was John Brown when he was in Charters Towers. Mr YEWDALE: Right. Many people probably do not realise what their lawful rights are and are very sceptical about taking the matter to court, because of their inability to understand or to obtain financial assistance that is necessary to obtain payment under a court order. Festa has not only dismpted the community but also ignored his responsibilities by failing to make refunds following court orders. I tmst that the message will be received in the community so that Festa's activities are restricted or even banned. Any responsible Govemment member with any conscience would be expected to raise that matter with the responsible Ministers, including the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs and the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General. Mr Lee: It would be a waste of time going to court with a man like that, because you couldn't get any money out of him. Mr YEWDALE: The pertinent point is that the Govemment must bite the bullet and do something about not only that person but also many other white-collar criminals and blue-collar criminals. The fact is that the Govemment must do something about them to protect the community. If the Govemment is not prepared to do that, it must accept responsibility for the problem being perpetuated. It has been for a decade and the fellow is still going. No Govemment member. Minister or otherwise, can deny what has happened over that decade and what is continuing to happen in Biloela and Rockhampton. If something is not done about it, Festa will go right up to the east coast, right through to Caims, and he will skin people all the way. He will come back down here, go into hiding for a couple of months and then come out with another product, which will be just as inferior and just as shoddy, and will continue thumbing his nose at the Govemment. Govemment members are burying their heads in the sand and are frightened to do anything about the problem. The other matter that I raise relates to what are called bonds for the renting of premises throughout Queensland. It is probably closer to my shadow responsibility. I think that it is worth reiterating a specific case in which a young lass came to Queensland from New South Wales and obtained a flat for her use and was expected to pay a bond to an absentee landlord in New South Wales. Nobody argues that that is not the system: that is how it operates. Unfortunately, when the lass decided to vacate the flat she approached the real estate agent in Queensland who had made the arrangements. He indicated that he would get in touch with the owner in New South Wales and arrange for the bond to be refunded. In fact, that operation spread over a considerable period of time, to the disadvantage, of course, of the tenant. Very little interest was taken by the real estate agent or the landlord. What is happening in Queensland today is that the Govemment is allowing the matter of bonds to mn riot in terms of landlords and real estate agents having their own choice as to what bond they will impose on the tenant. I reiterate that I fully respect the right of a landlord or a real estate agent in charge of property to expect some sort of bond to offset damage to property necessitating the carrying out of some cleaning or repairs. However, on 10 October, 1984, the father of that young lady wrote to the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Harper). That letter reads as follows— "Dear Sir, I would like to refer to my letter dated the 28th August, 1984—" this is his second letter— "and your reply of the 10th October, 1984, regarding amendments to the law goveming rental bond monies. It will be appreciated if you would advise me of the present position of this matter." Address in Reply 27 August 1985 263

The Minister replied— "Reference is made to your letter of 28th August, 1984 regarding amendments to the law goveming rental bond monies. The matters raised in your letter are of substance and the legislative proposals outlined therein have merit. I am cognizant of the fact that at present a landlord is under no legal obligation to invest rental bond monies in interest-bearing deposits or to refund to a tenant the interest earned on such investments. I have directed senior officers of my Department—" and I believe that this is very pertinent— "to review the law governing rental bonds in Queensland and to undertake a comparative analysis of legislation in force in other States of the Commonwealth that regulate rental bonds." Approximately 12 or 18 months ago in this House, I raised the matter of a bond board being established in Queensland, and I was told by the Minister and other honourable members that the rental bond boards in other States were not successful, that they were not functioning properly. That is totally untme. The fact is that they are functioning very successfully, and I will take the opportunity to elaborate in respect of those bond boards in other States at a later time in the session. The Minister went on to say— "In due course my Government will make a determination as to the proper course that should be adopted in dealing with this problem. In the meantime I thank you for drawing your concem and suggestions to my attention." Mr Kropp again wrote back to the Minister. The Minister again replied, but his letter is undated. It says— "I refer to your letter of 2nd March, 1985 regarding the progress that had been made in the review of the law goveming rental bonds. This matter is still under review and in due course a decision will be made as to the appropriate legislative response. In the meantime I thank you for the interest The Minister has treated the gentleman with contempt. Mr Kropp wrote to the Minister genuinely describing the experiences of his daughter and himself He has followed it up with a further letter to the Minister asking what progress has been made. Obviously, no progress has been made. I know the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General is not here tonight. I will make certain that he receives copies of my pulls that refer to this matter. I ask him whether he is just pulling this fellow's leg by indicating that he agrees with him. Is he just putting it in the bottom drawer? The Govemment is ignoring a matter of great importance to the community. I have not yet been told by any responsible person on the Govemment side just what happens to bond moneys that are accumulated from a number of tenants by a landlord or from clients by real estate agents. I have been told that the real estate agent has the responsibility of placing the money in tmst. I am not convinced that that happens. The landlord has no responsibility to do anything about it. He is entitled to invest it wherever he likes. Some landlords who own a number of properties would be holding substantial sums as bonds. At the end of the tenancy, the client or tenant receives Mr Davis: You are obviously advocating the New South Wales system. Mr YEWDALE: Yes. It is accepted throughout the Commonwealth, with the exception of Queensland, where the Govemment is not prepared to look at it. The Govemment should be roundly criticised for its inaction. Bond boards in the other States are operating satisfactorily. 264 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

A lady who gives much Up-service to the community, but does not do anything about matters such as I have raised tonight in relation to Tony Festa—Miss Jan Taylor— has made a public statement that Queensland does not need a bond board, because the Small Claims Tribunal adequately caters for those in dispute over bonds. I do not accept that that is the answer. The Small Claims Tribunal was not set up to handle bond disputes. It is there for the purpose of general disputes in the community. If a bond claim goes before it, that is the prerogative of the persons involved. New South Wales has established machinery aUowing the Govemment to mediate in disputes between landlords and tenants, in an endeavour to arrive at a mutually acceptable result. It is not a matter of forcing a tenant to apply to a court, wait for a hearing and be subject to the decision, whether favourable or otherwise. More and more duplexes, flats and other high-density dweUings are coming on to the market. People are paying substantial bonds. I have taken the matter up with the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. With tongue in cheek, that body has recommended to its members that they co-operate on the matter of bonds and expedite repayments. REIQ members are subject to discipline of some sort within the REIQ stmcture. I have found, to my dissatisfaction, that that is not happening throughout the State. They are dodging the issue. They are walking away from the bond issue. People are encountering difficulties in having their money refunded. The Govemment is ducking the issue. The only conclusion one can arrive at is that the Govemment is looking after its friends. Using the approach, "Whose friends are whose?"—people who own massive real estate holdings and real estate agents tend to be of the same ilk as the Govemment. Obviously, the Govemment does not want to disturb its friends by imposing any requirements on them. I believe that I have adequately covered the two subject-matters that I wished to raise this evening, and I look forward to a response from the Ministers concemed. Mr SCOTT (Cook) (9.50 p.m.): During the small amount of time left in this debate this evening, I wish to make my contribution and I hope to take up the remaining issues in my speech later on. I must compliment Opposition members on their excellent contributions to the debate. It was a pleasure to listen to them in the House today, and I believe they made a first-class contribution in a most important debate. I extend my own welcome to His Excellency, our new Govemor of Queensland. His Excellency has a difficult role to play in this State, and one only has to read his Speech to realise that. The poor man had an empty Speech placed in front of him, and he simply had to make the best of it. The Speech was empty because the Queensland Govemment is doing so little. I was rather interested in an early comment contained in the Govemor's Speech in which His Excellency said that he looked forward to meeting old friends and making new ones, and of hearing and thinking about "your several opinions and differing concems." Of course, the Govemor meant the "several opinions and differing concems" of each person. I make that point because several opinions and differing concems do not hold very much sway in this State. I am therefore afraid that the Govemor will need to Usten very hard and look very hard to obtain these differing concems in a genuine way. Notwithstanding that, I certainly hope that it will be the case and that the Govemor does so. I was quite taken by the financial jiggery-pokery contained in the Govemor's Speech. I wish to quote from a small paragraph that is of particular interest to me, as follows— "In addition to balancing its Budget,—" Address in Reply 27 August 1985 265 of course, that statement has been seriously questioned by honourable members on this side of the House— "the Govemment was able to supplement the State's Capital Works Program by some $183.9 miUion, including $140 million for the $600 miUion Special Major Capital Works Program." The estimates referred to in that quotation are similar to the estimates given in a dmg heist; in this State, it is never anything less than $4m street value, and the Govemment's Budget is never anything less than $600m that will be injected into the economy of Queensland. All I can say is that they are mbbery figures and they have been adequately dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition do not see any benefit from the sums quoted, and it is very easy for the Opposition to pick holes in the Govemment's financial estimates. I would like all honourable members to Usten carefully to this next extract taken fi-om the Govemor's Speech— "This funding enabled considerable progress to be made on the Program,—" I point out that "Program" has a capital letter and the word "program" might have been expressed in inverted commas— "with expenditure in 1984/85 of $140.7 million, including $45.7 million in respect of hospital developments." The figures mentioned in that statement simply do not add up. The figures could be used any way at all, but the Govemment would not be able to convince the people of Queensland that development of that order is occurring here. I would like to continue my comments on the rest of the Govemor's Speech, or the Speech made by the Queen's representative, at a later time if I have the opportunity. I tum now to speak about Aumkun, which is a community that lies in my electorate. It is a very important part of my electorate. Recently, Aumkun made headlines in a very sad way. It is rather interesting to note that it seems necessary for a Minister to visit a particular area before members of the press take very much notice. On many, many occasions—seemingly endless—I have spoken in this House about Aboriginal affairs and the problems that exist in Aboriginal communities, but little notice has been taken. Perhaps I am not a very good salesman, but I think that is not the case. Members of the press in Queensland prefer merely to touch on subjects and really do not care to examine subjects in depth—except if it is an outrageous matter that can be dealt with simply. To draw attention to the problems of the Aumkun community, it took a visit by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze), who stirred the pot up there. Although his visit could have had a good effect, I do not think it did because it has now focused the public spotlight on a community that probably would have been better off without a spotlight being focused on it. Instead, some real action should be taken by the Govemment so that something could be achieved. The situation that presently exists has been built up over quite a long time, and the Govemment reaUy should have been aware of it. Moreover, the Department of Education officials should have been aware of what was happening, but they were not and they are not. Perhaps this is so because Aumkun is a new peninsula region. The very designation of the word "peninsula" should have directed the attention of the Govemment to the communities that exist in the peninsula region. Of course, the word "peninsula" is a misnomer as the Govemment interprets it, because the Peninsula Regional Directorate administers education facilities right across the base of the peninsula and to the south of the peninsula. Until recent times, Aumkun has had a history of good school administration and the services of good school principals. The attendance at the school over many, many years has been very good, because Aboriginal parents value education. They want

