Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 1986

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statements 12 March 1984 4027

WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 1986

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

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Australia Acts (Request) Act From Mr Simpson (24 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will repeal the Australia Acts (Request) Act and allow a referendum in terms of the Queensland Constitution. [A similar petition was received from Mr Cahill (20 signatories).] Griffith University Course in Family Relationships From Mr Muntz (29 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will establish an inquiry into the Griffith University course in family relationships. [Similar petitions were received from Mr McPhie (14 signatories) and Mr Cahill (14 signatories),] Coronary Care Unit, Cairns Base Hospital From Mr De Lacy (558 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to overcome shortage of staff at the Coronary Care Unit at the Caims Base Hospital. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Regulations under the Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949-1985.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Overseas Adoptions Hon. Y. A. CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers—Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs) (11.2 a.m.), by leave: I feel obliged to bring to the notice of honourable members and the public of Queensland a matter that has caused me a great deal of concera in the few weeks since I became Minister responsible for adoptions in this State. I speak of what appears to be an increasing trend by couples to make their own arrangements and adopt children in foreign countries, ignoring the procedures of the Department of Children's Services. Obviously, most of those people are well meaning and desperate to have a child. Although I can fully understand their feelings, I would be failing in my duty if I did not wara them and others of the risks that they are taking. In the last few weeks, some tragic cases have come to my attention. In one instance, two women are virtually stranded in a Latin American country with three children aged 6'/2 years, IVi years and 8 months. The women have been there for over three months and their husbands in Queensland are, understandably, almost at their wits' end. They told me that they moved their residential address to Victoria temporarily because they 4028 12 March 1984 Ministerial Statements were under the impression that it was easier and quicker under Victorian laws to adopt from overseas. The wives went to the foreign country and arranged custody of three children but, in the interim, found that the Victorian authorities would not support adoption. The Commonwealth Minister has the power to issue visas for the children to enter Australia under his guardianship. However, it has long been Commonwealth Goverament policy that visas should be issued to children only in intercountry adoption cases where— the overseas adoption order would be likely of recognition in the State/Territory of residence of the adoptive parents; or the adoption proposal is supported by the State/Territory child welfare authority. I am advised that all States agree with that policy. As the parents in the instance to which I have referred had not been assessed by the Department of Children's Services, there is no way that a guarantee of adoption could have been given. The families have therefore put themselves into a very difficult and expensive situation, having taken custody of the children but not being able to get them back into Australia. Other cases of this type have been brought to my notice and I believe that I should issue the strongest possible waraing to anyone else who might be contemplating similar action. Unfortunately there is no short-cut in foreign adoptions, and the correct, well-established procedures must be followed to avoid any possible malpractices and to safeguard the interest of all parties. There are very good reasons why all States of Australia have agreed that couples must be approved for adoption in Australia and that they must work through authorised agencies in Australia. Those reasons include the need to ensure that any child offered in a foreign country is, in fact, available for adoption. By that, I mean that the chUd has not been stolen from his or her parents, or bought from his or her parents. I have it on good authority that children are offered for sale in some countries and that organised groups of people use deception to take children away from their parents for their subsequent sale to, or so-called adoption by, foreigners. Another very compelling reason is that, when the child finally returas to Australia, the couple must be certain that they have legal custody of the child. If that does not happen, it is possible that a relative of the child in the foreign country from which he or she came could use interaational law governing child abduction to seek the child's retum. In addition, from Australia's point of view, it is important to be sure that couples who adopt children from foreign countries do so for the right reasons and that children in their care will not be exploited or abused. That may sound a littie unhkely, but I can say with assurance that my department has ample evidence to show that, where Children are involved, not everybody's interests and intentions are honourable. The procedures that have been laid down for intercountry adoptions are laid down for the very good purpose of protecting the interests of children and the couples who seek to adopt them. I can assure all honourable members that Queensland, in no way, will be associated with shonky deals involving children. I would urge any couple considering adopting a child or children from a foreign country to work through the only recognised adoption agency in this State, that is, the Department of Children's Services. I feel I should point out also, in conclusion, that Queensland children with special needs are available for adoption. Some are physically or intellectually handicapped. Couples who are contemplating adopting a child from overseas could be interested in helping those children, whose special needs require very special parents.

Recruitment of Teachers Overseas Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (11.8 a.m.), by leave: I refer to an article that appeared in today's edition of The Courier-Mail, headed "Teacher Import Plans Blocked". It has been necessary for my department to recmit up to 60 Ministerial Statements 12 March 1984 4029 teachers in connection with the additional allocation of $ 10m for technical and fiirther education purposes. Mr De Lacy: Shame! Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Caims called out "Shame!" Obviously he is unconcerned about the tourist industry in this State. I should think that, coming from where he does, he would be more interested in it than in his own political aspirations. As required by the immigration process, discussions have been held with represen­ tatives of the Professional Officers Association. However, the association has been adamant that it will not agree to my department's request unless certain conditions are met. I am sure that the Parliament will be interested in these conditions— (a) A renegotiation of the salary scales payable to technical teachers in TAFE. The union has been advised in discussions that that is not possible as salary rates are set by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The next condition is— (b) That the Department of Education increases its Beginning Teacher Program in TAFE. The union has been advised that, even if this were possible and funds were available to increase the program, graduates from this two-year course would not be avaUable in time to meet the teaching needs that are immediate and not able to be postponed. The conditions that the union wishes to place upon this Goverament are intolerable and totally restrictive. The last condition is— (c) Consideration of the employment of present part-time teachers. The union was invited to provide a list of such teachers who would be prepared to serve wherever required in the colleges of TAFE. After some delay, a short list of six names was provided, and that list has been referred to the director of TAFE. However, by and large, part-time teachers are not teacher-trained in the sense of having completed a recognised teacher-preparation course. 1 am advised that it is now possible to appeal against the refiisal of the union to bring in teachers from overseas. With this in view, one selected nomination for a teacher to meet the needs of this program has been submitted to the Commonwealth authorities. I understand from a radio news broadcast that that request has been refused. I object strongly to having to get that sort of information from a radio news broadcast. The relevant Federal Minister did not even have the courtesy to write to my department. I will now be writing to the Federal authorities to overmle the objections of the Professional Officers Association on the ground of the needs of students. Obviously, the association is not interested in the students. I am further advised that the Professional Officers Association has written to the Federal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to advise him that it wishes to object strongly to our proposal to recmit teachers from overseas. I believe it is possible that the question asked in the Federal House yesterday arose from that correspondence. It is interesting that a member of the Federal Parliament had that correspondence long before the relevant Minister in this State. Advertisements have been placed throughout Australia and New Zealand seeking teachers with the necessary expertise and training, but the advertisement process has not been successful. In fact, in the last 12 months, only six teachers from interstate were recmited by this process. I am disappointed that Opposition members are too busy yapping to listen to what I am saying. I said that only six teachers have been recmited by that process, and 60 teachers are needed. It is proposed to proceed with every effort to recmit from overseas the necessary number of teachers with the appropriate expertise. To this end, approval has been given 4030 12 March 1984 Personal Explanation for Mr Sielaff of the Division of TAFE to proceed overseas to interview apphcants for positions. Advertisements have been placed in the appropriate overseas newspapers and joumals to facilitate his visit. This is yet another example of the centralist socialist Labor Party's attempting to fmstrate the Queensland Govemment in preparing students to take advantage of jobs that are available in the community. I hope that all honourable members support this Govemment in its efforts to create more employment by having trained people in the hospitality industry.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion that would allow the Minister for National Parks (Mr McKechnie) to receive parliamentary instmction to withdraw the revocation order on Lindeman Island. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 36 NOES, 43 Braddy Scott Ahem Lester Bums Shaw Alison Lingard Campbell Smith Austin Littleproud Casey Underwood Bailey McKechnie Comben Vaughan Bjelke-Petersen McPhie D'Arcy Veivers Booth Menzel De Lacy Warburton Borbidge Miller Eaton Wamer, A. M. Cahill Muntz Fouras White Chapman Newton Goss Wilson Clauson Powell Gygar Yewdale Cooper Randell Hamill Elliott Row Innes FitzGerald Simpson Knox Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kruger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Hartwig Wharton McEUigott Harvey McLean Henderson Milliner Tellers: Jennings Tellers: Palaszczuk Davis Katter Kaus Price Prest Lane Neal Resolved in the negative.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (11.20 a.m.), by leave: In a question that appears in today's Notices of Questions, the honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) asks whether any Minister of this Government or any member of this House has a share-holding in the Moran Health Care Group or previously held a share-holding in that group. I understand that the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying intends to answer the question to the effect that he is not aware of any such share-holding. As a hospital belonging to the group is situated in my electorate and is named after my wife, who has for some years been president of the North Caloundra Health Care Auxiliary, it may have been constmed that I had such a share-holding. I do not have, and never have had, such a share-holding in the Moran Health Care Group, nor has my wife or any member of my family. Indeed, to my knowledge, no member of this House has any share-holding in the group concemed. Suspension of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders 12 March 1984 4031

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Hon. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (11.22 a.m.): In view of the extent of public opinion, as demonstrated in the Channel 7 poll, which showed that 72 per cent of Queenslanders are against the proposal to revoke the Lindeman Island national park and that only 12 per cent are in favour of it, and in view of the statements attributed to Goverament back-benchers that they do not personally support the revocation, I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders " Mr WHARTON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is making a speech. He has not sought leave or anything else. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the debate of a motion " A Government Member: We haven't given him leave, Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: I am moving for a suspension. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Nundah seeking leave? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Under the provisions of the Standing Orders, I am seeking a suspension of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. "—that the House requires the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts to withdraw the notice of revocation of a large portion of the Lindeman Island national park." Mr SPEAKER: Is the member for Nundah seeking leave of the House to move this motion? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I have sought leave of the House to suspend the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 36 NOES, 43 Braddy Scott Ahem Lester Bums Shaw Alison Lingard Campbell Smith Austin Littleproud Casey Underwood Bailey McKechnie Comben Vaughan Bjelke-Petersen McPhie D'Arcy Veivers Booth Menzel De Lacy Warburton Borbidge MUler Eaton Wamer, A. M. Cahill Muntz Fouras White Chapman Newton Goss Wilson Clauson Powell Gygar Yewdale Cooper Randell HamiU Elliott Row Innes FitzGerald Simpson Knox Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kmger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Hartwig Wharton McEUigott Harvey McLean Henderson Milliner Tellers: Jennings Tellers: Palaszczuk Davis Katter Kaus Price Prest Lane Neal Resolved in the negative. 4032 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

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

1. Totalisator Administi-ation Board Agency, Mount Gravatt Mr WARBURTON asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to the fact that, prior to the revelations conceraing the credit-betting activities of Sir Edward Lyons at the Holland Park Totalisator Administration Board agency, an interaal audit at the Mount Gravatt TAB agency found a shortage of funds, a situation that resulted in the sacking of the agent— (1) Will he verify that the shortage of funds was caused by credit-betting activities? (2) Did the then TAB chairman (Sir Edward Lyons) take it upon himself to deal personally with the dismissal of the Mount Gravatt TAB agent? (3) Was the person who indulged in the credit-betting none other than the former TAB chairman (Sir Edward Lyons)? Answer— (1) I am advised there was no evidence of credit-betting—none at all. (2) I am advised that the agent concemed resigned; he was not dismissed. (3) See (1).

2. Dual-gauge Railway Link to Port of Brisbane Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the increased tonnages of grain, cotton and other commodities for export through the port of Brisbane— What consideration has been given to the provision of a dual-gauge rail-link to Fisherman Islands? Answer— The raUway route selected for an altemative connection to the port at Fisherman Islands will ensure that its standard is compatible with the design track and stmcture requirements of a standard-gauge or dual-gauge railway. Discussions between railway engineers and the Brisbane City Council are continuing in an endeavour to find a route that satisfies this criterion and also minimises dismption to the community. Increases in the movement of primary exports, such as grain containerised commodities, cotton and coal from the nearby West Moreton field, are now handled on a congested suburban route. Although the State Govemment is convinced of the need for the new route, the Federal Govemment has been reluctant to commit funds to the proposal. The source of funding for this important rail link is unresolved, I will keep the Parliament informed on the issue as negotiations progress.

3. Reduced Fuel Prices Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs— With reference to the drop in the world price of oil and the announced intention to reduce the price of fuel— (1) What benefits can motorists expect from the reduction both in the short term and long term? (2) When can primary producers and users of off-road fuel expect to benefit from the announced 10.1c a litre reduction in the price of distillate? Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4033 Answer— (1) The Queensland Govemment has made a submission to the Prices Surveillance Authority seeking a fiill flow-on of the reduction in the world parity price of oU—and, I might add, not additional tax—which would result in the wholesale price of petroleum fuels being reduced by the total of 10.6c a litre. The authority is currently meeting in Melboume to determine the new wholesale price for petrol that it wiU recommend to the Federal Govemment. Mr Davis interjected, Mr LESTER: Isn't the honourable member for Brisbane Central interested in the price of fuel being reduced? Answer (continued)— If Queensland's submission is accepted, motorists will benefit in the short term by a larger reduction in petrol prices than has been mooted in the press. However, if the Federal Govemment does not honour its previous undertakings, the Australian motorist will not benefit to the full extent of the reduction in the world parity price of oil. It is scandalous that oil parity pricing arrangements have been subjected to certain price drops throughout the world, yet that benefit will not be passed on to Australian motorists. It really is a despicable action by the Federal Goverament. In the long term, subject to any additional raw material or refining costs adding to petrol prices, there will be a beneficial effect on the level of the Consumer Price Index. If the price of cmde oil continues to fall on the world market, Australia should expect further reductions in the price of petrol at the pump, provided the Federal Govemment meets its moral obligations and there are no new compensating costs. Again, it must be remembered that a certain promise was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before he was elected. The Prime Minister said that he would cut the price of fuel by 3c a litre. However, the Federal Labor Govemment does not seem to like honouring its promises. Opposition Members interjected. Mr LESTER: It is clear that members of the Opposition are worried about it because they know that they have been double-crossed by their leader. Answer (continued)— (2) It is understood that the Prices SurveiUance Authority will be recommending to the Federal Goverament that, in determining the new prices for distillate and diesel fuels, world parity pricing be the criterion on which prices are based and that the full benefit of the announced reduction in the world parity price of cmde oil be passed on to primary producers and others. The actual date for commencement of the expected reduced prices should be announced by the Federal Govemment within the next week, if motorists are lucky. They will have to wait and see.