68703—10 266 27 August 1985 Address in Reply

education for their children, and they want their children to benefit from education, but that has not continued. The principal was transferred at the beginning of last year in the usual way, but he should not have been transferred without a replacement being arranged. It was a usual administrative transfer, but for the next six months the school was looked after by a deputy principal. A principal should have been available to go to Aumkun to take up the reins and continue the good management of the school, but that did not happen. In the middle of last year a replacement principal was found. I understand that he was promoted to go to the school. Unfortunately, from that time on, the administration of the school had little sympathy for the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal community. Some of the teachers at the school had that understanding, but others did not. I vrill not put too fine a point on exactly what happened at the school, because all the teachers there, I hope, have a future in the Education Department. I do not intend to denigrate people who found themselves out of their depth, without the necessary ability and training for the job that was thmst on them. That is a very sad state of affairs. Aumkun is very much an Aboriginal community. But for the white administrative staff in the shire, the police and the school teachers, Aumkun would be virtually a total Aboriginal community. The people are gradually developing a degree of sophistication, but they have had to put up with various sorts of white administration. For many years they were mainly on side with the church. They stmggled to understand Christian ways, but because of the many examples of Christianity being presented in one way and human actions being performed in a way that was totally out of kilter with Christianity as they saw it, they must have found it very difficult to see the value that we see in Christianity. The people have their own ways, their own society, needs and desires. I really have to search for words to describe the way that Aboriginal people want to go. Although I have represented the area for eight years and beUeve that I know a good deal about Aborigines, I am certainly not an expert. The trouble is that teachers are not selected—no-one can count on the selection of teachers—with an understanding of the needs of Aborigines. The selection of teachers for Aumkun and other Aboriginal communities is made in the same was as selections are made for other schools. It may be said that that is fair enough, that they should not be treated differently, but that system does not work. That is not good enough for these communities with special needs. When teachers are chosen for other special places, the job is approached with care so that people with sympathy are appointed. That has not been done at Aumkun. Unfortunately, the Minister removed three teachers who had sympathy for and understanding of Aboriginal people, without giving them any opportunity to argue their case. They were given their marching orders on totally wrong grounds. I did not see the TV program this evening, but I understand that the Minister, who does not know what is going on and has not been there, has had only one side of the story put to him and was unable to adequately argue the case. The situation has been exacerbated by the removal of the teachers. Aumkun has an alcohol problem in much the same was as alcohol problems occur in aU other parts of Queensland and throughout the world. In normal circumstances I do not think the problem would be any worse in Aumkun. However, it has been aggravated by the fact that the Govemment cannot make up its mind whether or not it wUl allow the people to have an alcohol-free community. The shire by-laws do not seem to be such that alcohol laws can be policed. The poUce themselves do not know whether Aumkun should be a totally alcohol-free community. Numerous public meetings have been held at Aumkun, and a majority opinion has been expressed on numerous occasions that the community should be alcohol-free. However, the Govemment which is supposed to be administering the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 267 community, has not seen fit to act on the wishes of the people. It is a totally uncertain situation. Neither the shire people nor the public know exactly what the situation should be with alcohol. The Govemment is aiding and abetting the destmction of that community by allowing alcohol in as it has done. Aumkun should have a wet canteen or it should not. We must make up our minds which way we are going. At 10 p.m., In accordance with the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 27 August, the debate stood adjourned.

NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (STATE PROVISIONS) BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 19 March 1985 (see p. 4102, vol. 298) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr GOSS (Salisbury) (10.1 p.m.): I note at the outset that the legislation is model legislation; it is part of a national plan of action. Similar legislation has already been passed in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Westem Australia, and moves have been undertaken in the other States to implement similar legislation. I should perhaps sound a slight note of criticism of the Government for the delay and for being the last amongst the States to introduce and pass the legislation. That is not necessarily a criticism of the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Harper). The legislation was introduced in the last session; but, because of the Govemment's obsession about prosecuting and harassing unions and generally creating an industrial fuss, this very important legislation and a number of other pieces of important legislation were let slide. That was unfortunate. That delay of itself is not necessarily important. The attitude that was adopted by the Govemment during the last session was perhaps symbolic of its approach when it comes to making a serious attack on organised criminal activity of whatever nature. I suppose that dmg crime is the serious problem at the moment. In my view, the Govemment's attack of organised crime in the area of dmg activity and in a number of other areas has been piecemeal. It is characterised by delay, inactivity and the allocation of inadequate resources. Let us look briefly at the events and the problems that have led to the need for the setting up of a National Crime Authority, dealing with what is probably the most serious area, that is, dmg-related criminal activity. That is the most serious problem, because the proceeds from the sale of dmgs and the events that surround the acquisition, distribution and sale of dmgs lead to many other forms of criminal activity and pervade our society in a number of respects. Of course, the common or garden variety of crime, breaking and entering, is attributable, to a fair extent, to the need of addicts or people associated with the consumption of illegal dmgs to finance their habit. The problem of the illegal use of dmgs in this State and country is of great concem to the Opposition. From time to time, superficial and cynical attacks have been made by Govemment members on the Australian Labor Party for what they describe as an allegedly soft attitude on dmgs. Of course, that is quite wrong. The Labor Party adopts a very tough approach to dmgs and takes a very serious view of the problem. It feels that this insidious, inhuman and cmel area of criminal activity should be attacked with all the resources and powers that a Government in this country can command. The situation in Queensland is serious. Last year, on a number of occasions, I raised the question of the response of the Police Department and, in particular, the failure of the Govemment to properly staff and equip the Queensland Police Department's Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. As I was last informed, the Bureau of Criminal 268 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

Intelligence has approximately 20 officers, who are men of high calibre and who are dedicated police officers working under low manpower and under-equipped conditions. The police force needs to be upgraded. To those members of the Cabinet or Govemment who believe that Queensland has enough police and who are sick and tired of hearing the same old call from the Police Department for more officers, I say that they should reorganise the Police Department so that it can attack these vital areas. I feel that there is a need for an increase in the number of police, and, in particular, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence needs an increase in police officers and equipment. The next Labor Govemment will upgrade the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, in terms of both men and equipment. As I understand it, in Sydney, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence is five times the size of that in Queensland. In Victoria, the bureau is four times the size of that in Brisbane. No unit of the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence is stationed in north Queensland, which is undoubtedly an area in which much organised criminal activity occurs, especially in relation to dmgs. Queensland could usefully have a unit of the bureau based in Townsville or Caims. Last year the reports of the Costigan royal commission were published and much reference was made to organised criminal activity in Queensland, particularly on the Sunshine Coast. My colleague the member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill) will refer to some of those matters in more detail. However, I will make brief reference to a speech that I made in November last year in this Chamber in which I pointed out that, in June 1984, I raised allegations conceming a major criminal network based on the Sunshine Coast and, in particular, the activity of that criminal network relating to cocaine importation and distribution. What was the Govemment's response at that time? It was non-existent. In November, when the issue hit the front pages, assurances were given that appropriate action would be taken. It is not good enough for the Govemment to wait until an issue such as that hits the front pages and then make empty promises. In June, the Govemment made no response when I raised this matter on behalf of the Opposition. Where were the Minister for Police and the Minister for Justice in June of last year? They were remarkably silent. When the issue hit the front pages, they scurried to assure the public that something would be done. What has been done? Months and months after Labor Governments in other States have passed similar legislation, this Bill has finally been brought before the Queensland Parliament. The Queensland Govemment is well behind the Labor States when it comes to the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and legislative action. That highlights the difference between the Labor Party's approach to this serious blight on the community and the Queensland National Party's approach. It is the difference between talk and action. In the Labor States, action has been taken; in Queensland, the community has heard nothing more and nothing less than talk. In June of last year when I made the allegations, the Minister for Police made a half-hearted response on behalf of the Govemment along the lines of, "Put up or shut up," or, in other words, if I would produce the evidence, the Govemment would investigate. The evidence could be found in the reports of the Costigan royal commission, I point out to the Government that, because it claims to be the rightful Govemment of this State, it has the responsibility to find the evidence, investigate, prosecute and put these parasites behind bars. However, the Government is not doing that; it is not putting them in gaol. In fact, it is not even catching them. All it is doing is making promises about action. What can the relevant Ministers offer when it comes to the investigation of a major crime and assuring the people of Queensland that they are in control of events in this State and that they have some knowledge of what needs to be done with this kind of criminal activity? National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 269

Ip June of last year, when no response was forthcoming from the relevant Ministers, I pointed out some of the aspects of the operation of organised dmg criminals in Queensland. I referred to the syndicate based on the north coast and the fact that a number of Australian businessmen had been identified by the Costigan royal commission as organisers and backers. I referred to the fact that much of the profit from this criminal activity had been invested in real estate on the Sunshine Coast and that a joint Federal/ State police task force had identified a number of businessmen who had amassed great and inexplicable wealth in a short time and who had purchased investments in a number of false names. I understand that police information passed on to the Federal Govemment—to the Australian Taxation Office—resulted in millions of dollars in extra taxation assessments being written. So these sorts of criminal activity, if attacked properly, can result in the raising by the Govemment of substantial public revenue from those people who are not paying their way—those who are nothing more and nothing less than parasites. As I say, for some time my concem and that of the Opposition has been that the Govemment has talked tough but has failed to match the rhetoric with action. In relation to this same problem and the Costigan report as it was released in November of last year, I refer to the fact that, on the face of it, the Costigan report appeared to contain a direct criticism of the Premier and Treasurer. Honourable members may recall that, in December 1983, in a prepared statement in this House the Premier said— "I am aware of these allegations and have made inquiries of the Police Department. The Queensland police have no knowledge of any painter and docker involvement in dmg trafficking in this State; nor do the Queensland police have any knowledge or information which would suggest that the Comalco House branch of the then Bank of New South Wales was used to finance dmg trafficking in this State." The Costigan report demonstrates that either the Premier and Treasurer misled the Parliament or, more likely, simply did not know what was happening in his own back yard. This is the concem of the Opposition—that the Govemment does not seem to have done the work necessary to establish what is happening in its own back yard. Page 13, volume 5, of the Costigan report reveals that the Queensland Commissioner of Police, according to Mr Costigan, had been of very great assistance in having the Queensland police give detailed, swom evidence to the commission, including charts and files, and outlining in detail the complete network of painter and docker involvement in dmg-trafficking in Queensland, yet in a prepared statement the Premier and Treasurer said that the Queensland police had no knowledge of painter and docker involvement in dmg-trafficking in this State. Somebody has to explain the conflict between those statements but, more importantly, somebody has to explain what the Govemment intends to do to get to the bottom of the problem, to identify the extent of dmg crime and other organised crime in Queensland and what it intends to do about it. The Opposition wants to see a serious and detailed response. It is not enough simply to support the National Crime Authority with this BiU, the initiative for which has largely come from Governments in other States, based on the reports of Costigan, Woodward and so on. The Government has a duty to the citizens of Queensland with respect to law enforcement. The Parliament has not yet seen the evidence that that duty has been discharged. Where is the State Govemment task force containing people from the Justice Department, the Police Department and other relevant departments? Where is the evidence of its action? What has been the Government's response? Since the campaign leading up to the 1983 election, what has the State had— promises of tough legislation! What does the State have two years later—still promises of tough legislation! In 1983, in Caims, the Premier and Treasurer promised tough action on dmgs—the toughest legislation in Australia. So much for the Govemment's election promises. They are just rhetoric. Two years down the track and not a skerrick of 270 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