4. Files, Fertility Confrol Clinics Mr GOSS asked the Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General— With reference to widespread public concem over the seizure of patient files from fertility control clinics in Brisbane and Townsville in May 1985 and in relation to those files which were seized and later retumed— (1) WUl he give a clear assurance to this House and to the thousands of Queensland women involved that those files have not been photocopied, apart from those copied in connection with court proceedings? 4034 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(2) Will he give a fiirther assurance that details of the information recorded on those files has not been kept by any Govemment agency in either documentary form or on computer records? Answer— (1 & 2) At all times, I have been very conceraed about the aspect of confidentiality. In conjunction with the police, 1 caused rigid security measures to be instituted, with the result that a very limited number of persons, who were given strict instmctions to maintain confidentiality of the files, were allowed access to them. Pohce officers conceraed have given the assurance that, apart from the records that were copied for the purpose of proceedings in court, no copies were retained and no information obtained from them has been compiled. So far as my portfolio is conceraed, records supplied to the court registry were in sealed envelopes attached to affidavits and were not available for public scmtiny,

5. MaraUnga Pty Ltd Mr GOSS asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— With reference to my letter to him dated 30 October 1985 (which I tabled) wherein I complained about the failure of his department to investigate or prosecute Marahnga Pty Ltd in respect of breaches of Queensland legislation, in particular section 54 of the Forestry Act, and further to the evidence and witnesses referred to in that letter— (1) Why has he failed to keep his promise, on 1 November 1985, to reply to my letter? (2) Does his failure to reply as promised indicate that the evidence of illegal activities by Maralinga Pty Ltd is to be ignored? (3) Have certain interaal Forestry Department records, including reports on Mar- alinga's activities on the Coomera River island, been destroyed? (4) If not, where are those reports now held and will he table the same in this House to reassure the public that the complaints have been investigated? Answer— (1 to 4) There has been no breach of the Queensland Land Act by Maralinga Pty Ltd. Reference is made to my statements of 28 and 30 October 1985, which I table. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table. As the honourable member no doubt knows, it was my desire to undertake a personal inspection of the small unnamed island in the Coomera River involved in this matter before responding to the question that he had raised. This inspection was recentiy undertaken. From my investigations, 1 am of the opinion that the disturbance of a section of the small unnamed island was aimed at improving the stability of the island. There is no evidence of intention to defraud the Crown by removal of the material for sale or other gain. The honourable member's claims have been thoroughly investigated and have not been ignored. Interaal Department of Forestry records relating to this matter have not been destroyed. These reports are safely held within my department. It is not my intention to table these reports in the House. Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4035

6. Funding for Road Consfruction Mr COOPER asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to the assertion that funding for mral local and mral arterial roads appears to have been reduced up to and including the 1989-90 year by significant levels (in 1986 dollar terms)— (1) What is the envisaged program break-down of expenditure for the Australian Land Transport Program for 1986-87 and for the ensuing years through to the end of the agreement as it pertains to Queensland? (2) As a result of this program, have funds for road constmction been reduced and, if so, by what level? (3) Will fiindsfro m this program be used for any purpose other than road constmction? (4) If so, what percentage will be used for other purposes? (5) What will be the effect of the cessation of the Australian Bi-centenial Road Development Program on road-funding programs, with particular reference to 1988-89 and 1989-90, which are presently being given to local authorities as guides for forward budgeting? Answer— (1) The expected allocations to Queensland under the Australian Land Transport Program for 1986-87 are approximately $35m for mral arterial roads and $43m for local roads. The Act provides for indexation based on the Consumer Price Index for the remaining three years to 1989-90. However, the distribution among States and among categories for these years may be varied up to 10 per cent by the Commonwealth Minister following an inquiry which is at present in progress at the instigation of the Commonwealth. (2) Under the Australian Land Transport Program, Commonwealth funding to Queensland was reduced by about $17m in real terms for 1985-86. Although indexation has been introduced, this annual shortfall will remain for the duration of the Act. (3 & 4) There is provision in the Australian Land Transport Program for national roads funds to be spent on main line rail at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister and similarly for mral arterial road funding to be used also on main line rail at the option of the State Minister, Neither of these altematives has been exercised yet. (5) The ABRD allocation to Queensland for road constmction is at present about $90m per year. Should the program terminate without replacement at the end of 1988, this loss would be disasterous and would affect Queensland's road-funding considerably. My Govemment will do all it can to ensure the ABRD program is replaced by a Commonwealth Roads Grants Act of at least equal value to this State,

7. Mr D. B. Freeman Mr UNDERWOOD asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police— With reference to a two-car collision on the Rosewood-Amberley Road at 9 p.m, on 15 Febmary, in which two people were killed and three injured as reported in The Queensland Times of 17 Febmary— (1) Was the car driven by Daryl Brian Freeman, the surviving driver, at high speed on the wrong side of the curving road and was Freeman the subject of a police chase that evening? (2) If so, at what speeds were the police car and Freeman's car travelling? (3) When and where did the police chase start? (4) For what reason was Freeman being chased? (5) How many police officers and vehicles were involved in the chase? 4036 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Answer— (1 to 5) The Commissioner of Police has informed me that Daryl Brian Freeman has been charged with an offence of dangerous driving causing death as a result of his involvement in the traffic accident at Amberley on 15 Febmary 1986, and the matter has been stood over for mention to the Magistrates Court, Ipswich, on 23 May 1986. Inquiries have failed to indicate that he was the subject of a police chase that evening, although police were in the area at the time the accident occurred,

8. Tarong Power Station Mr UNDERWOOD asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the Tarong Power Station and power generation there— (1) Is extra water required? (2) If so, will another pipeline be required to pipe the extra water? (3) Where will this extra water come from? (4) What is the estimated cost of this upgrading? (5) What has caused the necessity for the extra water? (6) WiU the water be mixed with the coal into a slurry and go into the boilers' fiimaces as a means of overcoming the damage caused by the buming of the low-grade coal? (7) How much extra water is required? (8) When will the upgrading start and be completed? Answer— (1) No. (2 to 8) Not applicable.

9. Warning Devices, Railway Crossings Mr NEWTON asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the improvement in the protection at railway level crossings with boom gates and flashing lights, and to the fact that there are still many level crossings with only waming signs exhibited— How many level crossings are provided annually with these improved waraing devices and what funds are allocated for this purpose? Answer— There is a continuing program of joint Main Roads Department and Queensland Railways funding to provide flashing lights and boom gates at level crossings throughout the State. In addition, contributions have been made through local authorities, mining and electrification projects as well as by private companies. In all, 48 level crossings were equipped with these waming devices during the three years to 30 June 1985, at a cost of almost $l,5m. Assessed on priorities established with the Main Roads Department, a further 12 crossings are proposed to be provided with this equipment during the 1985-1986 financial year, with an additional expenditure of about $400,000 to be funded jointly by the two Govemment departments. A program for provision of these installations will be continued while the need exists, having regard to the funds that can be made available each year. Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4037

10. Electrification, Pefrie-Caboolture Railway Line Mr NEWTON asked the Minister for Transport— (1) What progress has been made towards the completion of the electrification of the railway hne from Petrie to Caboolture? (2) When will electric train services be introduced? Answer— (1 & 2) Work is proceeding satisfactorily. AU contract works are completed, as are the track deviations. Constmction of the new Caboolture River Bridge is complete, following the removal of the old stmcture. The overbridges at King Street and Morayfield are also basically completed, except for some minor works. Work is well advanced on the erection of overhead equipment, while the supply of other essential items, including transformers and switchgear, is progressing. Associated with this work was the constmction of a new railway station and foot­ bridge at Caboolture, which was completed during October 1985. The whole project is planned for completion by June 1986 to enable the commencement of operation of electric train services.

11. Aboriginal Land Rights Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to the decision by the Federal Govemment to abandon its policies regarding Aboriginal land rights— Has he received advice that the Federal Govemment is prepared to recognise the Queensland deed of grant in tmst method of establishing Aboriginal rights to land tenure? Answer— Not unexpectedly, no formal advice has been received from the Commonwealth Govemment recognising Queensland's deeds of grant in tmst as the most rational means of transferring control of former Aboriginal reserves in Queensland to the Aboriginal communities. If recent media reports are correct—they suggest that the reason for the Commonwealth's withdrawal from its irrational commitment to Aboriginal land rights was that the States have effectively resolved the issue—I can only assume that Queensland's pre-eminence in providing the best possible arrangement was instmmental in forcing the Commonwealth's withdrawal.

12. Plan N.P.W. 201, Lindeman Island Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— With reference to his statement accompanying the document laid on the table of this House and to those documents relative to a proposal for a revocation of part of national park 274 on Lindeman Island as shown on plan N.P.W, 201 prepared by the Department of Mapping and Surveying and deposited in the office of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife— At what time and on what date was this said plan N,P,W. 201 so lodged and first available for public scmtiny? Answer— The date of preparation of plan N,P,W, 201 by the Department of Mapping and Surveying was 17 Febmary 1986. The original is held by the Director, National Parks 4038 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice and Wildlife Service, and copies were available for public inspection at the Brisbane office of the service at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, 4 March' 1986.

13. Importation of Nickel from New Caledonia Mr McELLIGOTT asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to a proposal by Metals Exploration (Qld) Pty Ltd and Freeport Queensland Nickel Inc. to import approximately 1.5 miUion wet tonnes of nickel per year from New Caledonia for treatment at Yabulu processing plant and, in particular, to one of the alternative proposals being considered, namely, to constmct a jetty and conveyor system from the Yabulu plant into Halifax Bay— (1) Where is it proposed to dump the substantial quantity of spoil that will result from developmental and maintenance dredging of the 3.3 km channel necessary for the operation? (2) What will be the effect on nearby residential areas of the noise generated by the unloading and the conveyor belt, especially at night? (3) What arrangements will be made to handle ships' garbage and spillage both at the jetty head and while traversing the Great Barrier Reef marine park? (4) Is it expected that there will be any spUlage of product during unloading or from the conveyor belt? (5) How is it proposed to finance the $53m cost of constmction, given the ongoing financial difficulties of Queensland Nickel? (6) Have any representations been made to the Goverament to favour the Halifax Bay proposal over the alteraative of importing the ore through the existing port of Townsville because of concem over possible detrimental effects on the nearby Breakwater Island Casino? Answer— (1 to 6) The Greenvale joint-venture partners are examining the possibility of importing nickel ore to be processed at the Yabulu nickel treatment plant. That would preserve an important industry and the employment it provides in north Queensland for many years ahead, even after the Greenvale ore body has been mined out. One option being considered is the importation of ore through a new port facility on Halifax Bay involving a dredged channel, jetty and conveyor system. The altemative option under consideration is the importation of the nickel ore through the port of Townsville and subsequent transport by rail to Yabulu. A feasibility study, which will include a detailed evaluation of the two importation options, is under way but is not yet complete. An environmental impact assessment of the proposals will also be required in accordance with normal Goverament policy. All relevant technical, commercial and environmental conceras will therefore be canvassed and appropriately resolved before a final decision is taken on the ore importation proposal.

14. General Purpose Grants to Local Authorities Mr LINGARD asked the acting Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing— With reference to the many representations that the Logan City Council has made for special consideration under the Local Goverament Grants Commission— (1) Has the Commonwealth Government considered a change in the method of calculating the total amount of general purpose grants made available to local authorities through the Local Goverament Grants Commission? (2) If this is so, are local authorities in Queensland likely to benefit financially by the new arrangements? Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4039

Answer— (1 & 2) For the current financialyear , the Commonwealth has reduced the percentage of personal income tax made available to local authorities throughout Austraha from 2 per cent to approximately 1.8 per cent. The final impact of that reduction wiU not be known until the release of the March quarter Consumer Price Index, However, it is estimated that that reduction wiU cost Queensland local authorities about $9m. In addition to the forementioned decrease, the Commonwealth is currentiy considering the recommendations of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. The inquiry has recommended a move from a revenue-sharing grant to a financial-assistance grant. Such a move represents a fundamental change to the present arrangements and has the potential for creating greater uncertainty about the size of fiiture grants. The Queensland Goverament has indicated to the Commonwealth that it opposes that recommendation and has reaffirmed its submission to the inquiry that, in view of the expanding role of local goverament, the grant should revert to 2 per cent of personal income tax collections and increase to 2.25 per cent and then 2.5 per cent over two years. Of particiUar concera to Queensland is the inquiry's recommendation that, if it is not possible for State shares of the grant for passing-on to local goverament to be reassessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the grant should be allocated on the basis of population. Queensland strenuously opposes such a move as it would reduce the amount of funds made available to Queensland local authorities and would ignore the special requirements and difficulties under which local authorities in this State operate, such as distance, sparsity of population and other significant geographic and social factors not encountered in the more highly populated southera States.

15. Computerised Catalogue System, State Library Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts- Is the State Library of Queensland taking advantage of the advanced technology in the area of a computerised catalogue system and, if so, wiU this be avaUable to local authority libraries? Answer— The State Library of Queensland has developed the ORACLE automated Ubrary system, which handles cataloguing, ordering and registration of books on loan. It is possibly the best total library system produced in Australia and comparable to any in the world. The ORACLE system can be used by other libraries, as is evidenced by its sale to a Canadian university library. The Queensland Performing Arts Tmst has recentiy become the first statutory authority to use the system. The State Library will shortly be placing computer terminals in the reference Ubrary and the John Oxley Library, which are situated in the WUliam Street buUding. They wiU aUow visitors to search the catalogues more easUy and efficiently than the present microfiche and card catalogues. It is proposed to extend the service beyond the State Library in the near fiiture. A conversion assistance scheme is available to local authorities virtually free of charge to establish a computerised catalogue system. The State Library is also continuing the microfilming of Queensland newspapers and periodicals, and in 1984-85 it distributed microfiche sets of genealogical materials to 23 local authorities. A fiirther 25 local authorities wiU receive material, for pubUc use, in 1985-86. The State Library also routinely uses Australian and overseas computerised data bases in making information available to the public. 4040 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

16. Temperature of Milk Transported in Bulk Containers Mr KRUGER asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) What is the highest acceptable temperature for milk transported in bulk tankers? (2) Is he aware that milk is arriving at the Logan and Albert Co-operative at temperatures ranging between 12°C and 18°C? (3) For what purpose is that milk used? Answer— (1) The temperature of milk when coUected from a dairy farm should be at a temperature of 6°C or lower. The temperature in a tanker should not at any time exceed TC. (2) The department is aware of current problems relative to the quahty of miUc being forwarded to Logan and Albert Co-operative Dairy Association Limited and has required the factory to impose the required penalty standard on unsatisfactory supphes. This month, mUk from two properties totalUng approximately 3 700 litres was condemned because of unhygienic production. In a recent four-day survey at Logan and Albert Co­ operative Dairy Association Limited, two tankers out of 14 were found to be above the required standard, one being 10°C on 13 Febmary 1986 and the other on 14 Febmary 1986 being 7.5°C. The Director of Dairying and Fisheries issued a letter on 26 Febmary 1986 to all tanker-drivers throughout Queensland about mUk temperature at pick-up, and Logan and Albert drivers have responded by adjusting pick-up times to aUow for more cooling time on the farm. (3) All of the milk at Logan and Albert is chUled to TC on arrival. Some is used for the manufacture of milk products and some is shipped to Brisbane for market milk purposes. 17. Maroochydore Shoppingtown Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology— With reference to the poor treatment that tenants at Maroochydore Shoppingtown are experiencing and the lack of concem expressed by Presmada Ltd in resolving the severe economic hardship to which tenants have been subjected— (1) Is he aware that, despite the good intentions and efforts of Mr W. M. Lamond, the offer made by Presmada Ltd is identical to the previous offer made and is not a solution to the problems of tenants? (2) Is he aware that Presmada Ltd has presented its original offer of January 1986 to his officers as a new offer? (3) As a successfiil shopping centre has been changed by the actions of the landlord into an unprofitable and disastrous situation, what action does he intend to take to reverse gross unfairness to these tenants? Answer— (I & 2) I have been so advised by the Maroochydore Shopping Centre Tenants Association and the Shopping Centre Tenants Association of Queensland. (3) I have asked the mediator appointed under the RetaU Shop Leases Act, Mr W. M. Lamond, to have further discussions with the landlord to try to obtain some rehef for the tenants. I am also advised that most leases were entered into before the RetaU Shop Leases Act came into force. However, I intend to do all I can to assist in the matter. 18. Elecfricity Concessions for Pensioners Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the ongoing difficulties that so many pensioners have in meeting their electricity bills— Will he give consideration to the introduction of an electricity rebate system similar to the pensioner rate remission scheme introduced in 1982? Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4041 Answer— As the honourable member will no doubt recall, he asked me the same question on 20 November 1984. My answer remains unchanged.