legislation on this matter has been seen in this place. If the reports that appeared in today's press are accurate, the Govemment still has not got its act together when it comes to working out exactly what its legislation is to be. If any members of the Govemment had seen heroin addicts and the effects of heroin and other serious dmgs on people, they would not be so casual about it. If they had seen, as I have, the effects of heroin on people, if they had seen people die from heroin use, they would not be so casual about it. From what I have seen, in some regards death is probably the least serious of the effects of heroin. The effect that the addiction to heroin has on the individual, the family, business associates, and everybody else associated with that person is very sad—very tragic—and something needs to be done about it in clear, direct terms and not two-year old promises to introduce tough legislation. Mr De Lacy: They are big on rhetoric but smaU on performance. Mr GOSS: Exactly. As I said, an election promise was made. Subsequent promises have been made. Every six months or so one of the Ministers recycles the Premier's promise to introduce tough legislation. It is public relations. When that Bill is finally introduced, I suspect that the main thmst of it will be nothing more than public relations. The main thmst of it will be mandatory life imprisonment for traffickers in dmgs. Under the Health Act, the Supreme Court already has power to impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. How often is that sentence imposed? How often does the poUce department catch the serious dmg-traffickers in this State? The success rate is very low. I understand that, on Monday, Cabinet was told that the success rate is no more than 20 per cent. That is absolutely pathetic. The police are apprehending 20 per cent of those persons who smoke a bit of marijuana round the place. I suggest that their success rate with serious dmgs is much less. The Govemment has promised other tough legislation that honourable members have not seen, but which Labor Govemments in other States, such as Victoria, have deUvered—legislation attacking illegally obtained assets that have been purchased by criminals with the proceeds from the sale of dmgs. I am pleased to support such a provision. People who obtain substantial assets from illegal dealing in dmgs deserve all they get not only in terms of punishment but also in the forfeiture of the proceeds. There has been substantial justification for the establishment of the National Crime Authority, following the recent operation that resulted in a number of persons appearing before the courts in relation to a very substantial importation racket. I say that without making any comment on the rights or wrongs of that raid or the guilt or innocence of the people involved. Irrespective of their guilt or innocence, that is the kind of highly organised task force, surveUlance and intelligence needed to attack this insidious and callous criminal activity. I would like to see some evidence that the Queensland Govemment is prepared to adopt a similar approach. As I said earlier, successive royal commissions and inquiries, such as the Costigan and Woodward inquiries, have established some idea of the problems, the extent of organised crime and the type of response necessary. This Bill and similar legislation that is being passed elsewhere in almost identical terms provide for substantial intmsion into the rights of citizens, and any such intmsion should be supervised vigilantly. Those rights and traditional liberties should not be readily given up. However, the Opposition agrees, as I think all thinking people do, that something extra needs to be done. Extra powers are needed by the authorities that attack this type of organised criminal activity. The Opposition supports this unified national campaign. I am pleased that the legislation contains a sunset clause. The legislation wiU terminate on 30 June 1989. That will provide a good opportunity to take stock of how successful the legislation and the National Crime Authority have been and to review where we go from there—whether the legislation is simply extended, whether it is pulled National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 271 out or whether—hopefully not—something more serious and substantial is needed to attack organised crime. The legislation refers to offences that involve theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal dmg dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, bribery, cormption, bankmptcy and company violations, armament dealings, and illegal importation or exportation of fauna into or out of Australia. It is clear that illegal dmg-dealing is a big probleirf in Queensland and needs to be addressed. It is clear that gambling is also a problem. It is clear that iUegal importation and exportation of fauna is a problem. Once again, in north Queensland, one sees a need for an organised Queensland police intelligence unit to deal with those problems. To attack this type of activity, the Bill requires that the offence must be one that involves substantial planning and organisation or the use of sophisticated methods and techniques in criminal activity. Indeed, that is where the emphasis should be. Too much emphasis is placed on criminal activity at the low level. I believe that the Police Department claims a 100 per cent success rate in relation to such offences as possession of marijuana. Of course, it will always have a 100 per cent success rate for clearing up those offences that are reported, because in almost every case the police receive a tip-off, go to somebody's house, either find the dmgs or do not find the dmgs and, abracadabra, achieve a 100 per cent success rate on every offence. Statistics of that type are what Mark Twain was talking about when he said, "Lies, damned lies and statistics." So much for the annual report of the Queensland Police Department in relation to that sort of activity. What is needed is some real attention Mr R. J. Gibbs: The clean-up rate in terms of the major dmg dealers is very poor. Mr GOSS: I could not have put it better myself The clean-up rate in relation to heroin is very poor. The honourable member for Wolston (Mr R. J. Gibbs) is speaking from experience in this area. On a number of occasions, he railed against the inactivity of the Govemment when it came to clearing up major crime, which I will continue to do. I will continue in that vein and follow the particular course that the honourable member for Wolston followed, because the Opposition to a man and to a woman—not just the honourable member for Wolston and myself—is concemed about the problem of dmgs in the community and the Govemment's inactivity in seriously attacking it beyond cheap campaign speeches at election time. The National Crime Authority will have authority to hold a hearing to investigate such matters, and evidence may be taken from witnesses who are summoned before it. Similarly, the authority will have power to obtain documents or items that it requires. More importantly, power is provided in the BUI for the National Crime Authority to obtain search warrants in urgent circumstances to prevent documents from being mislaid, hidden or destroyed, and it has the power to arrange warrants urgently by telephone application. That is quite unusual, but I believe that aU honourable members can foresee circumstances in which that will be necessary and useful for law enforcement authorities. The National Crime Authority will have power also to make recommendations to the Queensland Govemment in relation to reform of the law. I seek a response from the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General on whether or not such recommendations will be made public and tabled in the Parliament. Regarding many of the provisions relating to obtaining urgent warrants, whether it be by telephone or through a court, provision has been made that that wiU be to a Supreme Court judge or, I believe, in some cases to a Federal Court judge. The Opposition 272 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

believes that those safeguards are appropriate and adequate. As I understand it, the annual report of the authority will also be tabled in the Parliament. I beUeve that that is an important and very worthwhile part of the legislation. I referred previously to the fact that the legislation concludes with a sunset clause. The Labor Party supports that also. Queensland has often been criticised for going one out when it comes to important matters of national concem. However, the Opposition is pleased to support the legislation and to see evidence of a different approach in this area. A co-operative and unified approach is evident on a national basis in relation to this Bill, that approach coming from the Minister and the Government. The Opposition is very pleased that that is so. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.24 p.m.): I am pleased to support the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill. The fact that the Opposition is supporting the Bill is an indication that the various States and the Commonwealth Govemment have got together and decided to set up a national crime authority. It is necessary that legislation be passed in each of the State Parliaments as well as in the Federal Parliament. Mr D'Arcy: Are you the only speaker on the Govemment side? Can't they find anyone else? Mr FIT2XJERALD: It is very important that Opposition members who wish to speak wait their tum and do not keep interjecting. I am used to hearing a fair amount of rabble. I just wonder whether the late hour has anything to do with it. I do not intend to deal with all of the provisions of the Bill. The member for SaUsbury (Mr Goss) outlined quite a few. Legislators have to draw a fine Une between interfering with civil liberties and giving adequate powers for law enforcement. There are those who will be critical of this legislation, claiming that it permits an intmsion of their privacy and takes away their rights. It is recognised that organised crime throughout AustraUa has continued, and will continue, to grow. That is taking place all over the world, particularly the Westem world. Forged passports are considered by many people to be the root cause of our major organised dmg-trafficking. The previous Federal Govemment took steps to tighten up the procedures relating to the issue of passports. The number of people now authorised to witness passport applications has been limited. There are very good reasons for that. Some justices of the peace felt that the new provisions lessened their authority and power. In my opinion, however, it was important to tighten up the procedures. Even people travelling to New Zealand must now have a passport. It is reassuring that, when one witnesses a passport, about a week later an officer from the Immigration Department rings to check. Mr Hamill: They musn't tmst you as much as they tmst me. Mr FITZGERALD: Some of the officers obviously check. I always give my correct office phone number, not a bogus one—not that I am insinuating that the member for Ipswich would do so. Mr R. J. Gibbs: May I ask a serious question? How often do you get the phone calls when you witness passport applications? Mr FITZGERALD: The tightening up Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I will talk to the member for Wolston about it later. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I am asking a serious question. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 273

Mr SPEAKER: Orderi The member for Lockyer is not accepting the interjection. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I am deeply offended. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the honourable member is. Mr FITZGERALD: The National Party has said that it does not beUeve in either hard or soft dmgs. We support the theory that the constant use of a soft dmg such as marijuana will, in some cases, lead to the use of hard dmgs such as heroin. Press reports indicate that dmgs are used by people from all walks of life. It is very sad, as the member for Salisbury said, to see a heroin addict. Many weU-known persons in the community have had their families affected by horrendous dmgs. Australians have been found guilty of dmg-trafficking by overseas courts. I refer in particular to the Australian citizens who have been found guilty in Malaysia. Although I do not have first-hand information on the procedures of that country's courts, I am aware that our citizens are adequately wamed. In the folder in which Australian passports are contained, a large notice wams that the possession or carrying of dmgs in some countries constitutes an offence punishable by death or Ufe imprisonment. That is a timely waming to anybody travelling overseas who considers he might be able to make a fast buck by bringing dmgs back into Australia and trading in the lives of Australians. If an Australian knowingly breaks the law in a foreign country where death is the penalty for trafficking in dmgs, provided he has had the services of the best lawyers and provided he is proven guilty, he must suffer the consequences. No provision exists in Australia for imposing the death penalty, but I believe that people who knowingly traffic in dmgs in a country in which such an offence is punishable by death ought to be the subject of that penalty. Whereas all honouable members can feel sorry for the families of offenders, they can also feel glad in their hearts that another dmg-trafficker has bitten the dust and, as a result, the protection and support of life in our own country are being upheld. I believe that must be spelt out, although I realise that some of the newspapers have been printing sympathetic stories. Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member has been drawing a long bow for quite some time, and I think that honourable members have maintained quite a degree of tolerance. Dmg-peddling in other States has nothing to do with the Bill that is before this House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr FITZGERALD: The House is presently dealing with the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill, and one of the matters addressed in that BiU is the issuing of passports. I refer to clause 15, which bears the title, "Order for delivery to Authority of passport of witness." The information I have relayed to the House wiU come into the consideration of all honourable members, and in particular I refer to provisions that require the tightening up of passport procedures in Australia. I support such measures and I believe that it will be necessary to implement those provisions of the Bill if the trafficking of dmgs is to be reduced. It is a weU-known fact of life that criminals flit from State to State, and they also travel from nation to nation. I also note that provision is contained in the Bill for applications for search warrants to be made by telephone. That is a very unusual provision but, unfortunately, it is very necessary because it is often the case that action must be taken very quickly. This unusual provision enables an officer to make a telephone call and obtain a search warrant. Another provision of the Bill states that a report must be placed before Pariiament annually and that each annual report of the National Crime Authority received by the Minister shall be placed before the Parliament, along with any comments that have been made on the report by the Inter-Govermental Commitee. That must be accomplished within 15 sitting days of the House from the time that the report has been received by the Minister. 274 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