19. Opening of New Queensland Museum Mr BAILEY asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— With reference to the relocation of the Queensland Museum and to its importance in recording and maintaining, for posterity, outstanding historical items and exhibits— When is it proposed that this outstanding new facility will be opened and what is planned to celebrate the occasion? Answer— Planning for the Queensland Museum's opening celebrations on Thursday, 2 October 1986, commenced more than 12 months ago when a fiiU range of options was investigated by a committee of staff. Mr Fouras: What a waste of time. Mr McKECHNIE: I have been provoked. The honourable member talks about a complete waste of time. I am amazed that he would not want to see the opening of the Queensland Museum celebrated in a worthwhile manner. In recent years, no other State in Australia has opened a new museum. The Queensland Museum will be something of which Queensland will be very proud. Mr Casey: At least you won't have to have a photo of Lindeman Island. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be no more provocation. Mr McKECHNIE: I am sad to say that there may be a photograph of thousands of people still on the dole. Answer (continued)— These suggestions were made available to a joint committee of the Queensland Cultural Centre Tmst and the Queensland Museum Board, which decided upon the major thmsts of the program to be implemented. Approval was sought for an additional $200,000 to be provided and divided between the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years, and the 1985-86 component has been received by the museum. The program, which is constantly being reviewed and refined, covers both formal and informal aspects of the opening and provides both short-term and longer-term activities and benefits.

20. Toowong RaUway Station Development Project Mr BAILEY asked the Minister for Transport— In the work on the Toowong Railway Station development involving a major modem commercial enterprise, wiU he give an assurance that the needs of raUway commuters will be fiiUy catered for? Answer— The design of the new station facilities at Toowong has been carried out to ensure that raUway commuters will have both a pleasant and an efficient means of access to and from the platforms. A number of commuter car-parking spaces wiU be incorporated in the development. Station facilities, which will be located on the first level above the platforms, will have pedestrian access from Benson Street, Shenyood Road, Bennett Street and Lissner Street. The entire area in and around the present station will enjoy the amenity of improved roadworks. Traffic-signals, the pedestrian foot-bridge across Benson Street and the

70591—137 4042 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

pedestrian underpass at High Street will combine to provide safe and convenient access to Toowong station and Toowong village. The needs of the elderly and disabled will be catered for by the provision of ramps on the foot-bridge across Benson Street, ramped walkways and travelators within the development and a lift from station level to platform level,

21. Moran Health Care Group Mr CAMPBELL asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying— With reference to the fact that the Moran Health Care Group buUt the 40-bed Andrea Ahera Private Hospital for approximately $2.75m 18 months ago on land made available by the Queensland Goverament as a development lease and as the Moran group has recently sold the hospital for a reported $8,892,000— (1) What price was paid by the Moran group to the State Goverament for the land on which the Andrea Ahera hospital was built? (2) Is any Minister of this Goverament or member of this Parliament a share­ holder in Moran Health Care Group or has any of them ever been a share-holder? (3) What assistance, if any, has been provided or promised to the Moran Health Care Group in relation to its plans to build a 300-bed "hospital of exceUence" at Tugun on the Gold Coast? (4) Does he agree that such profit-making with the substantial assistance of the Queensland Goverament is privatisation gone mad? Answer— (1) $270,000, made up as foUows—

$ (i) Rent for the whole two-year term of the lease (including 269,995 development costs of the site) (ii) Balance purchasing price according to lease conditions .... ^ Total $270,000 The assessed value of the site fully serviced was $270,000, This assessed value was determined following valuation by senior departmental valuers and represented market value. (2) I am not aware of any such share-holder. (3) I am not aware of any such assistance. (4) I am not aware of any such sale. A deed of grant was issued for the land in April 1985. I am not aware of any such sale or purchase price thereunder or what any such sale may have included. The above purchase price of $270,000 represented market value assessed by departmental officers.

22. Government Payment to Lone Pine Sanctuary Mr CAMPBELL asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts— (1) Was the Lone Pine Sanctuary paid a sum of $40,000 in 1985 by the Queensland Goverament through his department? (2) Was that payment for the four female koalas he presented to Japan on his visit for that specific purpose in May 1985? Answer— (1) Yes. (2) Koalas remain the property of the Crown and therefore no charge was made for them by the Lone Pine Sanctuary. Payment of $40,000 in June 1985 was for use of Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1984 4043

facilities, husbandry, and technical advice relating to the rearing, keeping and transportion of four female koalas during the period since their birth in 1982. Similar services in relation to the intitial two males were donated free by the Lone Pine Sanctuary. The amount paid is less than the estimated cost of rearing the animals for the purpose at Fleay's Fauna Reserve, which the National Parks and Wildlife Service did not own at the beginning of the project.

23. Protection of Schoolchildren Against Road Accidents Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to Queensland's road toll during the beginning of 1986— What action was taken to protect schoolchildren travelling to and from school at the commencement of the 1986 school year? Answer— As the honourable member will be aware, a system of school crossing supervisors was introduced by the Goverament at the beginning of the 1984 school year. At present, some 1000 school crossing supervisors protect the lives of schoolchildren using 523 school crossings throughout the State. In addition to the school crossing supervisors, school safety patrols operate at a further 10 school crossings. An extensive television/radio campaign, supported by appropriate press releases, was conducted immediately prior to the beginning of the 1986 school year to remind motorists of children's retura to school and the motorist's obligations and responsibihties at crossings. In addition to the media campaign, local police officers. Traffic Branch officers, officers of the Commercial Vehicle Squad of the Highway Patrol, Queensland Road Safety Council and Department of Transport have mounted a combined campaign to monitor school crossings throughout the State. Police are taking appropriate enforcement action where motorists abrogate their responsibilities towards the safety of pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren, using the crossings. To further give enforcement to our school crossing supervisor scheme, amendments to the Traffic Regulations were recently approved to make motorists refusing to stop at supervised crossings liable to an on-the-spot traffic fine of $100 and the loss of three demerit points. The protection of our children travelling to and from school is a high priority of the Goverament, and certainly one on which I place great emphasis.

24. Taxi Licences Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the significant number of additional taxi licences that have been issued in Brisbane and other high density tourist centres during the last 12 months— What factors are taken into account before a decision is made to issue licences at a particular centre? Answer— I advise the honourable member that the adequacy of taxi services at each centre is reviewed at least annually by Department of Transport officers. To assist in the conduct of a review at a particular centre, the Department of Transport is maintaining a database of pertinent information for each taxi centre throughout the State. Information held includes— (i) geographical location centres (e.g., tourist, mral or mining); (ii) socio-economic factors (e.g,, total population, labour force, major industries, proposed development projects, ancillary cab company contracts, other modes of public and private transport available in the area); and 4044 12 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

(ui) taxi data (e.g., number of cabs at each centre, results of random taxi rank inspections, detaUs of monthly telephone bookings for each cab company, complaints received from or on behalf of the public, goodwill value of cab licences). Each review encompasses the period since licences were first issued at the centre up until the present tim? and utilises the foUowing guide-lines for assessing the need for additional licences— (i) utilisation (^f taxi services; (ii) evaluation of population trends in the area; (iii) assessmen| of fluctuations in the goodwill value attached to the cab licences; and (iv) other relevant factors. Where a review discloses the need for additional hcences at a particular centre, the Taxi Council of Queensland and the cab companies operating at the centre concemed are consulted and agreement is reached on the number of additional licences to be issued. Under this system, when additional licences are warranted, they are issued progressively in small numbers and their effects on taxi owners' investment values and taxi drivers' income are monitored. Previously, taxi licences were issued in bulk, and this caused fluctuations in the level of service to the public and had adverse effects on the taxi proprietors' investment and the income of hire drivers.

25. Hilton Hotel Complex, Cairns Mr De LACY asked the acting Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— With reference to his intention, advertised in The Cairns Post of 24 January, to amend the City of Caims town-planning scheme to allow for the development of a Hilton hot^l complex on the esplanade— (1) Who requested his intervention? (2) Did he have discussions on the subject with any member of the Caims City Council or the Caims Port Authority prior to 24 January and, if so, with whom? (3) SiAce no council consent now has to be given to the development, how can compliance with the town-planning scheme and contributions for service be assumed? (4) Why was it considered necessary to bypass the Cairas City Council in providing for this development, wl^en the council had in fact granted approval, subject to conditions, in March 1985? Answer— (1) Having regard to the circumstances that existed at the time, Cairas Interaational Hotels Pty Ltd requested ithat the Minister exercise his powers under the Local Goverampnt Act to rezone the land in question. (2) Yes, with the mayor of Cairns, who is also chairman of the Caims Port Authority, together with the secretary of the Cairas Port Authority and representatives of the Department of Harbours and Marine and the Land Administration Commission. It was at this time that certainjerrors made in 1933 conceming the vesting of land in the then Cairns Harbour Board which adversely affected the existing status of leases granted in the area as well as the proposal to grant a lease to Cairas Interaational Hotels Pty Ltd were first brought to notice. (3) As a result of legal advice obtained, which was to the effect that the provisions of local authority town-ftanning schemes did not apply to lands under the control of or vested in harbour boards, the Cairas Port Authority amended the proposal to grant a Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4045 lease to include those conditions that would normally attach to the granting of a town- planning approval for such a development. (4) The proposal to grant a lease to Cairas Interaational Hotels Pty Ltd contained provisions for the automatic expiratibn of the proposal if certain approvals were not obtained within a prescribed time. Because of that, legal doubts which existed, and the problems encountered in relation to ^e status of lands that were purported to be vested in the old Cairas Harbour Board which had delayed these approvals, it was decided that consideration of the matter should bfe expedited as the project is of major importance to Queensland and to the Cairas area generally. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Questions remaining unanswered will appear on Notices of Questions tomorrow.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Sale of Lindeman Island to Ejast-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (12 noon): Today I raise matters relating to an issue of extreme public interest and concern. They are aspects of the National Party State Government's secret deal with East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited over Lindeman Island that apparently has now fallen through, thanks to pressure from the public and the Labor Party. The deal—concocted behind closed doors and even presented to the Cabinet as a fait accompli, as we were told by the Minister responsible for national parks—aroused a tremendous public outcry, and rightly so! No matter how the Premier and Treasurer tried to pull the wool over people's eyes, the public correctly identified what this issue was all about. Honourable Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There are too many shouted comments across the Chamber. I do not regard them as interjections. I ask the Chamber to come to order. Mr WARBURTON: A deal was stmck in 'secret, away froni public scmtiny, to subdivide and sell—to carve up and flog off—a national park. I imake the following point very clear: the outcry against the Goverament's action was npt limited to a radical fringe group. It came from a broad cross-section of the Queensland community—people from all walks of life appalled byihe State Goverament's intentions. Yesterday, in Brisbane alone thousands of people lined; up to sign getitions telling this National Party Goverament to keep its grubby hands off Lindeman Island. Tens of thousands of Queensla,nders have signed petitions in cities and towns throughout the State; but in Brisbane yesterday there was a significant new grouping of people adding their voice to the Lindqman Island protest movement. Filled with a sense of outrage, they had come from Brisbane's suburbs to the city csentre to swing their weight behind efforts to halt the Goverament's action. And well they might have been outraged! They had read in yesterday moraing's press what the Premier's buddy in this Lindeman Island affair, Sir Edward Lyons, had to say to those opposed to the d0al: "Go to heU!" How typical that is of this National Party State Goverament's arrogant and belligerent attitude to those who do not slavishly adhere to its line of thinking. How typical that is of this Goverament's attitude to people who are not subservient and submissive to its dictates. It says, "Go to hell!" It needs to be emphasised tha| Sir Edward Lyons is far closer to the heart of goverament in this State than most people would realise. He wields an abnoranal and, I suggest, dangerous influence over Goverament decision-making in this State. One may 4046 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest ask, "How?" I would assume it is all bound up in his personal relationship with the Premier—the head of Government in Queensland. Lyons is the Premier's self-titled and self-confessed minder. Lyons is his financial adviser. He may even be his financier. Certainly he is one of his most senior National Party henchmen. But let me get back to the Lyons role in the Lindeman Island deal. He was recently installed as chief executive of East-West Airlines (Queensland) Pty Limited. That appointment, of course, preceded news of the National Party Goverament's decision, under a secret deal that was open to neither public tender nor scmtiny, to give East- West freehold title to large slabs of what is now national park land. Cabinet Ministers themselves were quoted as saying that it was impossible to "sell" anything with which Lyons was associated. How tme! This moming's developments now show that just about everything Sir Edward touches comes unstuck. This moming we read that East-West was invited to submit a proposal to develop Lindeman Island. I want to know who extended that invitation, and on what authority. Did Sir Edward issue his own invitation through his old mate, the Premier? Why did invitations start and stop with the company headed by Lyons? It is relevant to consider how the Govemment coped with opposing points of view on the Lindeman Island sell-off. The Premier adopted the attitude, "Look, Govemments can do anything. You can do anything you like." That is the sort of Goverament we have here in Queensland—a Goverament holding the majority of seats in the Parliament on a minority of votes, which operates on the motto, "We do what we like. If you don't like it, go to hell." While that attitude remains and as long as the revocation motion sits on the parliamentary notice sheet, Lindeman Island is not safe; nor is any other national park to which the friends of this Goverament take a fancy. This morning the National Party met on the 6th floor of the Parliamentary Annexe. What happened at that meeting shows that the Premier and Treasurer of this State lost his grip. His performance and the performance of his deputy and most of the Ministers, particularly the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts (Mr McKechnie), have caused the back-bench nervous nellies to mn to the media with what amounts to treacherous criticisms of members of their own Cabinet. That has never happened before. East-West Airlines now sees itself as the meat in a very rotten sandwich. Whether East-West Airlines was conned into a shady deal by the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment, whether one of the conditions of the deal was to put Sir Edward Lyons on the board of East-West Airiines (Qld) Pty Limited—that will be discovered eventually—and whether East-West Airlines can redeem itself in the eyes of Queenslanders, remains to be seen. The fact is that the Premier is suffering his most humiliating Mr Borbidge: Did you see your approval rating today? Mr WARBURTON: The honourable member is a member of the Queensland Film Corporation. If I were him, I would not say much. The Premier is suffering his most humiliating and most devastating defeat. He has been effectively stabbed in the back by the Sparkes faction. The president of the National Party has sabotaged the Premier. Sparkes has beaten the Premier into the ground and, along with him, his littie mate, Sir Edward Lyons, who once again will drift back into some form of oblivion. The Premier insists on retaining Sir Edward Lyons on the Secondary Mortgage Market Board, which is supposed to tum the city of Brisbane into the financial centre of Australia. The real losers are the National Party Ministers, who have shown an arrogance to this matter and to Queensland that has been beyond belief The biggest loser in that dubious group is the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, who is sitting in the Chamber. He should have resigned over the public funds scandal. While he is in the Chamber, I put it to him that he has no alternative but to hand in his ministerial stripes. The Minister, together with the Premier Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4047 and Treasurer, has done everything possible to seal up the East-West deal. He has slunk into this Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. I find the words offensive. Mr Warburton: What words? Mr McKECHNIE: I find it offensive for the honourable member to talk about my role in that way. I ask him to withdraw his remarks. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I wiU not be resigning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has objected to remarks that he finds offensive. Mr Braddy interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wara the honourable member for Rockhampton under Standing Order No. 123A. While I am on my feet, I have control of the Chamber. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw the offending remarks. Mr WARBURTON: I withdraw the remarks that offend the Minister, I put it to the Minister that he slunk into the House at approximately 12.45 last Thursday when the House was almost empty. He slunk into the House, and without one word of reference Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. I find offensive the remark that I slunk into the House. I do not slink anywhere, 1 ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his remarks. Mr WARBURTON: "Slunk" is not unpariiamentary. I repeat that he slunk into this House at approximately 12.45 last Thursday when the House was almost empty. Without one word of reference to Lindeman Island, the Minister tabled a revocation order that was due to be debated next Tuesday. One wonders how that Minister will handle the humiliation of either withdrawing something that he vigorously pursued or amending the documents that he tabled. However, he slunk in here, hoping that the thing would disappear and hoping that nobody would take any notice. The whole idea of it was that the Goverament felt that it could seal and stamp the matter before the National Party meeting that was to be held in Toowoomba the following week-end. That was the whole plan. If the Labor Opposition had not been awake to the National Party antics, the tabling Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has implied improper motives by me. He said that I wanted to table something before a meeting. The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that the only reson it was done was that we had to do it that day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I take it that the Minister has described his action as being normal parliamentary procedure. Does the Leader of the Opposition accept the explanation? Mr WARBURTON: The Minister has got to go. He has failed again. He has been personally defeated and he must accept the inevitable. He can never again hold his head high in the company of any Queenslander who is concemed about the State's heritage. Time expired. Railway and Road Transport Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (12.10 p.m.): It is imperative that I draw to the attention of this Parliament, Queenslanders and, indeed, aU Australians, the stealthy manner in which the Federal Labor Govemment in Canberra is attempting 4048 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest to take absolute controi of transportation in this country. It is not a joke; it is not an idle warning. It is quite appareht that the Federal Govemment seeks to centralise control of transport in Australia, taking away from the States their right to determine how they should manage their owri transportation affairs, not only in terms of the mode of transport used but also right dowp to timetabling, and, most importantly, to freight rates charged for particular goods. The move toward^ centralisatidn of control began in September 1983, when the Hawke Government proclaimed the Inter-State Commission Act that the infamous Whitlam Goverament introduced in 1975. It is continuing now, with Federal attempts to establish a national^aU industry council to control railway operations throughout Australia. If honourable men||ers examine closely these two allegedly innocuous organisations- one existing, one proposed—they will realise that the proposals have the perilous potential to override any decisions relating toi transport that the individual States may wish to make }n their attempts to establish an orderly and viable railway and road transport industry. I will first deal briefly with the Inter-State Commission. As it now stands, the commission, according |o the Federal Transport Minister (Mr Morris), has the powers of a rdijyal commission to carry out inquiries into issues related to interstate transport, and ostensibly operates fy investigation, consultation, publication and recommendation. As directed by Mr Morris, it can inveptigate alleged discriminatory practices, inequalities, inefficiencies and anomaUls in interstate transport. The identity of those people whb decide whether transport policies in any State are discriminatory, equal, inefficient or anomalous should be of grave concem to this Parliament. To begin with, the chairman of'the commission, who is being paid in the vicinity of $100,000 a year, is none other than Mr Justice Mervyn George Everett, former president of the Austrafian Labor Party in Tasmania, a former Labor Senator for that State, and a former Tasjnanian Labor Minister. One of the first members appointed to the commission was Professor Helmut Kolsen, well known in transport circles as a radical Labor academic theorist on transport matters, but a person severely lacking in practical experience. Most of the remaining members are well-known Labor-sympathisers, no doubt given their positions in exchange for decisions that will comply with the Federal Labor Govemment's regressive, socialist policies. It may be that the^resent Act governing the Inter-State Commission does not give it any judicial or regulatory powers, but its advice to the Federal Govemment on any transport.matter gives Canberra justification, however tenuous, to legislate and act on the commission's findings. In addition, when Mr Morris fifst made the proposal, I suggested that the wording of the Act that set up Qie commission had application to intrastate transport also. I have also received advice from the Solicitor-General that there is no reason why the Commonwealth Pariiament would be restricted to the current scope of the Act and that, potentially, a comn^ission with more pervasive powers of enforcement and direction could be created under that legislation. Clearly, I am notJilone in foreseeing how dangerous the Inter-State Commission could be and how totaly it could infringe on State rights. TjD get the curren^Kct through the Federal Parliament in 1983, it was necessary to amena and substantial!)? water down the Bill that Whitlam introduced. Even Mr Fraser, in the intervening years between 1975 and the Hawke Govemment, had the good sense to disregard the Bill. Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4049