The Bill also contains a sunset provision that states that the Act, when proclaimed and unless sooner repealed, shall be in force until 30 June 1989. The point has been made that this legislation is introduced on a trial basis and that similar legislation has been placed before all of the Parliaments in Australia. At a later stage, a review will obviously take place, and reviews will also take place time to time to ascertain the way in which the provisions of the Bill are operating and to determine how successful the legislation has been, whether it will be necessary to implement tougher legislation, or whether quite different measures will need to be adopted in an attempt to combat the czars of crime who have been preying upon the the citizens of Australia, and continue to do so. I recognise that it is very very difficult to track criminals down, especially when all the sophisticated criminal techniques that are now in use are taken into account. However, this Bill is designed to combat major crime, and honourable members on the Govemment side of the House hope that it will be successful and that, when the Bill is implemented, beneficial results will be achieved for the citizens of this State. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (10.34 p.m.): The legislation that is before the House tonight has been introduced as a culmination of a variety of royal commissions and inquiries into the activities of organised crime in Australia. A number of the commissions of inquiry have been very important; for example, the Moffitt inquiry into the alleged involvement of organised crime in registered clubs of New South Wales, and the Stewart royal commission, which has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Lockyer. The ramifications of the Stewart royal commission flowed into the issue of passport procedure. One of the major areas of concem for the Stewart inquiry was the "Mr Asia" syndicate. The Williams inquiry into dmgs was conducted in this State and, of course, the Costigan royal commission was in similar vein in the south. If there is one message that comes out of all of these inquiries, it is that organised crime knows no State boundaries. As a matter of fact, it has been found that crime syndicates are simultaneously involved in actions that are offences either under State or Commonwealth laws, whether it be SP book-making, narcotics, dmg-trafficking, or even, indeed, tax evasion. The most interesting of these inquiries was the Costigan royal commission, which started out to investigate allegations conceming the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, but soon led on to major revelations abour corporate cormption. That, in tum, led to a number of very significant prosecutions being undertaken by special prosecutors Gyles and Redlich. Those activities are now being taken up by the National Crimes Authority. Mr Costigan, in his very extensive reports on organised crime, estimated that organised crime was one of the largest business enterprises in Australia today. In fact, Mr Costigan went so far as to suggest that the profits, not the tumover, of organised crime in this countrj' were somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion to $10 billion annually. That is an extraordinary range. It is an extraordinary industry that has been fostered in this country by a lack of either expertise or will on the part of public authorities to confront the spread of such activities. Because, organised crime knows no State boundaries—indeed, organised crime, perhaps, has the greatest disrespect for intemational boundaries—the question that must be addressed is how best to approach the combating of organised crime. I believe that the co-operative and co-ordinated approach that lies at the heart of this legislation, which is complementary to Commonwealth legislation, is the best way of proceeding against organised crime in this country. As a result of the revelations by Costigan, the Fraser Govemment belatedly recognised the spread of organised crime. In 1982 it set up its own legislation to establish the National Crimes Commission. The Minister would be particularly aware that the Fraser legislation was seen by a number of the States, particularly Queensland, as being National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 275 defective in that it did not pay due regard to States' rights. The arguments that now rage to and fro conceming the viability of the National Crime Authority, as estabUshed, centre on the extent to which individual States' concems stand in the way of a full, thorough and proper investigaiton and enforcement of the law against organised crime in this country. The legislation before us is the product of a great deal of discussion and consultation. On coming to power, the Hawke Govemment initiated a conference of interested parties from the States and the Commonwealth to discuss workable legislation. The National Crime Authority Act was the result of this, and, of course, the State Parliaments have put through complementary legislation, Queensland being the last State to do so. The functions of the crimes authority are very important because they embrace the investigation of organised crime and the collection and analysis of criminal intelligence in co-operation with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Of course, they also provide for references from the States of matters that the National Crime Authority may investigate. The heart of the issue, as highlighted by Costigan in his mammoth inquiries into organised crime, is the need for access to information about organised crime. Frank Costigan, QC, addressed those issues in detail when he delivered the John Barry Memorial Lecture on 13 October 1983. I think it appropriate to quote extensively from Mr Costigan's address, because he outlined the procedure that he deems to be the most responsible and effective procedure to combat organised crime in this country. He said— "The first thing to remember is that the organization of crime is directed towards the accumulation of money and with it power. The possession of the power that flows with great wealth is to some people an important matter in itself, but this is secondary to the prime aim of accumulating money. Two conclusions flow from this fact. The first is that the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organized criminals is to follow the money trail. The second is that once you have identified and convicted them you take away their money; that is, the money which is the product of their criminal activities. Both these conclusions have now been accepted in both the United States and the United Kingdom and other westem countries. Tracing the flow of money, of course, is the first step. Once this is recognized as the appropriate course it is necessary to identify the techniques necessary to enable an investigator to follow this traU. Bear in mind that the amounts involved are large and the frequency of transactions great. Accordingly, in most cases use is made by the criminals of the existing facilities of the community. The banking system is used, as are solicitors' tmst accounts, building societies and merchant banks, monies are transmitted overseas, property is bought and sold, shares are acquired, investments are made, credit cards are used, joint ventures are entered into, passports are applied for, immigration cards are filled in at every port of entry and exit, telephone calls are made, hotel biUs are paid and so on. All these transactions are to be found recorded in pubUc and private documents or on computer tapes. The ultimate dilemma facing the criminal who wishes to acquire wealth so that he can enjoy the pleasures and facilities provided by our society is that the enjoyment of those pleasures and facilities results in a recording of his activities. No matter how careful he may believe himself to be in covering or disguising his tracks, the tracks are there to be found and followed. But the tracking can be done successfuUy only if the person making it is equipped with the appropriate powers." Mr Costigan goes on and states, inter alia— "In the result, those who wish to do so can hide their activities from any concerted investigation by adopting techniques well known to white-coUar crime and which are on the whole very successful. My experience over the last three years has left me in no doubt that the problem of organized crime cannot be tackled 276 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

unless you invest in the one body, with all suitable protections, the power to monitor the activities I have described and to follow in detail all the steps taken." Consideration of Mr Costigan's remarks about organised crime is very enlightening. As he stated, the money trail is all-important. In endeavouring to follow the elusive trail of organised criminals, the question of civil liberties will arise. It stmck me as passing strange that it should be the member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald) who spoke about the threat to civil liberties in the conduct of investigations against organised crime. It is strange because it has come from the mouth of one of those who, through the State Parliament, has participated in the transgression of civil Uberties in this State over a long period. I accept his bona fides, at least on this issue. Organised crime is so extensive and harmful to our society as a whole that we must weigh up and balance the question of civil liberties and the question of the suppression of organised crime in Australia. The Costigan royal commission spent considerable time investigating allegations conceming, among other matters, the dmg trade in Australia. A number of allegations centred upon the activities of the dmg trade in Queensland. Indeed, organised trade in general came under the purview of the Costigan royal commission. It has been well documented, not only by Costigan but by a range of other inquiries, that the cocaine trade in the State has grown to alarming proportions. Indeed, it was stated by a policeman in evidence to the Costigan royal commission in an open session, that Queensland is peculiarly vulnerable to the activities of the cocaine trade. The evidence given to Costigan referred to shipments of cocaine being landed upon the Queensland coast at sites such as Seventeen Seventy Beach, Agnes Waters, Bustard Head and Double Bay islands. Further evidence suggests that packages of the dmg are then taken to centres such as Noosa, which is a fairly affluent centre. It is a holiday or resort centre at which are found people who have the capacity to be able to purchase the commodity concemed. The cocaine is then dispersed through restaurants and night­ spots. It is part of a larger web that extends to cities such as Sydney and Melboume. Costigan suggested that up to 50 people in Noosa are involved in this nefarious practice. The people include not only the petty criminals who are involved in the intemal trafficking of cocaine in this State but also financiers and managers in Queensland and in the other States. If anything comes from this, it is the message that the issues with which this legislation deals are not purely State issues; they are national issues and cross over State boundaries. Associated with the dmg trade is the Pandora's box of organised crime, which, when opened up, reveals connections that extend to major crimes, not the least of which is murder. It has been documented that the cocaine trade in Queensland has claimed its victims. Two of those victims have been named this evening, namely, Terry and Susan Basham, who were shot dead at their farm on Stokers Siding near Murwillumbah in August 1982. Apparently, the Bashams were well connected with the cocaine trade in Queensland and police investigation revealed a considerable linkage with their activity in the cocaine trade in this State and their subsequent death at their farm near Murwillumbah. The roles of these sorts of people have been exposed in royal commissions before. In fact, the Williams royal commission into dmgs in this State highlighted the problems along the Queensland coast and the spread of the dmg trade from Queensland coastal areas throughoirt Australia. The Melbourne Age has discussed at great length these sorts of issues and has raised the concern that has arisen in much of the debate conceming the establishment of the National Crime Authority, that is, that the issue of States' rights has the potential to prevent the thorough investigation of these sorts of offences against the laws of our country. The right of veto as it exists in the legislation giving a State Minister the right to withdraw a reference to the National Crime Authority has the potential to fmstrate the proper and thorough investigation of these sorts of offences. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 277

My concem is that which has already been expressed by my colleague the member for Salisbury (Mr Goss). The Queensland Govemment has presided over this sort of dmg-trafficking for many years. As I said, the Williams royal commission highlighted the spread of the dmg trade in this State, yet no real action has been taken by the Govemment. The community is still waiting for the much vaunted strong legislation against dmgs to be introduced. The Govemment is long on talk but short on enforcement. The legislation that may be proposed will have very stiff penalties indeed, if the Govemor's speech last week was any indication. However, so often it is the small fry who are apprehended—the little people who are making small money out of the dmg trade. It is the godfathers, the respectable people who have respectable professions, who get away scot-free. Recently I was pleased to see the fmits of investigations that had been going on for some months when charges relating to the dmg trade were laid by Federal and State poUce in a number of centres in Australia. If the Govemment believes that strong—indeed, draconian—dmg laws will stop the dmg trade, it has another think coming. It is the Mr Bigs of the dmg trade who have been able to avoid penal sanctions for many years. They have at their disposal some of the best legal advice in the country, some of the best accountants and other professional advice that enables them to do exactly what Mr Costigan said they do, that is, weave an intricate web and launder the funds from their ill-gotten gains in a manner that is not easily detected by the law-enforcement agencies of this country. I take up the point that was raised by way of interjection by Govemment members about marijuana. They are opposed to soft and hard dmgs. Let them not forget that the two dmgs that are the most dangerous dmgs used in our community today are socially acceptable. I refer to nicotine and alcohol. If Govemment members do not recognise that fact, they are denying the camage on our roads and they are denying the people who are hospitalised and the enormous bills that are sustained by our health system because of hospitalisation caused by alcohol abuse and the ravages of nicotine. If the Govemment is to be fair dinkum about dealing with dmg abuse, it ought not to forget those two dmgs—alcohol and nicotine. Mr FitzGerald: You want to make it three dmgs. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Lockyer should realise that I am being totally serious, which is much different from his inane interjection. If the honourable member for Lockyer had some concern for the people of Queensland, he would realise that country roads are probably some of the greatest claimers of life in this State, and alcohol is often related to those fatalities on country roads. Often that comes back to the social problems that exist in country towns through the law enforcement agencies being reluctant to impose the strongest penalties of the law against their friends and neighbours. I am not endeavouring to disparage the efforts of the police force, but it is a fact that anyone who has lived for any time in a small country town in this State or on any other State in Australia would realise the veracity of my claim in that regard. The problem extends to the lack of police. As I said, the Govemment of this State is long on rhetoric in its opposition to dmgs but short on performance. It is short on performance in relation to providing an adequate store of law-enforcers to effect a major assault upon organised crime in this State. Following the Stewart royal commission, which I mentioned earlier, there was a call for an additional 400 police. In fact, a Courier-Mail editorial of 1 August last year commented on that call for extra police and stated— "So far they have not materialised, and there has not been any apparent diminution in the supply of dmgs on our streets." Police in this State are hopelessly out gunned by organised crime. There is a shortage of police and the Government is not providing sufficient funds to enable the law to be 278 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

enforced adequately by putting additional police into the field. It comes down to a question of just how serious is the Govemment in its efforts to control organised crime in this State. Organised crime is also evidenced by the existence of the casinos about which honourable members have heard in this Chamber—those casinos that apparently do not exist in Fortitude Valley; those casinos that, officially, taxi drivers cannot take people to. The web of organised crime is well and tmly entrenched in this State. Recently, I was interested to notice that, in a surprise for the Queensland Govem­ ment, the spectre of organised crime raised its head once again, this time in connection with the new multimillion dollar casino of the Gold Coast. Before Govemment members start screaming, the point I want to make is that the casino licence for the Gold Coast is held, as I understand it, by a whoUy-owned subsidiary of Hilton Hotels USA, which this year was denied a licence to own and operate a casino in Atlantic City. The New Jersey Casino Licensing Authority stepped in because it was concemed about the involvement in that organisation of two people with connections to organised crime. The New Jersey authorities drew attention to the role of a Mr Sidney Korshak, a Chicago lawyer, who was described by a US Senate subcommittee as "an organised crime associate" Unfortunately for HUton Hotels USA, it had overlooked that person's association with organised crime for some 13 years. The other person who came to the attention of that New Jersey authority was the vice-president of Hilton Hotels USA, Mr Henri Lewin, who was described by Commis­ sioner E. Kenneth Burdge—and I will quote Mr Stephan: You have lost your place. Mr HAMILL: No; unlike the honourable member for Gympie, I do not get to the punch line too early by using briefing notes too extensively. Mr Lewin was described by Mr Burdge as having— "a history of associating with individuals who at best have questionable reputations and, at worst, have been identified as being connected with organised crime." The spectre of organised crime is very real in society and very real in Queensland today. I am pleased that the State Parliament has at last come to debating this legislation on the National Crime Authority. This is a measure that is long overdue. It is to be hoped that the authority will be able to step into the breach of the neglect of the enforcement of the law in relation to organised crime in this State. I say once again and voice concem again in the House tonight that the Queensland Govemment was one Govemment that insisted upon the reference of power from the State to the Commonwealth commission in the investigation of organised crime. It also insisted upon the right of a Minister to withdraw that reference of power. I seek the assurance of the appropriate Queensland Minister that the power that is there is but a paper power and that it will not be enforced by the State Govemment in any effort to fmstrate inquiries into matters such as those that I have raised this evening. It is very important that the operation of the National Crime Authority is a tmly co­ ordinated and co-operative national effort. Only then might we be able to get to the bottom of that money trail that Mr Costigan so vividly outlined in his extensive and very worthwhile inquiries into organised crime in this nation.

Mr INNES (Sherwood) (10.56 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. Its stmcture was developed over many years. Like every major new stmcture that deals with the enforcement of criminal law, there must be some reservations and, of course, some debate about the extent of the powers. Authorities of all kinds ask for total power so that they can do a total job and promise to exercise their discretion responsibly. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 279

The reality of the history of criminal law and the development of the law generally is that people find that they cannot place that amount of tmst in anybody. This body has been developed out of a great deal of controversy. Attempts have been made to strengthen or weaken the powers of this new commission. Attempts have been made to make it a police-like stmcture. In the end result, a deliberate effort has been made not to make it a police clone. It is interesting to note that, after some years of debate, a conference was held and a proposal for legislation was put forward when the Fraser Govemment was in office. In about 1982, a conference was held on the National Crimes Commission. Five out of six of the royal commissioners present who had investigated organised or major crimes supported the setting up of an authority. Debate has taken place between various commissioners, professional lawyers and members of political parties with regard to the civil liberties aspect, the strength of the powers and the capacity of the new stmcture to perform its task. The people who preside over this commission are Mr Justice Stewart, who was a former royal commissioner, assisted by two Queens Counsel, John Wyatt and Max Bingham, who was a former Deputy Premier of Tasmania. There is a ministerial councU that consists of Ministers representing all the States and Territories, and the Federal Govemment, a mixture of Justice Ministers and Police Ministers who are representative of the Commonwealth of Australia—and, rather oddly, Mr Mick Young, the Special Minister of State, who has had a somewhat chequered career. A joint parliamentary committee of the Federal Parliament is required to monitor the activities of the council and report to the Parliament. As has already been pointed out, a sunset clause is contained in the legislation. It is a shame that something as important as a national crime stmcture has a sunset clause contained in it although legislation of far less importance, involving far less important matters, does not customarily contain a sunset clause in this State. Perhaps the new review of statutory authorities can consider the use of sunset clauses. The most famous history of criminal law is the Holdsworth history of the criminal law in the United Kingdom. On examining that history, it is found that, traditionaUy, policing was very local and, in some parts of the world, has stayed local right to this day. A very strong concept was held that criminal law enforcement arose out of a local community and that the people in it were the best to catch the people involved in committing crime and the best for trying people involved in crime. Mr Comben interjected. Mr INNES: The honourable member for Windsor's problem is that every time he hears words of four syllables, he thinks he has heard them before. It is a quantitative approach rather than a qualitative approach. The reality is that there is still a great deal of purpose in having a locally based police system. Those honourable members who are familiar with the United Kingdom will know that it is still organised by counties. Of course, what happens with an increased mobility of population and increased conglomeration of population is that those locally based stmctures are stretched and some new mechanical ways of pursuing offenders has to be found. So it is, I suppose, that in the United Kingdom—for everybody who has seen the television series—there are the metropolitan police, the flying squads and the specialist squads. In the United States of America a similar situation exists to that in which AustraUa finds itself The original police were locally based police. Then there was the introduction of overlapping, overlying bodies because of the incapacities and the jurisdictional problems of the local police. It does not matter which bodies are set up at a national level or which bodies are set up on a State headquarters or State capital basis; the strength of effective policing will always depend upon a local police presence. There is 280 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

no point in weaving a net of very wide mesh because, with such a net, the small fish are missed. Mr Davis: You are an ex-copper, aren't you? Mr INNES: Yes. I was a member of the Northem Territory Police Force. Things have not changed in relation to policing. Effective policing is best done by a local policeman on the ground who knows his beat, who knows his people, who knows when things are out of place and when things are going wrong. If there is any consistent deficiency in modem policing—and modem Queensland policing—it is a lack of man­ power and a lack of police on the ground who have a sufficient familiarity with their local area and are there sufficiently often to see what is going on and what is going wrong. In the absence of basic policies this new national stmcture—and the threatened heavy, onerous State legislation—will be worth nothing and will be empty rhetoric. It is emotional graffiti on a wall, unless one is prepared to put the police on the ground to catch the criminals and bring them to task. The biggest threat in the criminal law is the risk of detection. Honourable members should know from studies and experience that the mere threat of heavy penalties alone is nothing, h is the threat of apprehension and the bringing of a person to task that is the major threat. As honourable members realise, the Govemment is committed to legislation that is intended to stamp out the dmg trade. It will not merely be empty rhetoric; it will be hypocrisy unless it is matched by the commitment of sufficient people on the ground to bring offenders to justice effectively. The proposed commission is an important development that deserves wholehearted support, but not support without reservation; not blanket support for anything it might choose to do, whether well intentioned or misguided. The intention is that the national body will receive the co-operation, support and facilities necessary for it to perform its task. The reason it has come into being, I suppose, follows the American experience— the development of the Mafia and sophisticated organised crime; crime that was so successful that it operated both legitimately and illegitimately—which required the creation of sophisticated stmctures of law enforcement. Essentially, that involved more resources, both analytical and record-keeping, so that the pattems of behaviour could be built up in a central records system. It involved the application of specialised police, supervised by people trained in legal prosecution. Unfortunately, police officers dealing in modem corporate crime—deaUng with modem corporate stmctures—wiU not necessarily have the sophistication of understanding corporate stmctures, in particular, which will be provided by speciaUst professional advice from accountants or lawyers. The police are still required. They are the people who are used to groundwork, but they will work closely with those whose minds are more used to the presentation of cases and seeing the weaknesses of cases in court. As I understand it, that conjunction of talents is intended in the NCA commission. In the modem world, the sophistication provided by computer equipment is certainly required. Enormous amounts of money were paid in fumishing aU of the royal commissions and the Costigan commission with computer equipment. I do not wish to canvass the detail or minutiae of the Costigan inquiry, but Costigan clearly discovered matters of great importance to law enforcement in this country. Some of the chickens are still being brought home to roost. At the same time, in my opinion Costigan became so enmeshed and obsessed with his task that occasionally he went off the rails. He became too enthusiastic and could not himself distinguish the sustainable from the unsustainable. The taint seemed to apply to whatever he looked at. Much of the work he did was very valuable. It was pioneering work in the level of sophistication and the meticulous approach, armed with all the resources of modern technology. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 281

Earlier an honourable member was correct in saying that modem crime will attempt to use the best of modem resources. I doubt that the best of brains is available to those people. Some criminal minds are indeed able minds. Mr Veivers: What about the legal profession? Mr INNES: I would hope that it is the shyster solicitors and the shyster account­ ants Mr Goss: And the shyster barristers. Mr INNES: Yes, and other shyster professionals—medicos, etc.—who fall foul of the system. The forces of good—those on the side of bringing criminals to task—will benefit from having access to even better qualified professional talents than crime has. The NCA has had a problem in the sheer politics of the matter. The politics has been a very mixed bag. There have been problems in the Queensland Parliament. Both sides involved in the debate so far have been involved in shameful acts of false and malicious accusations about involvement in serious dmg-related criminal activity that has led to the time of a royal commission being wasted. That can happen when blind, stupid politics takes over the debate on something of grave importance. Mr Veivers: The Liberals never did. Mr INNES: No accusation came from a Liberal Pary member of this House which led to wasting the time of a royal commission. However, allegations came from both the Australian Labor Party and the National Party that led to a waste of time. The point I make is that obsessive politics can be carried too far. The matter of dmg offences is very serious, and I hope that any future steps taken by this Parliament will be taken with sincerity and not in a spirit of political malevolence, which at times has led to slurs being cast against the credit and reputation of this House. For instance, I refer to the threat of heavy legislation being enacted with respect to dmgs. Nobody minds that the masterminds of dmg offences may be taken to the sweepers and incarcerated for life. Indeed, those who preside over and participate in actions that encourage people to become addicted to heroin are the most odious people that one could think of, or conceive of, in the world. But before the Queensland Parliament races down the track of mandatory life sentences, one perhaps should ask oneself whether differences exist between one heroin pusher and another and whether a heroin junkie who dilutes a small amount of heroin and pushes it onto the next heroin addict, in an attempt to finance his own dmg-related problem, is in the same league as the big-timers who organise the shipments of dmgs overseas. One should ask oneself this question: If a mandatory life imprisonment sentence is not imposed for murder yet is imposed for heroin-pushing, might it not be the answer to kill the victim rather than risk the possibility of being caught? In one way, life imprisonment is mandatory and in the other way there is a possibility of remission of the sentence. The legislation must therefore be very carefully framed, and it must be framed with sincerity. Legislation must also be framed with a view to the police investigation side of things. The level of the police force in the State must be raised to the extent that effective detection of the Mr Bigs or the Mr Littles will take place. In terms of the strength of the police force in Queensland—quite frankly, this State is not in a good position to undertake the necessary investigations. I hope that the National Crime Authority will receive the whole-hearted support of the Queensland Government in terms of co-operation and resources. That can be done only if our Queensland Police Force is in a position to act efficiently and effectively. 282 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