However, the history of reluctance of all Federal Governments to approve!of the establishment of an interstate commission is testii^ony to the ^ct that there should not be an interstate commission at aU. Approximately 80 years ago, in the very first!sessio n of Inderal Parliamenti a Bill was introduced to establish an interstate transport commission, but it lapsed, and in 1909, it lapsed again because of heated opposition to some of its provisions. In 1912, the Bill was finally passed and, in 1913, a commission was set up, but it operafted for only a few years. In 1920, when the service terms of its members expired, it lay ddrmant, until 1937, when the Government tried again unsuccessfully to revive it. ^ Eventually, it was repealed in 1959 by the Statute Law Revision Act, and it took Whitlam—a man whose political reputation is as taraished and sfepect as the comtnission itself—to resurrect it. It is time that the Inter-State Commission was again disttj^nded. It is a dangerous organisation, a meddler in State affairs, and at about $2m a year, an expensive and unnecessary bureaucratic waste of tax-payers' money. That $2m could be well spent on other projects. There must be something inherently wrong in aSi organisation that is so constantly rejected by successive Goveraments sirice federation. The other area of concern is the Federal Govemment's proposal to establish a national railway industry council. Last week, on my recommendation, the Queensland Cabinet decided not to support the Federal Goveniment's proposal, because it was quite evident that its proposed stmcture would allow the trade unions^^ which of course dictate policy to the Hawke Govemment, to take control of all railways in Australia. There should be little need for me to expand upon the diabolical consequences that such a transference of power would have for this nation. r Through this Parliament, I take this opportunity to wam every other State and Territory in Australia of how easily they could surrender their dfecision-making processes to the unions through the establishment of a national railway industry council under the stmcture proposed by Mr Morris. Mr Morris wants managements and Govemments now operating the various railways in Australia to participate in the council, and to implement its decisions and recommendations. I emphasise that the intention is to implement its decisions and recommendations. I In Mr Morris's proposed council, the unions would have seven members and the Australian Council of Trade Unions one, with ^he remainder being made up of a chairman appointed by the Federal Goverament, and seven representatives from the various Australian railway systems. That means that, in a council of 16, with eight members directly representing unions, it would take only one other member from a Labor Goverament to give the unions the necessary numbers to take control, of all railways in Australia. Everyone knows the kind of deals thatj would be made behind closed doors. Queensland and other States could be forced to implement council decisions and recommendations even if the elected Govemmpnt and railx^y management ot)posed or objected to them. '-l Not only is the Federal Govemment's proposal to set up a national railway industry council an insult to the political intelligence of the various State Goveraments, but also it would, if accepted, erode the power of elected members of Pariiament to initiate policy and could increase the role of the ACTU and unions in the management of ^ State authority. i There are already sufficient committees and groups that m&et at a national level to co-ordinate and regulate transport activities in Australia. By th(^ track record they have proven that they are quite capable of operating effectively withoutJ|centralised, omnipotent bureaucratic monolith dictating radical socialist theories on boWj|"to mn railways or road transport. I therefore wara the other States about following blindly ^he recommendations of the Federal Labor Goverament. They are recominendations which, when stripped of 4050 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest their thin disguises, are designed to take away the States' rights to determine their own transport policies. I call on aU States and Territories to campaign to reject the proposal to estabhsh a national railway industry council, and to request that the Inter-State Commission be disbanded forthwith. Illegal Trading and Profiteering in Torres Sfrait Area; Funding for Aboriginal and Island Co-ordinating Councils Mr BURNS (Lytton) (12.18 p.m.): The National Party Govemment is closing its eyes to the illegal trading of alcohol and the exploitation of the Torres Strait island people. Ironically, the person involved in the iUegal trading was featured prominently in the National Party Govemment's propaganda vehicle, Queensland Unlimited, on aU television stations throughout Queensland on Sunday, 23 Febmary 1986. Thousands and thousands of dollars were squandered in air fares for politicians, their wives and their entourages to travel to Damley Island for the television spectacular and hand-over of deeds of tmst envelopes—mostly empty—by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen). One of the recipients of a fair dinkum deed of tmst was George Mye, who is paid $30,000 a year and was a recipient of a $10,000 cash donation from the public purse at this ceremony. Mr Mye not only plunders the public purse but also operates an expensive racket of alcohol and goods profiteering in the islands. Without faU, Mr Mye orders through southem outiets, as if immune from the law, at least 200 cartons of beer a month at $24 a carton and sells them for $40 a carton at Daraley Island. This island has no licensed liquor outlet, and the reason it has no licensed outlet is that the island chairman is strongly opposed to a licence being granted. Mr Mye is the chairman. The alcohol is consumed only when Mr Mye decides that it should be, and he uses the fictitious Daraley Island Football Club, which after years of operation is yet to play a game of football, as a front for his liquor trade, Mye is protected by National Party political patronage. Mye's exploits are not limited merely to the sly-grog trade. On a regular fortiughtly basis, Mye freights from the southem States goods and stores worth $14,000 to $18,000, which are then retailed through his own private outlet at grossly distorted prices. If he does not have popular lines in his store, he buys out the Island Industries Board's goods, establishes a monopoly, and marks up prices. It is extortion. And the irony of it all is that Mr Mye is a member of the Island Industries Board—a statutory Govemment body. Honourable members will recall that the board is made up of a majority of Islanders who trade and distribute goods throughout the Torres Strait, supposedly in the most economical way possible. Any profits are supposed to go straight back into the organisation to benefit the Islanders themselves. Another example of Mr Mye's profiteering is that the IIB on that tropical island does not sell cold drinks any more because Mye has created a monopoly. He says that the board is not allowed to do so, and that such drinks must be purchased from him. Mr Mye and his council have issued a mandatory island vehicle registration as a form of revenue-raising. It is not sufficient that citizens of this State pay the outrageous vehicle registration required by the Queensland Goverament; the residents of Daraley Island are now required to pay a registration fee for the honour of driving on the island, which does not contain one single metre of gazetted road. A four-wheel-drive Landrover and a three- wheel motor cycle are not subject to that island interaal tax. They are both Mye's vehicles. A trailer and a three-wheel motor cycle purchased from council funds are used as the personal property of Mr Mye and his famUy. As far as development projects for the region are conceraed—Mr Mye, as chairman, has coraered the market. While 13 other island communities stmggle with their existing Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4051

water supplies, the entire money spent to date in the Torres Strait for water supplies has been spent on Daraley Island. Although 10 island communities await new medical aid posts, Mye has one on his island and has moved a local female resident friend into the visiting specialists' rooms, thus denying the island access to specialist attention. Doctors and nurses cannot visit the islands without accommodation being provided. As I have told this Assembly before, Mr Mye receives a free Goverament house on Thursday Island. At home, he occupies a co-operative house, again at no expense. He is paid $30,000 a year. He operates a sly-grog trade; he is a money lender, a store­ keeper, and a National Party stooge. He is the man to whom the Minister for Northera Development and Community Services gave $10,000 from the public purse. Where is the evidence that Mye was out of pocket? Where is a list of his expenses? The Minister had to fly to the islands, as he did last week, and force the council to OK Mye's getting the $10,000. After an administrative officer had resigned over the $10,000 deal and written to all members to tell them that the money had not been paid in, the administrative officer was reinstated on a $30,000 salary. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has just said that I forced the council to pay $10,000 to Mr Mye. I was not there; I was nearly 4 000 miles away when that decision was made. Mr BURNS: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Minister has raised a point of order. Mr KATTER: That would have as much veracity as the other things the honourable member said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has made his point. Mr BURNS: I will accept the Minister's explanation. However, he organised it. He might have been 4 000 miles away, but I know that he organised it, I know the name of the young lady who received the additional money, I know that this Goverament, which never gives money to the natives and has no money to assist people on the islands, has found another two $30,000 a year jobs for National Party supporters. Can the Minister tell me that Getano Lui, Junior, who is a possible National Party candidate, is not one who will receive such assistance? Let me talk about the Minister, now that he is in the Chamber. Page 102 of the Treasurer's Departmental Services and Programs: A Budget Per­ spective, making up part of the State's 1985-86 Budget, contained the following statement— "During 1985-86 special additional funding has been made avaUable as follows:

$20,000 towards the mnning costs of the two Co-ordinating Councils for Aborigines and for Torres Strait Islanders." At a meeting of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council at Hope Vale in June 1985, the Minister in charge of Aboriginal and Islander affairs agreed to a motion caUing for joint Commonwealth and Queensland Govemment fiinding of the secretariat and the council's meetings. According to the minutes, after the resolution was put the Minister said— "Eric's already made approaches to me conceming this and a submission has been drafted to the Queensland Cabinet on it." "Eric" was, of course, the failed National Party candidate and chairman of the ACC. 4052 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

During his ministerial statement to the House on 19 Febmary 1986, the Minister said— "We would be prepared to commit $50,000—you chase the rest from the Federal Govemment," At a meeting of the executive of the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council at Cherbourg on 18 and 19 November 1985—the Minister did not attend—a Mr David Brown of the Minister's department was questioned about the lack of funding as promised by the Minister at Hope V^le, Let me quote from those minutes— "It was pointed out to Mr. Brown that Mr. Katter and Mr. Holding had agreed upon the generkl principle at Hope Vale in June 1985 and at that stage Mr. Katter had mentioned a figure of $50,000. ' Mr. Browii said that those funds had been swallowed up in 1984/85." Athhe same time as that departmental officer was saying that there were no funds to keep! the Minister's commitment to joint funding of the secretariat, the Minister was preparing to forward $20,000 of tax-payers fiinds to two select Aborigines and Islanders- Mr Deeral, and Mr George Mye, chairman of the Island Co-ordinating CouncU, It was a ministerial idea, niot a departmental suggestion. I have a copy of the handwritten note that was typed into^ the Minister's letter to Deeral and Mye. I might add that it was typed somewhere other than in the department's head office in an effort to ensure that the two $10,000 gifts did not become widely known. oA the moming of 19 Febmary 1986, the Minister said in the House that the butt of the cheque that Deeral spent carried the notation— "Special additional funding for the mnning cost of Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncU." ^ The Minister said also— "I had also issued instmctions that the cheque was not to go out untU a| proper ACC account and disbursement procedure was agreed to. That direction, unbeknown to me, was not carried out." That is the Minister's story. Npw, let me give the House the facts. When the Minister asked the accounts section of his department to write out the cheques, a note was sent back to hii private secretary, Mr Ian Myers, which read— "We are not sure if the ACC has set up their own bank accounts. They will have to set up a bank account to negotiate this cheque." The department told the Minister that he should be careful and ensure that the ACC had set up an account.^ The Minister handed the cheque personally to Eric Deeral—I repeat "personally"— so how can he come into this Chamber and blame his staff for not checking the position relative to the cheque before it was issued? The Minister handed the cheque personally to Deeral, and Deeral banked the cheque in his personal account. Deeral went to a Cairas car yard and paid $4,000 as a deposit on a second-hand four-wheel-drive vehicle. Was Mr Deeral looking after the public purse, or himself? After I first raised this matter in early January, Deeral flew to Brisbane in a hurry. On his return, he asked the proprietor of the car yard to retum his money because a problem had arisen! If Deeral had bought the car'for the ACC, as the Minister told the House, why did he jask for the money back? Why,did he not stick to his original design and buy the car? The car yard, not wanting to be involved in any underhand dealings, made a refund by cheque. I am told that the cheque was made out to the Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council, The Minister is laughing, but I will tell honourable members about the cheque. It was a Westpac bank cheque numbered 750448, drawn on 7 Febmary 1986, which represented the refund. Mr Katter interjected. Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4053