Honourable members would be aware that the carefully balanced stmcture that presently operates involves, in most cases, offences against State law, and it will be necessary for action to be taken through State police agencies. Indeed, matters that were referred by the Costigan royal commission to the National Crime Authority in a dozen or more cases have been referred straight back to the State police forces by the authority. The authority has not put its own people into the field, and that is quite proper because the operations of the National Crime Authority are supposed to be on a co-operative basis. Although one does not wish to trespass on the sub judice aspects, perhaps it should be said that one of the most spectacular illustrations of the extent of modem, organised crime and of the potential co-operation that exists among Australian law enforcement authorities has been depicted by the apprehension of an enormous load of cannabis resin that apparently started off in the Mediterranean region, on one version, but ended up in a ship that sank off the coast of Australia, with the result that enormous amounts of heroin had been distributed throughout the States of Australia, masterminded from Sydney. That was the general suggestion, and it shows the extent of modem, organised crime. It also shows what can happen when whole-hearted and unreserved co-operation exists between State police law enforcement agencies and the Federal authorities. That particular incident is supposed to be one of the biggest crime busts in the history of Australia, and one would regard it as a credit to those who have advocated co-operation rather than the maintenance of insularity among different jurisdictions and police stmctures. Suspicion exists among police forces, and it always wiU. There will always be a level—hopefully, a very minor level—of cormption, and that will breed suspicion. There will be rivalry. The problem for people in govemment is to stamp out unwarranted rivalry and to ensure co-operation. As I have said, the Liberal Party is concemed about police manning levels in Queensland. It is also concemed about the rising crime rate, of which the dmg element is a part. It is often found that organised crime never compartmentalises into one area. Where organised crime is found, gambling, dmgs, prostitution, forgery and the illegal acquisition of passports are all to be found. The whole ramification is there. One can look at a total crime situation and find that it is the victims of heroin-pushing who break into the houses in suburbia and we get an uplift of breaking and entering. Queensland has a serious problem, which other States experience to some extent, with reference to police manpower. Areas of this city that contain socio-economic groups of people by whom significant crimes are committed have up to 150 000 people with only two police cars on duty at night. Only one policeman, on a motor-bike, is on patrol in this city after midnight. Dozens of suburbs do not have a single mobile car patrol after 10 p.m. The Deputy Premier is laughing. This is not a laughing matter, it is very serious. Criminals do not do things in the full light of day; they work under the protection of night. They organise their affairs for when there is the least likelihood of apprehension. Mr Davis: Mr Gunn was not laughing. That was his natural face. Mr INNES: I think the honourable member is being very unfair to the Deputy Premier. In Queensland, the police force, according to the Commissioner of Police, the police union and certainly any member representing a Brisbane electorate, needs to be expanded. I cannot speak for all country areas, although I suspect that some country areas, for justifiable reasons, are a little better off. When a low population is associated with high police numbers, it is likely that there will be less law-breaking. When an officer knows his area much better, it is virtually a self-controlling area. Mr De Lacy: Not in Caims. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 283

Mr INNES: I understand that Caims has a major problem created by the enormous influx of people who are not known and are not settled in their habits. Suburban Brisbane, where much crime takes place, has a major problem. The problems associated with the use of marijuana in Queensland are so extensive that most people of our generation do not understand it. It is only when members start talking to their school principals and the Juvenile Aid Bureau that they realise that in almost every high school, marijuana is in regular use. Year 9 pupils all over the State are using marijuana. Mr Elliott: That is an exaggeration. Mr INNES: I suggest that the honourable member should talk to people around the State. The more I talked and the more I inquired, the more I was surprised to realise that I was involved in a generation gap. It did not happen in my youth, in my teens or in my 20s. In my legal practice, I became acquainted with people who were caught. In fact, marijuana use is so extensive that the Juvenile Aid Bureau cannot come to grips with it. It may administer a slight admonishment on the basis that it was just a joint or a little deal and that it was not worth looking at. Members of the Liberal Party suggest that many people will be tempted to becoming dmg-users because of using marijuana at an early age. If the theory that those who start early on marijuana go on to hard dmgs is right, we are in for a hell of a problem in the future—a hell of a problem! Mrs Chapman: Can you understand anyone wanting it legalised? Mr INNES: I cannot. If we had the opportunity to go back and not legaUse tobacco, we could keep that out. No, I would not legalise marijuana. Certainly, the present stmctures do not come to grips with the problem. At the very least, sufficient police should be provided to adequately staff or extend the Juvenile Aid Bureau, the Criminal Investigation Branch, the Dmg Squad and even the local police stations. Because the local policeman or the country policeman is known and tmsted and has contacts in the community, he is most likely to pick up the problem and nip it in the bud. One cannot emphasise strongly enough the need for an adequate police force to achieve total success in crime enforcement at any level—from the organised crime level down to the suburban level. It will be purely a barren and hypocritical exercise if we go for heavy legislation and do not make a commitment to increase the numbers in the police force. Government has always been about the enforcement of law through a police system and a court system. In the last 100 years, they have been involved in providing education and in delivering health. Many of the other matters in which Govemments are involved are frills. When we get down to basics, the person in the suburbs will say, "I want to feel safe in my house and on the streets, and I want my children to feel safe." The Liberal Party supports the setting up of the National Crime Authority and believes that it should be given sensible and whole-hearted support. Its operations must be closely monitored by the ministerial committee, the Federal parliamentary committee and this Parliament. We should look carefully at the way in which the authority operates. Mr Scott: Why do you think there are so many inconsistencies in the way in which courts handle dmg charges in terms of the punishment that they bring down? Mr INNES: There are many answers to that question. Perhaps I will deliberately not answer the question and go back to my point about mandatory sentences. I have seen what happens with mandatory sentences. Let us take drink-driving. We said that people who drink and drive should lose their licences, and that if they commit a second offence they should go to gaol. That was a reasonable proposition. What happened? Suddenly, some Govemment members 284 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

found that they were getting pressure from good hard-luck cases in their electorates, and so the legislation must change. The same will happen again if a blanket approach is adopted to the dmg problem. Variations in human behaviour and culpability are so great that any blanket approach is guaranteed to be reversed at some stage in the future. If one is a conservative, one believes in history, and history teaches one a few lessons. The lesson that I have been taught is that except in extraordinary circumstances, mandatory sentences are not provided. Mr Davis: That is why they won't have random breath-testing in the country. Mr INNES: Political flak stops one from doing the things that are right. Different sentences are imposed for many reasons. As the honourable member knows, courts are trying to come together. Conferences of judges and magistrates are held to try to standardise penahies for similar offences. At times, it is proper for the Justice Minister and others to say, "In the view of the legislature, or from what we can see, an offence is becoming prevalent and that should be taken into account in sentencing." Although it is improper to give directions in a particular case, it is certainly proper to make responsible statements on what one concludes is happening in our society. In short, the Liberal Party supports the setting up of the National Crime Authority. It believes that the authority should be carefully watched. It also supports the boosting of law enforcement in our own back yard, that is, in our own State. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (11.25 p.m.): Like earlier speakers, I strongly support this legislation. It always gives me great pleasure to follow the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) instead of having him following me, because I can well remember our days in the Northern Territory. The honourable member spoke about law enforcement being near the people and on the beat. I was an ambulance bearer in the Northem Territory, and I can well remember him walking the beat from Katherine to Darwin. It used to take him 10 days and it was the only place that the police could put him where he was not a problem. Recently I was considering retaining him for certain matters before the courts of this State in which I have an interest, but his fee was far more than any member of this Parliament could afford. I think that is why he is able to wear better suits than I do. This Bill is similar to legislation that has been or is to be passed through all other Australian States and Territories. It shows up very clearly the constitutional inadequacies of the federal system. As my colleague the member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill) has already said, organised crime has no respect for boundaries of any type. It is said that criminals, teachers and cattle ticks demonstrate the ways in which the Federal Constitution does not work because each crosses State boundaries and is difficult to control in various ways. The purpose of this Bill is to permit Queensland to refer to the National Crime Authority the consideration of relevant offences that amount to organised crime, but are purely offences against the laws of this State, whose delegation to the National Crime Authority would, other than for this Bill, be outside the Commonwealth constitutional jurisdiction. The State Governments and the Federal Government could have come to some sort of agreement in many ways about how to deal with organised crime. The basic problem is that the Australian Constitution does not allow the proper Govemment that should be controlling organised crime across the nation to have the power to deal with organised crime. The States and the Commonwealth could have re-established grand juries, continued with ad hoc royal commissions—over the last 20 years, there have probably been about eight of them—established a ministerial council to consider and co-ordinate activities of whatever ad hoc commissions are appointed or, as will occur under this legislation, establish a standard or permanent crimes commission. National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill 27 August 1985 285

The establishment of the National Crime Authority is to be welcomed. Four other States in Australia have already passed similar legislation. This Bill is almost identical to those other pieces of legislation, and I will raise with the Minister a couple of areas in which the Queensland legislation differs from all the other legislation that has been passed, and ask him why that is so. The clear and unambiguous message of all the reports published in Australia in the last 20 years is that the present law enforcement in the States is unable to cope with organised crime. According to these reports, the main areas in which organised crime has flourished are dmgs, prostitution, pomography, gambling, theft and taxation fraud. In 1980, the Williams royal commission reported that the activities of law enforce­ ment are largely designed for and directed to the control of individuals by reacting to a complaint of an offence already committed so as to identify the individual who committed it, to secure evidence of his or her involvement and ulitmately his or her conviction. State criminal law in Australia is ill equipped to deal with any organised basis of illegal activities. Establishing the organised basis will have no consequence so far as the law is concemed and that is where, at present, the laws of the States are defective. This Bill is to be welcomed because it will have an overall, co-ordinating role. The 1982 Costigan royal commission, which the honourable member for Sherwood castigated, had a number of very good points. I cannot help feeling that the venom that honourable members heard from the member for Sherwood resulted from the Costigan royal commission being set up by a Liberal Govemment to investigate the activities of the Painters and Dockers Union and the first person hoist on a petard being a Liberal Party Treasurer from Westem Australia. That is probably why the Liberal Party, such as it is in this place, is still smarting. The Costigan royal commission found that there were difficulties on the part of law enforcement agencies in the suppression of organised crime. One of the difficulties facing State authorities is that they do not have sufficient personnel of the appropriate intellectual capability and training to undertake the difficult analysis of facts which is necessary to identify major criminal organisations. That would stUl be the case if the member for Sherwood was in the police force, even if he was heading it. Another difficulty is that police forces are not properly equipped. Certainly in those days in Darwin, the member for Sherwood was well equipped—he had a good pair of shoes. A further difficulty is that investigation into organised crime cannot be by traditional methods. The only way that it can be detected is by seizure of records, including bank accounts, and by compulsory powers to search and to demand answers to questions. In 1983, the Stewart royal commission stated that, from the files which it examined, it appeared that the law enforcement bodies were looking at individuals and did not follow up the connections between the major principals of the group. It was suggested that a crime commission that was continuously looking for pattems of action and association is far more likely to identify crime as organised crime than is the ordinary law enforcement agency. That is because the very strength of the police forces of this country—that is, their very ability to organise on a local level and to know what is going on in their beat—is in fact the greatest detractor from them in the fight against organised crime. If they pick up two prostitutes or two dmg-pedlars on the street, they are happy. They get their conviction and the statistics go into the book. Everyone is happy. No-one inquires behind that to see whether there is a pattem of activity of similar offences that can all be related to one master-mind somewhere, whether it be within Australia or outside Australia. That framework needs to be established. It is to be hoped that the National Crime Authority will in actual fact make the connections that were very capably made by the Costigan royal commission. 286 27 August 1985 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Bill