Mr BURNS: The Minister cannot deny it. I have the facts. The next claim is that Mr Deeral paid $3,000 to the Hbpe Vale community to cover costs of the ACC meeting at Hope Vale. The Minister said that that was in payment of an outstanding account for the ACC. I challenge him to produce the account and details of the ACC minutes in which the debt is acknowledged and Deeral is authorised to pay it. I am told that Deeral paid the $3,000 direct to Hope Vale community to recompense the community for money that he had misappropriated, Mr Deeral resigned from the Hope Vale councU under pressure from local Hope Vale residents, I want to know why Deeral has not been charged with misappropriation or stealing the funds of the ACC. I want to know how the Minister can take money appropriated for the mnning expenses of a council and direct that a letter be sent, under his own hand, to both Mye and Deeral, advising that they can have the money for out- of-pocket expenses. That is hands in the till; it is money out of the tax-payers' pockets. It is the ordinary Aborigines and Islanders in the north who are out of pocket as a result of those shenanigans. I call on the Auditor-General and the Commissioner of police to investigate the Minister for Northem Development and Coitimunity Services (Mr Katter), Mr Deeral and Mr Mye, and take the necessary steps to charge at least both Deeral and the Minister with misappropriation of public funds. Attack by Labor Party Members on Basic Principles of Decency Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (12.28 p.m.): I draw to the attention of the House a matter of continuing concera to many people in Queensland^ that is, the continuing attack on the basic principles of decency by members of the Labor Party in both State and Federal spheres, and in north Queensland in particular. This moming, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated to the House why that concem is well-founded. The people of Queensland, in increasing numbers, ire realising the way in which members of the Labor Party are working. They have been given fiirther proof today that Labor members are extremely anti-Queensland. 1 draw the attention of honourable members to a Gallup poll finding published in this week's issue of The Bulletin, at page 33. It indicates that the Labir Party in Queensland has failed, even by the lowest measures, to pass the test of ^ility. In a moment, I will examine the figures in depth. ^ The survey, which was conducted across Australia, also showed no great joy for the Liberal Party. Members of the Labor Opposition who sit directly opposite must squirm the most. However, the diagonal Opposition is in no position to gloat, although I assume that its members will continue on their sad path of pompous, indignant and holier-than-thou condemnation of the positive efforts of this Govemment to lead the way in stemming the spread of socialism in this State and nation. In fact, in the survey across the nation, the Liberal Party achieved a "good" figure of only 18 per cent, with John Howard's approval rating standing at 30 per cent. That is proof of the need for a positive, strong attitude. To get back to the figures I mentioned earlier, and the real Opposition, that is, the ALP—I point out that the poll used the terms, "very good", I "good", "fafr", "poor", "very poor", and "no idea". In the survey that asked people whether, in their opinion, the abihty of Labor members was "very good", "good", "fair",^ "poor" or "very poor", the ability of Labor members across Australia was assessed at 35 per cent. By comparison, Queensland members of the Australian Labor Party rated a miserable 20 per cent, or just over 50 per cent of the national percentage for the Labor Party. Before dealing with the figures in greater detail, I should point out to the House that Opposition members rated with distinction in one area—the total under "poor". The average for Labor across Australia, under the heading "poor", was 22 per cent. Personally, I would have rated that figure as being very consea-vative, but it must be 4054 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest remembered that that was an independent poll. Our "heroes" opposite easily topped the "poor" poll, with a resounding 39 per cent. Not only were they clear winners in that division; they were not far away from being twice as "poor" as members of their party in any other State. The rating of "poor" was 15 percentage points greater than for Labor members in any other State, Labor members in New South Wales came in a handy second, with 24 per cent rated as "poor". The members of the ALP's Queensland parliamentary wing would be particularly proud of achieving those figures. They must surely be happy that their gutter politics has also allowed them to achieve the highest rating in the classification "very poor". I say to them, "Well done in achieving a rating of 10 per cent 'very poor'." They have done a marvellous job! Even Labor members in New South Wales could achieve a rating of only 8 per cent in that classification. Opposition members raced away from the balance of the field, being assessed under "very poor" by more than twice as many as in all the other States, with the exception of our southem neighbour. It would be unfair of me not to dwell a little on the "good" aspects of the poll. Again, I am sorry to say that, at this rate, the people who genuinely believe in the Labor altemative in this State are in for a very disillusioning day and, no doubt, year. As I noted earlier, the members of the Labor Party in Queensland rated only 20 per cent "good", against a national figure of 35 per cent; but, when compared with every other State except Tasmania, our "boys" are certainly not a very pretty picture. The figures show that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland has the lowest percentage classified as "very good", with only 3 per cent—and I would not like to guess who that 3 per cent might be—against a national average of 7 per cent. Under the classification "good". Labor Party members in Queensland share the bottom hne with their mates in Tasmania, on 17 per cent, or 11 points below the average. Under "fair", they finally make the average, but they are still on the third bottom line in the national stakes. Finally, they come into their own with overwhelming victories under the classifications "poor" and "very poor". I say to the members of the Queensland parliamentary Labor Party, "Well done. Long may you slither around in the gutter, because that is the very basis of your low popularity—the disciples of Mr Doom and Gloom himself" We heir constantiy from the Labor Party in this State that Queensland is a terrible place in which to live, to work and to invest. Today's figuresprov e the public's perception of those statements to be mbbish in the extreme. People do not want to hear bad news that is obviously without foundation. They want to hear positive, progressive and enlightening words from leaders and Goverament. In tura, the reward is that the whole of the economy moves forward with investment, job-creation and, above all, a will to get on with the job that is so necessary in modera society. Does anyone hstening to the Labor Party hear good things about Queensland? Does anyone ever hear the words "work ethic" from the Labor Party? Does anyone hear members of the Labor Party imploring people from interstate and overseas to visit the nation's jewel and greatest State? Never! In looking at the results of this poll in today's Telegraph, I was a littie conceraed to read this paragraph— "Only 18 per cent rated Liberal MPs as 'good' or 'very good'. Labor MPs got a 35 percent 'good' or 'very good' rating," Those figures refer to the members of the Federal Pariiament, No doubt, in due course, our friends in the press gallery will see fit to report accurately on this matter. It is appropriate that I reveal the Labor Party's record in north Queensland. Has any member in this Chamber heard Labor members in north Queensland talk about job support? No. We hear such things as, "Down with uranium mining. Out with $4 biUion income and 1 100 jobs." Labor members have spoken about the proposed sale of Lindeman Island. The potential was there to have millions of dollars spent in Queensland Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4055 and for thousands of jobs to be created, but they are never happy unless they are putting a project down. There is pressure on Canberta to provide funding for the sugar industry. Has anything been heard from honourable members opposite to assist the initiatives of this State Goverament in this regard and to assist every cane-grower in this State who is trying to survive? No! They blame the Queensland Goverament for what it is doing. After this week, honourable members opposite will have to face the facts of life. The ALP is saying that Queensland needs more public servants and more projects that show little or no financial retura—and there are many worthwhile projects that do show little or no financial retura—but there must be a productive base to fund them. Support for welfare is fine, but there would be less need for welfare if there were more jobs and if honourable members opposite supported the Goverament's efforts to foster more jobs and projects, which are so vital to the operation of this State. Do members such as the honourable member for TownsvUle (Mr McEUigott) and the honourable member for Townsville West (Mr Smith) realise the impact that the sugar crisis has on their electorates? In the Herbert area, the Burdekin area and the westem areas, investment in warehouses, flats,businesse s and so on creates a tremendous amount of employment and wealth for the city. But our "heroes" get on with their job of preaching doom and gloom, down with production, down with investment and, more particularly, down with Queensland. Where was the support for the State Goverament's attack on the Federal Goverament's ridiculous attitude on the world parity pricing of fuel? The Opposition wanted the people in the westera areas of Queensland to pay more. They wanted the farmers to be taxed out of existence—that is being done by the Federal Goverament anyway. I wonder whether those same people will accept only a 50 per cent increase when the world parity pricing of fuel increases? They were quite happy that it decreased only 50 per cent. I wonder whether they will accept that situation and I wonder what they will say to the people of their electorates when the price of fuel increases by more than 50 per cent. I wiU make my next subject the basis of another speech in future but, by far, the worst person in Labor terms—and I know that many honourable members opposite would agree with me on this matter—is the infamous Senator Margaret Reynolds. She did not enjoy much support from the ALP for her re-endorsement in Queensland. My inside information is that the vote count was 104:1 against her endorsement. Honourable members hear of her support for every way-out group—and, of course, some deserving groups—but do they hear Senator Reynolds screaming for help for cane-farming wives and families, and the ordinary women performing the prime job of hfe in preserving normal family stmctures, values and principles? Do honourable members ever hear of Senator Reynolds speaking for the people of Queensland who provide all the stmctures so necessary to maintain the welfare of the groups that Senator Reynolds espouses? There are many genuine welfare cases. Senator Reynolds, who is supposed to be a senator for Queensland, should wake up to herself in this respect. Time expired. Bartlett Property Trust Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (12.38 p.m.): I rise again to draw to the attention of this Parliament the monstrous deceit and cover-up by the Goverament of the problems associated with the Bartlett Property Tmst. This tmst began with a fanfare from the friends of the Government of this State. Board members associated with the Goverament have totally deserted the public in the same way as the sinking Titanic was deserted. The board of the Bartlett Property Tmst has been deserted by these gentlemen in the same way as rats leave a sinking ship. The Bartlett Property Tmst had its inception on the Brisbane Stock Exchange on 21 March 1984. At that time, it was said— "Queensland's big liquor-to-property developing Bartlett Group has sired the State's first publicly listed property tmst with a $34.8 million offspring that sets new marks in the industry." 4056 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

Mr Jim Kennedy, who was one of the original directors and whose resignation has never been questioned by the Minister, the Corporate Affairs Commissioner's Office or this Government, said— "I've never before seen a tmst with which I'd want to be associated until this came along." Mr WUson, the underwriter and broker, said— "I know of no other company in the country whose Board consists of self- made men." Provision was made to extend the tmst to $200m. Yesterday the public of Queensland learat that seven of the companies that make up the income of the tmst are in receivership, with every likelihood that the other eight of the 15 companies will go into receivership in a very short time. I know that the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General has been wary of property tmsts and has worked with his colleagues in the other States to do something about them. However, for two, years I have been waming the House and investors in this State, as has The Courier-Mail writer Brian Hale, that the Bartlett Property Tmst was not firmly based and that it was a sell-out by the Bartlett companies to the tmst, which Bartlett guaranteed an income at a certain rate for five years. Mr Harper: 11 per cent. Mr D'ARCY: As the Minister said, it was 11 per cent. However, on the trading figures that were available at the time, the very basis for that guarantee should have been questioned. What I ask the Minister is: Why has he not made a statement to the House? What is the Goverament hiding? Throughout this whole business questions have been asked. As I have pointed out, and as a leading stock-broker said to me this moraing, there has been a smell of cover-up about this whole property tmst right from the word go. Let me retum to the directors—those people of such standing, who have abrogated their responsibilities to the unit-holders and the investors of Queensland. Even super­ annuation funds mn for the benefit of Queensland Govemment employees have invested in the Bartlett Property Tmst. The average, ordinary guys in the street have invested in the tmst, but they are not being protected. The directors have offered investors no explanations at all. I shall now read from the resignation tendered to the Brisbane Stock Exchange by Sir Frank Moore and Sir Thomas Lindsay North. Dated 27 Febmary, it is written almost in the third person. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it, but I shall read it to the House— "Dear Sir, Re:' The Bartlett Property Tmst The recent trading operations of the Bartlett Group of Companies may possibly result in diminishing the interests of unit holders in the Bartlett Property Tmst. This possibility has become known to Sir Thomas North and Sir Frank Moore only in the last few days. These two directors of Bartlett Property Management Limited now find that the Board of the company is unworkable as the other two directors are also directors of companies in the Bartlett Group, Sir Frank Moore and representatives of Sir Thomas North have today discussed the situation with Queensland Tmstees Limited, the tmstee of The Bartlett Property Tmst and have resigned as directors of Bartlett Property Management Limited, They have offered to the tmstee to assist it in any way possible," Although that letter is signed by those two gentiemen, it is written in the third person. That is an example of the responsibility to the public of Queensland and to the investors Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4057 of Queensland by so-caUed responsible knights. I put it to the House that the Minister should make a statement on this matter. There should be an expose of the cover-up that has obviously taken place. The directors have not lived up to their public responsibilities. Mr Casey: I do not know about the knight North, but Sir Frank Moore is, like Sir Edward Lyons, another knight associated with the Premier. Mr D'ARCY: He is closely associated with the Govemment. Once again, a smell is connected with that association. It is not as though the Minister was not aware of events. Some time ago the Minister was accused of misleading the House over alleged differences between the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs and the National Companies and Securities Com­ mission. As a result, on 19 September 1984 the Minister saw fit to make a ministerial statement to the House about an article written by Mr Brian Hale that appeared in The Courier-Mail. The Minister said— "Mr Hale appears to think that there are unanswered questions about the documents registered by the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. I can assure investors and this House that this is not so, since the documents were fully and correctly examined by departmental officers before they were registered.

No such division exists and the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs will be replying in detail to the commission's inquiries indicating that all requirements have been met." The Minister then questioned the leak from his own department. My understanding is that the statement Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. I suggest to the honourable member that at no time did I question a leak within my own department. If there was any leakage of information, it was not within the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in Queensland. 1 have never impUed that it was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I accept the point of order. Will the honourable member accept the Minister's explanation? Mr D'ARCY: I accept the point of order. I will read exactly what the Minister said. On 19 September 1984, he said— "... I would be interested to know how Mr Hale learaed of the contents of a letter between the commission—" I presume that that is the National Companies and Secutities Commission— "and the commissioner ..." I presume that that is the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. The Minister is suggesting that the leak came from the NCSC. He is blaming somebody within Goverament. He says that it is not his Goverament; that it is somebody else's Govera­ ment. The fact of life is that there was a leak, and the Minister referred to it. On 19 September 1984, the Minister said that he would answer the matters raised by the CAC, My understanding is that they had been with the commission for five months. It took the CAC in Queensland five months to answer the questions from the NCSC about setting up the Bartlett Property Tmst. Will the Minister deny that? It is very interesting. Mr Harper: Another leak. Mr D'ARCY: Another leak! It took five months to answer the questions. The investors should have been protected. As far as I am aware, about $8m of public funds is involved. All the companies are going to the wall. The size of the debt is yet to be determined. 4058 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest

The Minister is aware that the Govemment wiU lose money. It is obvious. On other occasions I have questioned the Minister about the performance of the Bartlett Property Tmst as hoteliers. I understand that the tmst owes the State Govemment in excess of half a mUUon dollars in Ucensing fees. The Minister is nodding his head in agreement. Mr Harper: Just a little less. Mr D'ARCY: It is unbelievable that the Minister has not explained in the House what is going on with those companies. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has not indicated that that debt of $469,000 attracts interest at the rate of 20 per cent. Mr D'ARCY: It will be bankmpt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I accept the point of order. Will the honourable member accept the Minister's explanation? Mr D'ARCY: I accept it. There are two other points that I wish to make. The first is that one cannot obtain money from a bankmpt company. Secondly, a fellow from the Bartlett Property Tmst approached me about the Terrigal deal, in New South Wales. The Minister is aware of that matter. According to operators within Bartlett's company, John Bartlett was supposed to have received a secret com­ mission for the sale of that property. A prominent Brisbane hotelier, who is very weU known to me, told me that he had been offered, for $1.9m, a Bartlett property in Rockhampton that subsequently went into the tmst at a value of $2.75m. The valuations were queried by the Minister's department and by the Corporate Affairs Commissioner's Office. However, the valuations were passed. The facts are that the valuations were too high and that the trading results were insufficent for the Bartlett Property Tmst to meet its commitments. Time expired. Treatment of Pensioners in Queensland Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (12.48 p.m.): Today, I appreciate the opportunity to expose a myth that has unfortunately been fabricated and perpetrated by ALP members of this House, It is indeed sad that certain ALP members—I refer specifically to the honourable members for Bundaberg, Cairas and Windsor—have over recent times made absurd statements in this House, implying that for pensioners Queensland is the worst State in Australia. Nothing could be further from the tmth. Lately, it appears that members opposite have begun a campaign of misinformation and smear tactics. I echo a recent call by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen), I challenge members opposite to begin devoting themselves to achieving something positive and worth while, instead of wasting tax-payers' money by trivialising issues for tiie sake of media headlines. Queensland is doing more for pensioners than is any other State in Australia, On 18 Febmary 1986, the honourable member for Lytton (Mr Buras) told the House that Queensland is the geriatric State, I wonder what the elderly constituents of his electorate think of his derogatory comments. However, one thing is tme—pensioners are now flocking to Queensland in droves. I ask all honourable members: Why are so many pensioners making their homes in the Sunshine State? That would be odd if Queensland were the worst place for pensioners to live. In short. Government members are faced with contradictory comments made by members of the Opposition. On the one hand. Opposition members are saying that Queensland is the worst State in which pensioners can live; on the other hand, they Matters of Public Interest 12 March 1984 4059 are saying that pensioners are flocking to Queensland in droves and that Queensland is the geriatric State. Mr Casey: You are aware of the difference between pensioners and retired persons? Mr HENDERSON: Yes, I am aware of that. The answer is very simple. Queensland is looking after pensioners, just as it is looking after the interests of the unemployed, the interests of private enterprise and the interests of the primary producer. That is why pensioners are flocking to Queensland in their thousands. Queensland is looking after the pensioner. Unlike members of the Opposition, I will now provide undeniable evidence to support my claim. 1 draw to the attention of the House the matter of pensioner concessions as they relate to household rates. I intend to show that pensioners in Queensland are now receiving the most attractive rate concessions available to any Australian pensioner. The following resume, prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Library, provides details of pensioner rate concessions funded by the States at various levels of govera­ ment—I emphasise "at various levels of goverament"—both State and local, as they exist in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourae, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. I will begin my comparison by considering New South Wales, that Labor State that has promised so much yet delivered so little. Details of rate reductions available to pensioners in Sydney include 50 per cent of general rates, to a maximum of $ 150, and 50 per cent of water and sewerage charges, to a maximum of $75. The New South Wales State Goverament contributes only 50 per cent of that reduction, except when the total amount of mandatory reductions for a council exceeds 6 per cent of the total general purpose rates. Sydney councils are expected to fund 50 per cent of the mandatory reductions. Councils have the power to further reduce or write off the rates of eligible pensioners. Some New South Wales councils do offer additional reductions. For instance, Ryde Municipal Council allows a further $80 rebate for pensioners who meet a residential qualification of 10 years or more. Parramatta City Council allows a further rate rebate of 50 per cent, to a maximum of $210, for pensioners meeting a residential qualification of five years or more. These figures, therefore, reveal that the average—I emphasise "average"—Sydney pensioner cannot expect any more than a $300 concession on the payment of rates unless special local concessions exist. I tura now to Victoria, the home of the Cain Labor Govemment. In fact, pensioners in Melboume are even worse off than pensioners in Mr Wran's State. Is it any wonder that pensioners from those two Labor States are now seeking refuge and solace in Queensland? Details of rate reductions available to Melboume pensioners are 50 per cent of municipal rates, to a maximum of $135 per annum, and 50 per cent of water and sewerage charges, to a maximum of $67.50 for each category. Victorian councils also have the power to offer additional rebates. However, having contacted a number of councils in the Melboume area, the staff of the Parliamentary Library was unable to find any instances of additional concessions. That means that Melboume pensioners are receiving a maximum rate concession of only $270. I tum now to South Australia. One observes basically the same picture in that State as in New South Wales and Victoria. Adelaide pensioners can expect rate concessions of 60 per cent of council rates, to a maximum of $ 150, and 60 per cent of water and sewerage charges, to a maximum of $75 in each category. No further local Govemment concessions are available in South Australia. Therefore, Adelaide pensioners receive a maximum concession of $300, the same as pensioners in New South Wales. Tasmanian pensioners receive concessions of 30 per cent of council rates, and 50 per cent of fire service levy. The Hobart City Council offers a further remission of 10 4060 12 March 1984 Matters of Public Interest per cent of council rates, that is, a total pensioner remission of 40 per cent, to a total maximum remission of $200. Westem Austrahan pensioners can receive the following concessions: a 50 per cent rebate of local authority rates, and of water charges due to the water authority; and, altematively, 100 per cent deferment of rates, payable on the sale of the property or from the owner's estate, is offered. Allow me to say that not one other Australian state offers as much in pensioner rates concessions as Queensland does. The details of concessions available to Brisbane pensioners are: 20 per cent of all rates, that is, general, water, sewerage, cleansing and pedestal rates, to a maximum of $150 per annum; and, if a property is jointly owned by husband and wife, with both residing on the premises, only one need fiilfil the criteria to obtain a full rebate. Persons receiving the maximum rate of either a widow's invalid, age or service pension, are eligible for a further 40 per cent discount off all rates to a maximum of $750 per annum, I sincerely hope that honourable members opposite heard what I just said. Pensioners in Brisbane can receive a maximum rates rebate of $900 per annum. For the information of the House, I add that pensioners in Brisbane pay an average rate of $69.08 quarterly or $5.70 a week. Compared with the so-called "big two" economic states of New South Wales and Victoria, Queensland is streets ahead. Queensland pensioners are $600 ahead of pensioners who live in Sydney and $630 ahead of Melboume pensioners. There can be no dispute—the Queensland Goverament is doing more for pensioners than any other State in Australia, and that is why pensioners flock to Queensland. The Queensland Goverament enables pensioners to keep their homes rather than force them to sell because of crippling rates burdens. Electricity concessions pale into insignificance in comparison with rates concessions. It is worth reminding the House of the waiting-list for public housing through State housing authorities. All waiting-lists contain significant numbers of pensioners who need flats, units or houses; hence it is reasonable to assume that the States with low waiting- lists must be housing people, especiaUy pensioners, more efficiently. I now turn to examine the waiting-lists for all States as a proportion of 10 000 people: Queensland, 34; Victoria, 47; Westera Australia, 61; Tasmania, 92; New South Wales, 107; and South Australia, 257. Fewer than 9 000 people await public housing in Queensland whereas, in New South Wales, the figure is 58 000. Not only does Queensland offer better rates concessions, but also it is better able to house its people. I remind the House that Queensland has achieved by far the highest rate of home- ownership in Australia. Once again, the typical AustraUan Labor Party campaign of Ues and untmths about Queensland has been exposed, I thank all honourable members for their attention during my speech, Mr CASEY: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr MENZEL: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): I call the honourable member for Mulgrave, Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. Under the mles of practice in this House, it has always been the practice that speakers in the Matters of Pubhc Interest debate will alternate between the Government side and the Opposition side. As the previous speaker was a member on the Goverament side, I believe that the next speaker called should be from the Opposition. I seek your mling on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! According to the list given to me by the Govem­ ment Whip, which was later amended, I call the honourable member for Mulgrave. I mle accordingly. Sugar Indusfry, Babinda Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (12.58 p.m.): In the short time that is available to me, I wish to mention comments by Mr Joe Zappala as reported in The Cairns Post of Saturday, 1 March 1986, about problems being experienced in the Babinda district. He Mr Speaker's Ruhng 12 March 1984 4061 is a well-known resident of Babinda, and I cite this instance as another example of The Cairns Post publishing comments made by people of doubtful reputation. In 1974, Mr Zappala and I nominated for positions of director of the Babinda sugar-mill. When we were elected to the board, Mr Zappala supported me in my bid to become chairman. However, shortly after that, Mr Zappala telephoned the sugar-mill and demanded that extra bins above his entitlement be provided. When his requests were refused, he demanded that, as chairman, I should agree to the request; but, of course, I refused. It was after I refused that we fell out. I discovered subsequently that, using his position of director of the mill, Mr Zappala purchased a stove on discount. That was contrary to the policy of the board at that time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the debate on matters of pubhc interest has now expired. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

MR SPEAKER'S RULING Motion of Dissent Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (2.15 p.m.): I move— "That the mling given by Mr Speaker on the meaning and operation of Standing Order No. 123A and the ordered withdrawal of the member for Ipswich from the Chamber on Tuesday, 18 Febmary 1986, be dissented from." It gives me no pleasure at all to move that motion today Mr Ahern interjected. Mr HAMILL: The Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology may laugh, but I draw his attention to the fact that I have endeavoured to pursue every reasonable means, I believe, to ensure that what I believed to be a gross injustice was properly dealt with in a fomm other than this one; that the matter could have been corrected and that the appropriate redress, as such, could have been achieved. I believe that there has been an inaccuracy in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, and in arguing that point I draw upon the record of the debate of that day as evidence that the Votes and Proceedings do not clearly and accurately reflect the events of 18 Febmary this year. I believe that the Hansard report does clarify the events. I am not imputing any bad motive at all to Mr Speaker, and I would refrain from so doing. However, I believe that what has actually occurred has been an honest mistake on the part of Mr Speaker. I have endeavoured to pursue every means by which that honest mistake ought to have been corrected. It grieves me that it has to come to this; that I should have to formally move such a motion in the House. As the incident occurted some few weeks ago now, it would assist honourable members if the events of that day were properly recalled. Let me embark upon that process of reminding honourable members of exactly what occurred on that day that led to the incident which, of course, is the subject of the motion I have moved this aftemoon. Hansard records that on that day a number of members were wamed by Mr Speaker pursuant to Standing Order No. 123A. During that moming the following were so wamed: the members for Lytton, Sandgate—that is, the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy—Brisbane Central, Chatsworth, Bulimba and Murmmba. It is interesting that the wamings were all directed to honourable members on this side of the Chamber. Nevertheless, that was the record of the wamings delivered under Standing Order No. 123A on 18 Febmary when Mr Speaker was in the chair. 4062 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

You, Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst occupying the chair in your capacity as Deputy Speaker, delivered a waraing to the member for Mackay under Standing Order No. 123A and then named him under Standing Order No. 124. That, of course, has been the subject of subsequent debate in this place, and the House as a whole resolved to uphold your mling. I make no more of that point. During that aftemoon, however, when Mr Speaker again took the chair, the honourable member for Salisbury was wamed under Standing Order No. 123A. Another waming was then issued to the member for South Brisbane, with Mr Speaker stating that the member for South Brisbane had already been waraed that moraing. The member for South Brisbane rightly pointed out that Mr Speaker had not so waraed him. Mr Speaker then told the member for South Brisbane that he was waraing him then and there under Standing Order No. 123A. Then it became my tum. Mr Speaker stated that I should withdraw from the Chamber, giving a mling under Standing Order No. 123A—or purporting so to do. The Leader of the Opposition intervened at that stage to point out to Mr Speaker that I had not been wamed eariier in the day either by you, sir, or by Mr Speaker. At that time Mr Speaker claimed that he had wamed me only a couple of minutes earlier. The record of debate does not show such a waming. Indeed, I heard no such waming. I challenge any honourable member to attest to the fact that he heard a waming addressed to me by Mr Speaker just prior to my being asked to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A. Although the Leader of the Opposition protested that I had not been wamed properly under that Standing Order, I withdrew from the Chamber, feeling very aggrieved that my privilege as a member of this Assembly had been severely infringed because I could not take my seat in the House to represent my constituents, as is my right and privUege as a member of Parliament. The following day, I made a personal explanation to point out the facts to the Daily Sun newspaper, which had wrongly and incorrectly reported the proceedings of the previous day. I then raised the matter of privilege that led to this debate this afteraoon. On the question of privilege, I sought Mr Speaker's mling on two very pertinent points. The first related to the proper and correct meaning of, in particular, the first paragraph of Standing Order No. 123A, which reads— "123A. (1) The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after waraing such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." In raising that matter with Mr Speaker, I asked him to mle upon the words "after waming such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly ..." Those words are very relevant to my being ordered to withdraw from the Chamber. Any fair and tme interpretation of those words requires that a member be given a waming for disorderly conduct under Standing Order No. 123A, because that Standing Order states quite clearly, "... continues to be grossly disorderly," My case is simply that I was not wamed previously on account of grossly disorderly conduct, and therefore, in the absence of any prior waming, it was improper and incorrect for me to be ordered to withdraw from the Chamber, purportedly under Standing Order No. 123A. That order from the Chair must be given only when an instance of grossly disorderly conduct has already attracted a waming from the Chair. Sadly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the point that I raised in my matter of privilege on 19 Febmary, and on which I again asked for a mling on the last Thursday on which we sat, was not mled on by Mr Speaker. It was totally ignored; the matter of privilege that I raised was not answered by Mr Speaker. He did not give an interpretation of Standing Order No. 123A (1). That is fundamental to the rights of all honourable members of this House. We need to know exactly where we stand in relation to the usage of that Standing Order. Many honourable members, apart from me, have been wamed under Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4063 that Standing Order, and many honourable members would suggest that that Standing Order has been used with considerable liberality by the Chair. The second matter that I raise relates to Votes and Proceedings leading one to believe that I was given a waming by the Chair, that I continued in a disorderly manner, and that, therefore, the Chair asked me to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order No. 123A. If the Votes and Proceedings record that, they do not accord with the record of debate in Hansard of the waraings delivered by the Chafr on that day. Therefore, the record of the Votes and Proceedings is not in accord with reality—with the tmth and accuracy of the proceedings of the House on that day. In Mr Speaker's mling on 27 Febmary, he said— "I have studied the records and no amendment is necessary to the Votes and Proceedings entry which accords with the Hansard record of debate." Mr Speaker was labouring under a misapprehension. The records show that no waming was given, and, furthermore, that record is the Hansard record of debate. I believe that an injustice has been done. The Votes and Proceedings should reflect the debate in the House. We should ensure that no other honourable member finds himself in a similar predicament of being asked to withdraw from the Chamber—to withdraw from performing his duty as a member of Parliament—because of an honest mistake on the part of Mr Speaker. Given those circumstances, in my opinion there is a duty incumbent on Mr Speaker to ensure that such honest mistakes are suitably rectified. I ask honourable members to support the motion of dissent. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (2.26 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the honourable member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill). This is an important matter for all members of the House. We all take seriously the withdrawal of the privilege of a member of this Chamber to continue to speak in this place and to be present to vote in it. Standing Order No. 123A states— "(1) The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after waming such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." The Standing Order is quite clear: there has to be a continuation of gross disorderliness and there has to be a waming. I suggest that Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Committees have no power under Standing Order No. 123A to order any member to withdraw from the Chamber unless a waming has been given and unless there has been a continuation of grossly disorderly conduct. We are fortunate to have available to us the official parliamentary debates, the Hansard, which shows precisely what occurred in this instance. It is very informative and instmctive, I refer to page 3557 of Hansard, on 18 Febmary 1986. The relevant section reads— "Mr Goss: Are you saying that they should have resigned? Mr McKECHNIE: No, I am not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Salisbury under Standing Order No, 123A, Mr Fouras interjected, Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe I waraed the member for South Brisbane this moming. Mr Fouras: No, you did not wam me this moming, Mr SPEAKER: Then I warn the honourable member now, under Standing Order No, 123A, Mr Hamill: He was in good company; Mr Hinze did not resign, either. 4064 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Pursuant to Standing Order No, 123A, I ask the honourable member for Ipsjvich to withdraw from the Chamber, Opposition Members interjected, Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Ipswich to leave the Chamber, Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order, Mr SPEAKER: When the member for Ipswich has left the House, the Leader of the Opposition may do that, Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, the member for Ipswich has not been waraed, Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not have the Leader of the Opposition arguing with the Chair. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wamed the honourable member for Ipswich only a few minutes ago. Mr WARBURTON: No, no. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the honourable member for Ipswich please leave the Chamber? Mr WARBURTON: Oh, you went to sit down. I rise to a point of order. Under the Standing Orders, you are obliged to wam the member under Standing Order No. 123A before you order him out of the Chamber. The honourable member for Ipswich has not been wamed under Standing Order No. 123A, and you cannot, therefore, order him from the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have wamed him under Standing Order No. 123A. I wrote it down here, and I have it. The member will withdraw from the Chamber." Mr Speaker was clearly saying that the official records of the House would show that he had wamed the member for Ipswich and that he was therefore entitled, as a result of a continuation of what he regarded as grossly disorderly conduct, to order him then to withdraw from the Chamber. As the honourable member for Ipswich has informed the House today, he subsequently sought a mling on this matter. Indeed, there is a mling from the Speaker on this matter. The Opposition was concemed not only for a colleague but also for the continuation of proper parliamentary practice. The concem was for the fact that not only had the honourable member for Ipswich been incorrectly asked to leave but also perhaps the Speaker was trying to assert that members could be ordered to withdraw from this House under Standing Order No. 123A before they had received a waming. That was of particular concera to the Opposition. However, on reading the parliamentary records, it appears that that is not so. Firstly, when the order to withdraw was made, Mr Speaker said, on two occasions in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, that he had in fact given a waming. So, on the first occasion, he was not asserting his right to order people to withdraw under Standing Order No. 123A without having been given a waming. Twice he clearly said, "I wamed him." To clarify the situation, a mling was sought from the Speaker, and he undertook to give such a mling. My notes on the matter reveal that the Speaker undertook to give a mling and subsequently returaed to the Chamber and gave his mling. My notes are as follows— "Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ipswich has again raised in the House his withdrawal from the House under Standing Order No. 123A on 18 Febmary last. I inform the House that the matter was discussed with the honourable member in my office, which I believe is the correct procedure for raising matters not suddenly arising. Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4065