Rather than bring these matters up at the Committee stage, I ask the Minister in his reply to answer me in relation to the part of the Bill that deals with orders for delivery to the authority of the passports of witnesses and also to the power to obtain warrants for the arrest of witnesses. The Queensland legislation mentions a judge of the Supreme Court sitting in chambers and makes no reference at all to Federal judges sitting in chambers. The other legislatures that have passed similar legislation have all made reference to Federal judges with no reference to their own Supreme Courts. I reaUse that Queensland has a decentraUsed Supreme Court and that there are advantages in being able to obtain a Supreme Court judge sitting in Rockhampton or Townsville, as judges are permanently based there, but it would seem to me that, especially in Brisbane, the legislation could refer to both a judge of the Supreme Court and a judge of the Federal Court being able to give the necessary authority. I wonder why the Minister has narrowed it down to the State's own courts. Throughout the Bill the penalties are generally $2,000 or imprisonment for one year. Those appear to be totally mandatory; the judges will have no discretion whatsoever. However, in the other pieces of legislation the penalties are a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. That gives far more discretion than this legislation. As honourable members have already said, if judges are given a wide discretion, it is much easier for them to impose an appropriate penalty rather than a mandatory penalty. As the Queensland legislation seems to be inconsistent with legislation passed in at least four other States, I ask the Minister why that is so. Finally, with my coUeagues I welcome the provision that empowers the National Crime Authority to make recommendations to Queensland on the reform of laws on relevant offences, in regard to evidence, procedures at trials, corporations, taxation, banking, financial frauds and reform of administration of courts. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance this evening that, if such recommendations are in fact made, he will listen carefully to them. Certainly in his second-reading speech the Minister said that the authority has power to make those recommendations, but he gave no indication whatever of what this Govemment's attitude would be to them. The Minister should be complimented. A problem with the whole Australian Constitution is encompassed here. To that extent, I hope that the Minister will continue in the future to accept the recommendations of the National Crimes Commission. This legislation wiU be welcomed by every law-abiding Australian. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (11.35 p.m.): I support the Bill. In doing so, I point out the hypocrisy of members of the Australian Labor Party. They have quoted from Costigan's report and commented on the wonderful job that he did, when in fact their gum, Hawke, puUed the mg from under Costigan six months before he finished his inquiry. That was done at a time when he was pursuing the big dmg-traffickers. He said, "Follow the money and you will find where it goes." He was on the verge of a breakthrough in world crime investigation of the Mr Bigs. Opposition members are soft on dmgs, and soft dmgs lead to hard dmgs. The Govemment knows the Opposition's soft attitude to marijuana. That shows the hypocrisy of the Opposition. In a small community, everyone is known. The larger the community, the more difficult it is to apprehend criminals because that is where crime flourishes. Tonight, the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) and the honourable member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill) referred to the Sunshine Coast. Costigan said that the Sunshine Coast was the R and R—rest and recreation—not the headquarters. The headquarters were in Sydney and Melboume, where the largest population is found. The honourable member for Ipswich referred to the Sunshine Coast having the dmgs and their being taken to other parts of Australia. The evidence shows that, because of the shortage of hard dmgs, including heroin, on the Sunshine Coast, people go to Sydney to obtain them. Those persons are apprehended on their retum from Sydney. Adjoumment 27 August 1985 287

Mr Hamill: You seem to know a lot about it. Mr SIMPSON: I do not, but I have been informed that in Sydney the Reverend Ted Noffs said that it is all coming from Noosa. To achieve identification in large areas and cities, I favour identity cards displaying photographs and fingerprints. Honest people do not mind that at all. Opposition members squirm and throw out that suggestion, as they did with petty fraud in taxation matters. Mr Scott interjected. Mr SIMPSON: I knew that Opposition members would react in that way to identity cards. The Opposition is hypocritical. A positive move by this State is the inquiry into the presence of dmgs at schools, leading to positive programs that spell out that dmgs are not good for one's health. Alcohol, nicotine, marijuana and hard dmgs are bad for one's health. The sooner that young people are educated that they should keep their bodies in good order, the better. That is a positive move that is being made by the Queensland Govemment. I reiterate that I support the legislation. Debate, on motion of Mr Wharton, adjoumed.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjoum." Works and Housing Portfolio Mr CASEY (Mackay) (11.39 p.m.): I draw to the attention of the House an example that indicates clearly the way in which the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) is mishandling his portfolio in this State. I refer especially to some of Queensland's educational establishments. The Minister for Works and Housing has a very important portfolio. He has a responsibUity to see that all children in this State are provided with decent accommodation for their education. He has a responsibility to ensure also that all children throughout the State are treated fairly, impartially and equally in the provision of educational facilities. That is not happening. Today many examples of that can be found throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. It relates especially to those areas of growth on the fringes of urban areas where there have previously been small mral schools, and urban development has caught up with them, putting them in an urban situation. It has happened in Townsville, in the case of the old Weir State School, as the honourable member for Townsville (Mr McElligott) would know full well. It has happened in Gladstone. Only this aftemoon the honourable member for Port Curtis (Mr Prest) spoke to me about some examples in his electorate. Of course, in my area there is also the classic example of the Andergrove State School, which now has approximately 388 students. Five or six years ago that school had only 80 to 90 students. Most of the facilities at that school are exactly the same now as they were all those years ago. It was only as a result of a visit from the then Minister for Education and now Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) that that school was able to get additional toilet facilities. We traipsed him through the stinking toilets, which were totally inadequate for 300-odd students as they had only been built to cater for approximately 80 students. The Andergrove State School is 4 km from any retail food outlet, yet the school has no tuck-shop. The Minister for Education (Mr Powell) continues to refuse to give it sufficient priority. It is the kids who are caught up in this. All the development that 288 27 August 1985 Adjoumment

has occurred in the area has meant this huge expansion of growth. Schools of more than 200 students are entitled to a tuck-shop, but nothing is happening. However, a few kilometres away in an adjoining electorate a school that has been reduced to 280 students because a brand new school has been built further over again is getting a brand new tuck-shop. I tum to the new schools. New schools being built across the State get everything. They get everything that opens and shuts. An adequate system of covered walkways, miles of covered play areas, fully equipped tuck-shops, all the administrative facilities and all the space required for storage are provided in the new schools but not in the small old schools that have experienced substantial growth. At first glance one would think that there has been a politicisation of the education system. However, I do not believe that that is really so. I believe that it is just the way in which the portfolio is presently being mishandled. It has reached the stage at which the parents of students attending schools such as the Andergrove State School are threatening to boycott the schools. Letters, deputations and everything have been tried, all to no avail. Now the parents have started a major media campaign. I can assure the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) and the Minister for Education (Mr Powell), who has just left the Chamber, that they will not stop. They will keep it going. Mr POWELL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Mackay has said that I am outside the Chamber. I am sitting here listening to his diatribe. Mr CASEY: I accept the Minister's explanation. As usual, he is not sitting in his usual place. He is one of the Ministers who likes to go round making a great deal of noise with the back-benchers in an endeavour to maintain his position. The Govemment skites about all the great development that is occurring in Queensland yet, where growth has occurred, it does not put its money where its mouth is. The Minister for Education and his department are weak. They do not care. They will not give priority where it is absolutely essential. The Minister for Works and Housing is not interested in faimess or equality insofar as education facilities are concemed. At least, that is the way is appears to the parents of the Andergrove State School. It is up to him to examine and rectify the situation. Tomorrow I will be presenting a petition on behalf of those parents. However, it is not just the Andergrove State School and it is not just in Gladstone and Townsville; it will be found in all the growth areas of the State where a small, old country school has been caught up in urban development.

Defence Cut-backs Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (11.44 p.m.): Tonight I wiU comment on the Federal Budget and the particular aspect that I will address is defence. It has been announced that armed forces personnel wiU be cut by 1 610. The navy loses 710, the army loses 677 and the civilians employed there are reduced by 223. No reduction will occur in air force numbers. It has been done in a backslapping and self-congratulatory atmosphere and justified because large amounts of money are to be spent on re-equipping the armed forces. For example, $912m wiU be paid for the F18s and $350m wiU be paid for the guided missile frigates built in America, with associated programs in Australia. Both payments, I might add, are far larger than they would have been had the Govemment not cast the Australian dollar adrift to make its own way on world money markets. In other areas large amounts are being spent on re-equipment, such as $ 19m for a new fleet replenishment ship, $12m for two protype mine-hunter catamarans, $21m for army communications equipment and $41m for light field vehicles. The Ust goes on. All are definitely needed. Total expenditure on defence will be $6,535m, an increase of 10 per cent in money terms, or 3.1 per cent in real terms, showing that inflation is still on the move with this socialist Federal Government. Adjoumment 27 August 1985 289

I am not condemning these long-sought and long-overdue equipment acquisitions or the planned spending of $50m on the Tindal and new Derby airfields. What I am criticising and roundly condemning are the cuts in armed service manpower to pay for the equipment. We do not need cuts in uniformed manpower. On the contrary, we desperately need more men and women in uniform and we need more equipment in addition to that detailed in the Federal lack-lustre Budget. What about the new submarines that we will be ordering, if the Govemment ever stops its continual postponements, the frigates to be built in Melboume, the squadrons of armoured personnel carriers for the army, which have also been deferred, and the airbome early-waming and control aircraft that are so essential to realise the full capabilities of the air force F18s? All of these projects will have a total cost mnning into thousands of millions of dollars. They are essential for the defence of Australia and the new equipment must be acquired as soon as possible. On the Govemment's present program, we will probably see the APCs ordered next year and a further 2 000 uniformed servicemen lopped off the manning levels. By the time everything is ordered, if this is the way the Federal Govemment acts, we will not have any servicemen left to operate all of the new equipment. The Federal sociaUst Govemment is absolutely incompetent in defence matters. It has not yet been able even to order the five additional Fremantle patrol boats or to provide the three surveillance aircraft for Townsville or Caims, which its incompetent leader, Mr Hawke, announced in a policy speech in Febmary 1983. I note, too, from Mr Keating's Budget speech that the Govemment has done a complete ab6ut-face with the army reserve forces. After almost three years of trying to destroy this most capable and essential force by progressively eliminating all of the initiatives of the Fraser Government, which led to an increase in numbers and professionalism in this fine body of men, the socialists in Canberra have now announced that reserve numbers will be lifted. That will no doubt be achieved by reintroducing the Fraser Govemment's already discarded recmiting initiative. I question the Canberra socialists' sincerity in this, as in all other defence matters. I believe that the announcement about the army reserve will never be implemented. It is only a cosmetic announcement, as is so often used by the lot in Canberra, to dupe the public by offsetting their virtually treasonable action in decreasing the permanent forces by over 1 600. The money allocated in the Federal Budget is less than is required for the effective defence of Australia. The equipment acquisitions are less than those required for effective defence. The armed service manpower levels are less than those required for the effective defence of Australia. Everything required will cost money, I know, but that is available. All that is required is a reduction to reaUstic levels in the allocations to the cargo-cult areas of education, health, social security and similar places; the socialist Govemment to pull its sticky nose out of the many areas where it should not be involved; the Federal public service to be reduced to realistic levels—the 1971 figure would be far preferable to the 1981 figure—and the wasteful duplication of effort within and between Federal departments, and of Federal on State responsibilities, to be totally eliminated.