I have studied the records and no amendment is necessary to the Votes and Proceedings entry, which accords with the Hansard record of debate. I am sorry that I have delayed the proceedings of the House." That is clearly not so. The Speaker clearly cannot, should not and should not be able to continue to say that, by studying the records of the House, the correct procedure was followed and that no amendment is necessary to the Votes and Proceedings. How can he possibly assert that? Hansard shows clearly that the honourable member for Ipswich was not wamed. The record shows clearly that the Speaker believed that he had waraed the honourable member for Ipswich, but no member in this place should be dealt with on the belief of the Speaker or any of his deputies if that belief is wrong and clearly incorrect. No-one in this Chamber can produce an official record that shows that what the Speaker says occurred did in fact occur. In fact, the direct opposite is tme. Therefore, what is the situation? Is there a situation in which the Speaker can never be wrong? Does the Speaker have a divine right in this Chamber similar to the ancient divine right of Kings? Is that the stage that has been reached now? Is it the situation that, even though the Speaker is wrong and the records shows him to be wrong, he cannot come into this Chamber and say, "I was wrong. I made an honest mistake. I withdraw what I did. The Votes and Proceedings and the records wiU be corrected"? What stupidity it would be if there were to be some sort of divine right of the Speaker, if the Speaker were infallible, or if it were the case thatj the Speaker is always right even when he is proven by the record to be wrong. ' The Opposition contends that the Govemment should not support the Speaker if the Speaker is clearly wrong. The Opposition does not wish the Speaker to be castigated. He made what apparently was, in the heat of a difficult day, an honest mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. Speakers are allowed to make mistakes, but they are expected to be man enough to admit them and to correct them. For the Speaker to say that he has studied the records of this place and found that he has not made any mistake, that the records clearly show that he was right, is not justice, is unparliamentary and should be corrected by the House. The failure of the Speaker to correct his own error can be corrected in this Chamber by us as parliamentarians. We are clearly right in what we state. He is clearly wrong. The record shows that, and the record must be corrected. It would have been interesting if the House had before it today Mr Speaker's mling on the novel proposition that he can ask honourable members to leave the House under Standing Order No. 123A without giving a prior waraing. However, in his mling he has not asserted that. He did not assert that when the member for Ipswich was asked to withdraw. So, clearly, such a mling is not contained in the records of the House. In all the circumstances, there is no doubt that Mr Speaker was wrong. There is no doubt that Mr Speaker should have corrected his error. Therefore, we ask the House to correct Mr Speaker's error and to adjust properly the records of the House. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology) (2.34 p.m.): In the midst of public demand throughout Queensland for debate on a whole variety of issues important to two and a-half million people—issues such as the economy, unemployment, interest rates, petrol. Bills of Rights and so on— the House is asked to hesitate, to halt and to decide whether the member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill), who has been in this House, figuratively speaking, for five hours and 30 minutes, has had his rights and immunities offended in some way, I am certain that the two and a-half million people of Queensland are Uterally on the edge of their seats this afteraoon waiting for the result of this debate so that they can try to understand whether this young member, who has come in here with great undergraduate enthusiasm and who is every day making interjections and on his feet on points of order, has somehow had his rights and immunities in this place as a member 4066 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling of Parliament offended. Often during question-time the honourable member shouts, behind his moustache and his hand raised, "Sieg Heil! Sieg HeU!" That is an example of the performance of the honourable member whom we are asked to judge today. We are asked to judge whether in some way one of his rights has been offended by a decision of Mr Speaker. He has the right to question that decision; so today members of the Parliament are asked tg focus on the performance of the honourable member for Ipswich on the first day of sittings of the House this year. His actions have to be judged against the decision of Mr Speaker. The honourable member has the right to ask for this debate, and today we judge. The first question that has to be raised is whether the motion that he has brought before the House today is properly before us. An Opposition Member: Are you going to make that mling? Mr AHERN: I beheve there is a legitimate doubt. As the honourable member for Ipswich is an undergraduate in the law, he may like to consider some of these questions. The motion before us today has been brought under Standing Order No. 117. The first question that must be raised is: Has a mling actually been made? That is important. Has Mr Speaker actually made a mling? That is a legitimate question. He has certainly made a statement on the matter, but numerous people would question whether Mr Speaker has actually made a definitive mling on the matter now before the House, That is an important issue. Mr Hamill: There were two points on which Mr Speaker was asked to mle. Mr AHERN: I did not interject during the honourable member's speech, so I ask him to let me make my case. The second question is whether the motion was properly moved within the three sitting days, as is laid down under Standing Order No. 117, which states— "Notice of such Motion shall be given and set down to be considered within three sitting days of that on which the Ruling was given ..." Today the House is discussing something that happened on the first day of this year's sittings; so the question is properly raised: Is the motion properly before us today? The question has been asked whether on the first day of sittings this year, the member for Ipswich was properly suspended under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A. I now ask members to reflect back to that time. It certainly was the first day of sittings and, not unnaturally, was a day of some excitement, noisiness and contumely. It was a day on which some honourable members were suspended. The House has already debated an incident involving the honourable member for Mackay, which also occurred on the first day of sittings of the House. A number of members were waraed. It was a noisy and difficult day for Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Ipswich was suspended on that day. On this occasion, he has asked the very relevant question: Was I properly dealt with under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A? Standing Order No. 123A states— "The Speaker.,. may, after waraing such member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber," The honourable member for Ipswich contests whether he was waraed or not. He put forward the view that he was not properly waraed. He was certainly noisy. The record of proceedings certainly shows that. That is also my memory of the events. The Parliamentary Debates prove that, on the noisy day in question, the honourable member for Ipswich had plenty to say by way of interjection. Subsequently, the honourable member sought, quite properly, a conference in private with Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker explained to the honourable member the circumstances Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4067

of the honourable member's suspension. It was Mr Speaker's belief that the matter ought to be left as it was. That approach to Mr Speaker was a proper practice to undertake. Page 235 of Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice states— "The Speaker is always ready to advise Members of all parties who consult him privately whether upon any action which they propose to take in the House or upon any questions of order which are likely to arise in its proceedings. Such private mlings of the Speaker generally settle the questions at issue, but they may, if necessary, be supplemented by mlings given from the chair." The plain facts are that, on that occasion, the honourable member had explained to him by Mr Speaker that Mr Speaker had a fair and reasonable belief that he had wamed the honourable member. Mr Speaker produced a list of members who had been wamed. Mr Hamill: That is not so. Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker asserts that, on that occasion, he had a list. Opposition Members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I suggest that, in the interests of the debate, multiple interjections be discontinued. Mr AHERN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with you. It was explained to the honourable member for Ipswich that Mr Speaker had maintained a list of members wamed under Standing Order No. 123A, The name of the honourable member for Ipswich was on Mr Speaker's list. In terms of the honourable member's personal record, it was explained that Mr Speaker believed that he had proceeded to wam the honourable member. From what I recall of that noisy day, that might well have been tme. As the record will eventually show, the honourable member certainly interjected on many occasions. The honourable member for Ipswich and other members were noisy on that day. Today, honourable members are asked whether they should observe the traditional authority of Mr Speaker to maintain order in the House during a noisy debate, or the rights of the honourable member for Ipswich, who, according to Hansard, was not appropriately warned by Mr Speaker. However, Mr Speaker definitely thought on that occasion that he had waraed the honourable member. 1 assert that this matter is not of enormous importance to the State. The plain facts are that there is substantial doubt whether the honourable member has properly brought the motion before the House and whether it is consistent with Standing Orders on two important issues. At the time, Mr Speaker had a noisy debate on his hands, with members, including the honourable member for Ipswich, consistently on thefr feet and interjecting. Mr Speaker recorded that the honourable member for Ipswich had interjected on many occasions. My memory of that occasion is that, if the honourable member had not been wamed, he could easily have been wamed, along with others. Opposition Members interjected. Mr AHERN: The honourable member for Ipswich is waraed regularly in this Chamber. Erskine May—Parliamentary Practice states— "It is the duty of the Speaker to preserve the orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises ..." That is what he did on that occasion. Mr Speaker acted with a fair and honest behef during what was a very difficult and noisy day, and he is entitled to the support of the House. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (2.45 p.m.): I think that the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology, who has just resumed his seat, lost the draw in Cabinet. He 4068 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's Ruling was the unlucky one in the draw; he was chosen to speak in this debate and defend the Speaker's position. The Minister told the House that the matter being debated is not important and that many marvellous things, in which the community is interested, should be debated. On four occasions, motions have been moved to debate the Lindeman Island proposal— the seU-out of a national park to Top-level Ted and his cronies in East-West Airiines— and not once has Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Lytton is digressing from the subject-matter of the debate. I will not aUow that. Mr BURNS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am only answering charges that were made. However, I will defer to your mling. I realise that I have to do so if I want to continue to speak for the next 10 minutes. I wiU answer a couple of other charges. This Chamber is for all members of Parliament. It is not a place only for the Goverament or for Ministers. This Chamber is not a place in which the tyranny of numbers should be used against the Opposition. The honourable member for Ipswich (Mr HamiU) has the same rights as all other members of this Parliament. It is the job of the Speaker to ensure that the honourable member for Ipswich is able to exercise those rights. The Opposition is suggesting that the honourable member for Ipswich did not get a fair go and, in fact, that the Speaker acted in his usual incompetent manner on the moming in question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow the honourable member for Lytton to impugn the veracity of the Speaker. He will withdraw the word "incompetent", Mr BURNS: I will withdraw the word "incompetent" and substitute the word "stupid". Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I now wam the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A for being impudent to the Chair. Mr BURNS: I withdraw the word "stupid"; and I will accept your warning, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I am pleased that you have wamed me, because that is what did not happen in the case of the honourable member for Ipswich. He was not wamed. He was not wamed at all. In fact, what the Speaker says is that the Hansard record is a lie. The Speaker has said that what is recorded in Hansard is not correct. The Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology argued about three days and so on. Surely the Minister did not get his brief right because, on page 581 of the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly for 27 Febmary, the following is recorded— "STATEMENT BY MR SPEAKER—Operation of Standing Order No. 123A," The Votes and Proceedings then record the Speaker's mling, as foUows— "The Honourable Member for Ipswich has again raised in the House his withdrawal from the House under Standing Order No, 123A on 18th Febmary last, I inform the House that the matter was discussed with the Honourable Member in my Office, which I believe is the correct procedure for raising matters not suddenly arising, I have studied the records and no amendment is necessary to the Votes and Proceedings entry which accords with the Hansard record of debate," After that mling was given, the honourable member for Ipswich moved that the mling be dissented from. j The job of the Speaker is to be impartial. The job of the Speaker is to impartially enforce the Standing Orders of this Parliament. It is not the job of the Speaker to be the Govemment's man. Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4069

I point to titles of newspaper articles such as, "Waraer is Nats' Pick For Speaker", and "Nats' Name Candidate For Chair", the latter of which reads— "The Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, yesterday said no National Party MP's would vote against Mr Wamer in the secret ballot for the Speakership." The Speaker is the National Party's man in this Parliament. The Speaker has said that he is the National Party's man in this Parliament. A newspaper article entitled " 'No House Debate' On Funds Row" states— "The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Warner, was certain to stop debate on the goverament funds scandal, the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, said today." The Premier said that he was sure that the Speaker would mle that any questions on that matter were out of order. When honourable members bow their heads to the chair, they bow to the office of the Chair. Honourable members should be able to bow to the incumbent of the chair, and he should be impartial and honest in the manner in which he carries out his duties. The Opposition says that, in the instance being debated, the Speaker did not act impartially and honestly. The Opposition says that the honourable member for Ipswich was not wamed under Standing Order No. 123A. The honourable member for Ipswich was not given the opportunity of accepting the Speaker's warning and saying, "I will abide by the mles." He was immediately kicked out. Mr Deputy Speaker, you must allow me a little latitude, because 1 have to say that, unfortunately, it seems to me that the Speaker is unable to see members correctly. On two occasions, the honourable member for Ipswich West (Mr Underwood) interjected in this Chamber and Mr Speaker wamed the honourable member for Ipswich, who had not said a word. When members of the Opposition said to Mr Speaker, "Ipswich West", he looked at us askance, for we know the system under which he operates. When question-time arrives, the attendant who wears glasses and sits in the comer of the Chamber—I forget his name for the moment—has to hand up a list of names and electorates so that Mr Speaker will know who is who, and so that each member can be called in tum. If Mr Speaker does not know who is who in this Parliament, and he kicks a member out and names the wrong member Mr FitzGerald: But you often mistake members yourself Mr BURNS: Wait a moment. The Opposition accepts that argument; basically, that is one of the arguments advanced by the Opposition. Members of the Opposition know that Mr Speaker made a mistake, but he will not admit that mistake. Today, Goverament members will use the numbers to say that Mr Speaker did not make a mistake; Goverament members will use the numbers to say that the Hansard record is not right; and Goverament members will use the numbers to say that the record provided by the Hansard staff is wrong. 1 do not care how often the old dairy-farmer from Warwick gets up and counts his cows during the next 10 minutes, because he knows as well as I do that, in that particular instance, Mr Speaker was obviously wrong. Despite that, today Mr Speaker will be propped up by the numbers. The tyranny of numbers is destroying the role of the Speaker. Mr Speaker is scared to make mlings that go against the Govemment. He has been issued with orders that he must keep members of the Opposition in Une and that members of the Opposition should be kicked out. One need only remember this moraing's performance. The honourable member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) rose to move a motion, but Mr Speaker really did not know what to do. When the honourable member for Nundah moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent him moving a motion, because leave had not been sought, Mr Speaker kept popping up and asking whether leave had been sought, not realising that under the provisions of the Standing Orders a member is able to move a motion—just like that. 4070 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's RuUng