Priority Needs, Cairns Electorate Schools Mr De LACY (Caims) (11.49 p.m.): I place on record the priority needs of schools in the Caims electorate and request, in the strongest possible terms, that those priorities be addressed in the forthcoming Budget. The urgent needs revolve around three schools— Trinity Bay High School and the Woree and Hambledon primary schools. The Trinity Bay High School suffers from chronic overcrowding. In spite of the Woree High School opening this year, enrolments at the Trinity Bay High School were not significantly reduced, remaining in the vicinity of 1 570. It is doubtful whether the projected long-term enrolment of 1 200 will be reached this decade. 290 27 August 1985 Adjournment

I receive a constant stream of complaints about overcrowding, and these need to be addressed. At one stage, an advanced maths class was being held in makeshift accommodation below a class block adjacent to the major thoroughfare into the library. The three priority areas at the school are— A music or performing arts centre. This would do a great deal to overcome some of the more pressing overcrowding problems as well as provide a much- needed facility for the teaching of music. It would also recognise this school's great contribution to the development of music teaching for high-school-age students in Queensland. The domestic science block, which is virtually the same as that constmcted 25 years ago, is totally inadequate to service the needs of such a large school. The tuck-shop facilities are far too small to serve the number of children at Trinity Bay High School. The tuck-shop is the main source of p. and c. funds and for too long parents assisting in the tuck-shop have laboured under unnecessarily difficult conditions. Attention by the Queensland Govemment to these three urgent problems would overcome the immediate overcrowding at the Trinity Bay High School and the facilities would not become redundant when the enrolment decreased to the predicted number of 1200. The Woree primary school has been open for only five years. It was initially constmcted for an enrolment of approximately 300, and the covered play area was built with that number in mind. The current enrolment is 860. One hundred children attend the pre-school, and it is expected that enrolments will increase from 60 to 80 next year. The present covered play space is totally inadequate. I understand that a large number of letters have been sent by parents of children at the school to the Minister for Education, asking for an additional covered play area to be included in this year's Budget. Anger of the parents of schoolchildren has been fuelled by news that a new covered games area is to be constmcted at the North Caims school, which is a school with an enrolment of 400—a declining enrolment—and with immeasurably less need for such a facility. I cannot stress strongly enough the need for the department to respond to those requests. In many of the older schools with upstairs class-rooms, there will always be room for children to eat their lunch and have other recreational activities under cover. This is not so in some modern schools. I must further stress that in the hot, tropical, northem climates, covered play areas are not a luxury—they are a necessity. I have seen the children at the Woree School endeavour to eat their lunch in the one covered area. There is barely standing-room space. Letters dating back to 1978 are on file in my office in respect of the Hambledon primary school. In those letters both the Department of Education and the Department of Works outlined plans for a staged redevelopment of the school. That redevelopment has never taken place, and the parents at the school are at the end of their tether. Recently, the school was notified that the State Department of Works intends to spend more than $50,000 on general repairs and upgrading work at the school. That decision was met by disbelief by the parents. Although I understand that funds for repairs and upgrading come from a completely different vote from funds for capital works, I could well understand the fmstration as expressed by parents at that school. The repairs and upgrading, although welcome, are not nearly as urgently required as a covered games area, covered walkways and a tuck-shop. The present tuck-shop is a disgrace, and I table a letter from the health surveyor of the Mulgrave Shire Council which condemns the tuck-shop. I appreciate the attention of the State Department of Works in carrying out repair work. However, if the allocation of funds is used as an excuse not to carry out the more Adjoumment 27 August 1985 291 urgently requested works, I am afraid that parents, children and others in the area will be highly disillusioned. Parents of schoolchildren wiU interpret the absence of any of these much-needed facilities from the forthcoming Budget as discrimination against their children. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to.

Australia's National Debt Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (11.54 p.m.): I rise somewhat sadly in this Parliament tonight to draw the attention of honourable members to the gathering and threatening storm-clouds which have the potential to bring this nation of ours to its knees in the not-too-distant future. Without doubt this is the single most important issue confronting our nation today, and we, as Australians, ignore it at our peril. I refer, of course, to our staggering national debt. One might have expected that the devaluation of Australia's currency would set the stage for massive export benefits. One might also have expected that overseas buyers would be falling over themselves to buy Australian produce at bargain-basement currency rates. Latest trade figures provide, however, depressing confirmation of the fact that Australians are not enjoying such benefits. On the contrary, exports fell drastically on virtually every front and we succeeded in posting a record trade deficit. In July, our trade deficit was $465m. Our exports actually fell by 6 per cent to $2.762m. Meanwhile, our imports actually jumped by 15 per cent to the alarming figure of $3,227m. And guess who was mainly to blame? Honourable members may have guessed, correctly, that it was the Hawke socialist Govemment in Canberra. The Federal Government, in what seems a macabre set of circumstances, unleashed an orgy of imports to prop up its position. That is absurd on the part of the Hawke Govemment. I remind the House that our net foreign indebtedness is increasing at the rate of over $10 billion per year. It is expected that our nation will soon be burdened with a Latin-American-sized debt of about $80 billion, thus placing us in the same league as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. An interesting article appeared in The Sunday Mail of 25 August 1985. On page 26 I noticed an article on retiring President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Just one year ago, the article said, he addressed the Organisation of African Unity at its meeting in Addis Ababa. He told the conference, "Africa owes $US150 billion (that is, $215 bUlion Australian)", as its total debt. I hope honourable members noted that Africa owes $A215 bilUon. Now, Africa comprises Algeria, Botswana, the Cameroons, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, the Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Transkei, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe and other nations. Their combined debt is $A215 bUlion—only three times Austalia's debt. Heaven forbid! Australia owes one-third of Africa's debt! I seem to recall having read that the Hawke Govemment alone accounted for 29 per cent of that total. By way of interest I point out that Australia played host, recently, to V. Afansiev, editor-in-chief of the Communist newspaper Pravda and a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. In his report to his Russian comrades, Mr Afansiev said that Australia has many serious problems, and pointed to our trade deficit, which he described as "huge" Further, he specifically pointed to our national debt and said that Australia was living on credit and plunging into massive indebtedness. If the Hawke socialists will not listen to the alarm bells being sounded by concemed Australians, maybe they will listen to their comrade Afansiev from the USSR. He is saying much the same thing. 292 27 & 28 August 1985 Adjoumment

Application to Create City of Thuringowa Mr McELLIGOTT (Townsville) (11.59 p.m.): The immortal words, "I have Hinzey on side," uttered by the member for Aspley on television last night, appear to sum up the way in which local govemment decisions are made in this State today. I will refer tonight particularly to the proposition to make Thuringowa shire a separate city. I do not wish to debate the proposition itself because nobody has put forward any of the arguments that are supposed to justify that decision. If, indeed, there are advantages in having two cities situated side by side, I am not aware of them. I certainly appreciate that cities such as Sydney and Melboume virtually have a number of cities within them. However, Queensland has always rejected that proposition and argued that the Brisbane City Council represents one of the best examples of local govemment in the world. A move coming out of the blue, as it has, to create the situation where two cities will exist side by side, ought to be the subject of considerable public debate. That has not happened with the Thuringowa proposition.

Wednesday, 28 August 1985 What in fact has happened is that the chairman of the shire council and the Minister for Local Govemment, in collusion, have made a decision which, in my opinion, is based on straight-out party political pay-back. It relates back to an agreement by the shire chairman to try to win a seat at the last State election and to direct his second preferences to the National Party. The role of the shire chairman in this matter leaves something to be desired. He is quoted in the Townsville Bulletin as saying that the only discussion on the matter took place on 22 July between himself and the Minister. He said— "Mr Minister, my council has made application to you for recognition of city status. Are you prepared to submit our application to Cabinet?" The Minister replied— "As your shire complies fully with the criteria laid down, yes, I will take it to Cabinet." It is straight out of the television program Yes Minister. On 6 July, a discussion took place between the Minister and Councillor Gleeson. This was reported to a public meeting by Councillor Brabon, who is a member of the National Party. The discussion was reported in The Courier-Mail on 7 July. It appears that the shire chairman conveniently forgot about the discussion. Obviously what will happen is that, after a small advertisement was inserted once in the Townsville Bulletin calling for objections, the Govemment will declare Thuringowa shire a city. An article in the Townsville Bulletin headed "Rush starts for city status", states— "State Cabinet would make Thuringowa shire a city almost immediately after the objection period closed on August 28, the Minister for Local Govemment, Mr Hinze, said last night." The article goes on to quote the Minister for Northem Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs (Mr Katter), who ought to be concerned about good local govemment in north Queensland. He said— "Thuringowa has a separate image, and I can see not a single reason why the application should be opposed." I challenge the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, or any other Minister for that matter, to take me and show me where Thuringowa city is. I suggest that none of them would know where the westem suburbs of Townsville Adjoumment 27 & 28 August 1985 293 become the present Thuringowa shire. I challenge them to show me the sort of city- based facUities that exist in the area that would support the creation of Thuringowa shire as a city. I am aware that there are no legal definitions of a city. I understand that some time ago Cabinet determined that any indentifiable area with a population base of 15 000 or more could be declared a city. General community expectations would demand more than that of a city. Thuringowa shire is a developing area, as are the Mulgrave shire and the Pioneer shire. They are two examples that come to mind in which the population of a city has overgrown the boundaries and moved into the adjacent shires. There is no problem with that. If this is to be a precedent for the establishment of more cities, particularly in close proximity one to the other, there should be informed debate about it. In answer to a question that I asked at a public meeting, the shire chairman indicated that the Department of Local Government supported the concept. Under further questioning, he admitted that he had had a telephone conversation with an unnamed member of the staff of the Department of Local Govemment. That is not good enough. This is the most major local govemment decision to be made in Queensland for many years. Surely it deserves wide community debate. Instead, it has followed the course that was followed to introduce the ward system into a number of cities in Queensland. That decision was made for purely party political reasons. It was imposed on the people without their having an opportunity to consult and without any public demand. Time expired. Irradiation of Fruit for Export Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (12.4 a.m.): The subject that I wish to raise tonight concems the potential for increasing the sale overseas of mangoes and fmit generally by the use of irradiation. Mr Davis interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: The babbling brook is off straight away. He immediately conjures up ideas of the use of atomic energy. Nothing could be further from the tmth. It is important to understand the difference between the electron beam machine and the cobalt 60 technique, which many people are pushing. The electron beam machine can be used to irradiate fmit. Mangoes can be moved along a conveyor belt past a beam without being subject to the X-ray mode of the machine. For that system, a conveyor belt would have to be set up in such a way that it rolls the fmit over and treats both sides. Alternatively, the machine can be used on its X-ray mode, treating the fmit from one side only. Mangoes are probably the best example. It has been predicted that, by 1995, the very large increases in plantings that have taken place will produce a crop of 100 000 tonnes of mangoes. It must be considered what can be done with that fmit. If the mangoes are treated with the electron beam machine, producers will be able to export the mangoes to overseas markets, so that the fmit will appear in the shops and on the streets of New York, the cities in England and those in Europe. There is an enormous potential for such a market. One can imagine a beautiful Queensland mango for sale in the middle of winter in some of those countries. It has been suggested that the electron beam machine is not the way to go, and that the cobalt 60 machine would be more useful. I make it very clear that it has been proved to me by the technology itself and by the experts that the cobalt 60 machine is not capable of treating fmit in a standard 46-inch pallet. It cannot be done, and the technical articles make that clear. The electron beam machine is a much better proposition. It is important that the potential of this technique be fully utilised. It can be shown, by comparison, that the cobalt 60 machine is only capable of irradiating 16 to 20 tonnes 294 27 & 28 August 1985 Adjoumment of mangoes an hour. If one considers that 60 000 tonnes of the projected crop will be treated, it will take 5.4 months to treat that fmit. As all honourable members are aware, the mango season lasts only about three months, and the time needed by that technique would create problems. Mr Scott: How many mangoes are grown in your electorate? Mr ELLIOTT: None. This new technique has relevance for all types of fmit and vegetables, and people should be open-minded about it. I believe that this process will so extend the shelf-life of fmit that it will be possible not only to export more fmit overseas, but also to create a greater potential to put mangoes on the streets of the southem cities of this nation. Because more fmit will be exported, the air freight situation out of Australia will need to be impoved. At the moment, the number of cargo planes is insufficient. If the potential is to be fully utilised, Qantas and the Federal Govemment must get up and mn with the industry. Mr De Lacy: You want the Federal Govemment to help you? Mr ELLIOTT: I hope that the honourable member will support this venture, because he represents an area in which mangoes are grown. Time expired. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. The House adjoumed at 12.9 a.m. (Wednesday).