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker does not know the provisions of the Standing Orders; therefore, he is not able to enforce them impartially. Moreover, the National Party would not aUow him to; he is hamstmng. The National Party has made it impossible for Mr Speaker to carry out properly the role of a Speaker. The role of the Speaker should be exercised as if Mr Speaker is everybody's man. Mr Speaker is supposed to be the Opposition's man as well. Each day, members of the Opposition, when entering the Chamber, bow their heads in deference to the authority of the Chair, because they believe that Mr Speaker will enforce the mles impartially and give aU honourable members a fair go. Members of the opposition are saying that, quite clearly, Mr Speaker made a mistake. We believe that he should have come back into the Parliament and said to everyone present, "Look, I made a mistake." Mr Speaker has done that before. As I said previously, this is not the first time that such an incident has occurred. The honourable member for Ipswich West (Mr Underwood) will teU honourable members that Mr Speaker gets mixed up. Instead of naming the electorate of Ipswich West, Mr Speaker says "Ipswich" and then writes "Ipswich" on his sheet of paper. Thank God there is not an electorate of Lytton West or Lytton East, because I would never spend any time in the Parliament if there were! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lytton has digressed from the subject-matter under discussion by referring to events that have taken place during previous debates in the Chamber. Mr BURNS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will wind up with the foUowing comments. The role of the Speaker is demanding. It requires more than simply a knowledge of parliamentary procedure. It demands that the political party that elects the Speaker should allow him to interpret the mles in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders in a fair and honest manner. In this Parhament, John Wamer has never been given that opportunity. His mling in relation to the honourable member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill) was wrong, and he did not have the courage or intestinal fortitude to come back into the Chamber and admit that he had made a mistake. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (2.52 p.m.): I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the honourable member for Lytton, who preceded me in this debate. He referred to me as "the old dairy-farmer". I will not apologise for being a dairy-farmer; on the contrary, I am mighty proud of it, and there is no way in the world that I would make an apology for it. Before I became involved in the dairy industry, I held many and varied positions. Mr Burns: You have stUl got the cow-dung on your shoes, Mr BOOTH: That is all right with me. I will not make any apologies for the fact that I am a dairy-farmer, and I will not insult the honourable member for Lytton. The downfall of the honourable member for Lytton is the foolishness of his remarks, and I believe that is one of the reasons that he will not occupy a position of high authority in this State. That is very unfortunate for him. Let me now tum my attention to the young honourable member for Ipswich (Mr Hamill). This afteraoon, when the honourable member rose to move this motion Mr Vaughan: Do not throw off at him because of his age. Mr BOOTH: I am not about to throw off at him because of his age, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I said previously that I will not tolerate multiple interjections. It is easy to see how confusion can be caused in this Chamber from time to time by performances of honourable members, particularly those to my left who interject constantly and tediously, I ask for all interjections to cease. Mr BOOTH: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not about to ridicule the young honourable member, becuse I would love to be his age. However, if I were his age, I would be a little more careful until I gained enough experience in this Chamber. For instance, when Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4071 the honourable member began to speak this aftemoon he more or less apologised for moving the motion that he did. He said that he should not have had to do so. That was a very foolish thing to say. The whole debate on this matter is much ado about nothing. Even honourable members opposite have not had their hearts in it. That was obvious from the way in which the member for Lytton rambled on. He did not want to talk about the motion; he wanted to talk about other things. He said a few things about Mr Speaker that I thought were unkind. Why would Mr Speaker lack sincerity? I see very little to be gained by a lack of sincerity on the part of whoever sits in the chair, whether he be an ALP, National Party or Liberal Party nominee. The occupant of the chair certainly must keep control of the Chamber. It is said that Mr Speaker did not wam the member for Ipswich under Standing Order No. 123A. That day was a very busy one, and many harsh words were bandied round, Mr Speaker issued repeated general wamings. He said, "If there is any more trouble, I will name members." In that situation, surely any young member should have known that something would happen if he continued, as the good book says, to be grossly disorderly. The honourable member for Ipswich said that he was not grossly disorderly. However, that is a question of relativity. I suppose that what the member for Ipswich might say was not grossly disorderly, another person would say was grossly disorderly. I remember that day, and if I was put on oath I could not swear whether Mr Speaker issued a waming Mr Burns: Hansard says no. Mr BOOTH: I know that Hansard says no. However, with the amount of noise in the Chamber that day, I would be surprised if the best Hansard writer could have picked it up, Mr Burns: Under those circumstances, if things appear in Hansard, I can say that they are not right because there was a lot of noise going on? Mr BOOTH: That would be correct. If that happened on a day when the honourable member could not be heard, he would be well within his rights in chaUenging something. The key phrase is, "If he continues to be grossly disorderly". Perhaps that is where the young member got carried away on that occasion. When a person plays sport, he has to leam to accept the umpire's decision. Unfortunately, somebody has to be the umpire. I watch cricket on television, and I see instant replays. On one occasion the commentators said that such and such a player was not out leg before wicket, yet another player was. On both occasions it appeared to me that the batsman had his leg in front of the wicket, Mr Hamill: This is the action replay, Mr BOOTH: I know that Hansard is the action replay. However, when I am in the chair—I am not there terribly often—I find it reasonably difficult Mr Comben interjected, Mr BOOTH: It is not the easiest place to be. However, I believe that the occupant of the chair would be doing his best and would be sincere. Mr Burns: Don't you think it would be better if the Speaker did not have to look over there for his instmctions whUe he keeps his eye on us? Mr BOOTH: 1 think that the honourable member is being unfair. Mr Burns: I don't. Mr BOOTH: Very well; I will analyse that statement. The member for Lytton said that he read a press article stating that Mr Wamer was the National Party's nominee 4072 12 March 1984 Mr Speaker's RuUng for the speakership, and so he was. There was alsp an ALP nominee. He is not sitting in the chair only because he did not gain sufficient votes. If he had, he would be sitting in the chair now. He might be a success; he might not. Mr Burns: Are you saying that Mr Speaker doesn't do what the Premier wants him to do? Mr BOOTH: I am saying that he would not do anything like that; he is a man of honour. There is no way that he would do anything like that. It is very easy for the honourable member to say things like that. However, why would Mr Speaker make a mling that would cause embarrassment to that young man? He would not want to do that. Mr Comben interjected. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member is wrong, Mr Speaker is an experienced person. He has been round the place for a long time and would not do anything to embarrass someone unless he thought it was absolutely necessary. If he loses control, who suffers? The member for Lytton said that it was the ordinary member. Mr Burns: We do. Mr BOOTH: Yes, If Mr Speaker loses control, we aU suffer. I can speak this afteraoon only because there is someone in the chair who will ensure that I am able to be heard. Opposition members have to realise that, provided they are having their say, they have no complaint. Honourable members do not have the right to challenge tiie authority of the Chair on every occasion. The authority of the Chair must be paramount if Parliament is to function. Mr Burns: Subject to the Standing Orders. Mr BOOTH: Yes, subject to the Standing Orders. It is paramount that the Chair maintain control. I will give an instance outside Parliament. If the chairman at any school p. and c. meeting allowed everyone to speak at once—if he allowed fights and snipes—I feel sure that, in a couple of months' time, the p. and c. would not be operating. Very seldom do p. and c. associations break down. The man in the street understands how to conduct a meeting. There are plenty of people to choose from to select a suitable chairperson. That is how our society works. If society is allowed to break down in Parliament, it will break down outside. The authority of the Chair has to be looked on as the last word. Mr Burns: If the chairman of the p. and c. makes bad mlings, there will stiU be no p. and c. Mr BOOTH: That may be so, if he were to make bad mlings. Generally, I believe, Mr Speaker has tried to do his best. He has done so in fairly difficult circumstances. The member for Lytton must admit that he is not the easiest person to control. Mr Burns: I am the easiest-going bloke in this Parliament, Mr BOOTH: The honourable member could have fooled me. Mr Burns: You are easy to fool, Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for Lytton missed out again this afteraoon when he thought he would roll me with that old dairy-farmer comment. There is no way in the world that the honourable member will roll me with that, I will not apologise for the things that I have done in my life. If I had the time, I could say something about the honourablfe member's background. In deference to our being in the House, Mr Speaker's Ruling 12 March 1984 4073 and to the occupant of the chair, I will not say anything about those matters. If I were to deal with the background of the honourable member for Lytton, I remind him that my memory goes back a long time. I will not take the matter further. I believe that Mr Speaker acted in sincerity; that, if nothing else, the general waraings he gave were sufficient. I believe that he did sincerely what he thought was correct. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (3.3 p.m.): This is not an occasion on which Mr Speaker is on trial. Therefore, any criticism of Mr Speaker this afteraoon is a reflection on the Chair, which, in itself, is grossly disorderly. This afteraoon, honourable members are considering Standing Order No. 123A relative to Mr Speaker's action requesting the honourable member for Ipswich West to leave the Chamber. Mr Hamill: The member for Ipswich. Mr LICKISS: I am sorry; the member for Ipswich. Honourable members are dealing with the action of Mr Speaker in requesting the honourable member for Ipswich to leave the Chamber. If a member is disorderly, is waraed by the Chair, and continues to act in a grossly disorderly manner. Standing Orders provide that, if ordered to, he will leave the Chamber forthwith. The argument this afteraoon is whether or not that did happen. Standing Order No. 123A is quite clear. It reads— "(1) The Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, may, after waraing such Member, order any Member whose conduct, in his opinion, continues to be grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber. (2) A Member ordered to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber under this Standing Order must do so forthwith, and must, during the remainder of the day's sitting, absent himself from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." Paragraph 3 gives further qualification. The point is whether the honourable member for Ipswich was, in fact, waraed in the first instance before he was requested, pursuant to Standing Order No. 123A, to leave the Chamber. Various authorities have been quoted and much weight has been placed on Hansard. Hansard is not the official record of Parliament. The official record of Parliament is the Votes and Proceedings. The Clerks at the table, whose job it is to note the proceedings of the Chamber, have stated quite clearly, what happened in their view, that is, that the member, having been waraed, was requested to leave the Chamber. Mr Burns interjected. Mr LICKISS: I can assure the honourable member for Lytton that it is the responsibility of the Clerks at the table to look at the fiinctioning of the Parliament in detail. It is very difficult for members sitting in their places to react to interjections or the conduct of members during the course of debate. Mr Burns: You are suggesting that they keep a hst of everybody who interjects? Mr LICKISS: No, I am not suggesting that at all, I am saying that it is thefr responsibility to look at the functioning of the Parliament in detaU. As I have said, Hansard is not the official record of the Parliament, Mr Hamill: Mr Lickiss Mr LICKISS: The honourable member for Ipswich has had his say, and I would like to develop my theme. If I have time, I will come back and answer the honourable member's question. The member for Ipswich pursued the matter, through the processes provided by the House, and sought the view of Mr Speaker. Later, on a point of order, the honourable

70591—138 4074 12 March 1986 Mr Speaker's Ruling

member asked Mr Speaker to give a mhng on a matter of privilege that he had raised earlier. It is a question of what is a mling and what is not a ruling, I note that Mr Speaker said— "Order! I will look into the matter, and I assure the honourable member for Ipswich that my mling will be given at some time today," If we are to believe Mr Speaker—and we are bound to believe him—in his mind what he said later in the day was a mling. His mling was— "Order! The honourable member for Ipswich has again raised in the House his withdrawal from the House under Standing Order No. 123A on 18 Febmary last. I inform the House that the matter was discussed with the honourable member in my office, which I believe is the correct procedure for raising matters not suddenly arising." These are the operative words— "I have studied the records and no amendment is necessary to the Votes and Proceedings entry, which accords with the Hansard record of debate," Mr Braddy: It doesn't, Mr LICKISS: WeU, the Votes and Proceedings entry was pemsed by Mr Speaker, and he beheved it to be a correct record of what happened on that day. Mr Braddy: He said that it accorded with the Hansard record of debate, but it doesn't. Sir William Knox: And Mr Speaker has signed it. Mr LICKISS: I imagine that Mr Speaker has now signed the Votes and Proceedings and, as the honourable member for Rockhampton would know, that becomes the official record of this Parliament. To say that Mr Speaker did in fact mislead the House is a gross reflection on the Chair. It is the role of members of this Parliament to uphold the authority of Mr Speaker, If members are dissatisfied with Mr Speaker, other avenues are available to deal with the matter. This is not the time to do that. It is grossly disorderly for any member to reflect on the Chair by saying that, having examined the matter in detaU, what Mr Speaker said was incorrect. That is tantamount to saying that Mr Speaker was not teUing the tmth. We have to look at the functioning of this Parliament. I do not want to go back in time,, but I point out that presiding officers have given a general waraing and, after that, taken final action under Standing Order No, 123A, Of course that is highly irregular. The practice used to be that two waraings were given before Standing Order No, 123A was applied, I will now read from some of my notes from the eariy 1960s, My notes in respect of Standing Order No, 123A state— "After appeals from the Chair for 'Order' have been unsuccessfiil and the Member persists in being disorderly—say:—" and these were the instmctions given to presiding officers— "I draw the attention of the honourable member for to the provisions of Standing Order No, 123A," It then goes on— "If this does not have the desired effect of quietening the honourable member—" Public Safety Preservation Bill 12 March 1986 4075 and the next statement from the Chair was— "In my opinion the conduct of the Honourable Member for is grossly disorderly and I now wam him that if he does not at once desist I shall be compelled to order him to withdraw from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." After that waming, if the member still persisted, the next statement from the Chair was— "Under the power vested in me by the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A, I now order the Honourable Member for to withdraw immediately from the Legislative Assembly Chamber." In years past, the Chair had a set pattem, and every honourable member knew the pattem and how he would be waraed. He knew precisely how he stood in the House. Today, a difficult decision has to be made because I believe that on the one hand—and I am not having the proverbial two shillings each way—the honourable member for Ipswich may have been in some doubt as to where he stood when the decision was given; on the other hand, I believe it is the requirement and the responsibility of the Parliament, having elected its Speaker, to stand by him. If anything were to come out of this debate—and I believe it is an important debate—it should be that this Parliament must try to ensure that there is more consistency with instmctions given pursuant to Standing Orders than there has been in the past. If that is done, this Parliament will be relieved from much of the trauma that is occurring presently. The Liberal Party will support the Speaker. Question—That Mr Speaker's mling be dissented from (Mr Hamill's motion)—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 47 Braddy Wamer, A. M. Ahem Lee Bums Wilson Alison Lester Casey Yewdale Austin Lickiss Comben Bailey Lingard D'Arcy Bjelke-Petersen Littleproud De Lacy Booth McKechnie Eaton Borbidge McPhie Fouras Cahill Menzel Goss Chapman MiUer Hamill Clauson Muntz Kruger Cooper Newton Mackenroth Elliott Powell McEUigott FitzGerald Randell McLean Gibbs, I. J. Simpson MUliner Glasson Stephan Palaszczuk Gunn Stoneman Prest Gygar Tenni Price Harper Tumer Scott Harvey Wharton Shaw Henderson White Smith Innes Underwood Jennings Vaughan Tellers: Katter Tellers: Veivers Davis Knox Kaus Warburton Campbell Lane Neal Resolved in the negative.

PUBLIC SAFETY PRESERVATION BILL Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide protection for members of the public in situations of emergency that create or may create danger of death. 4076 12 March 1986 Public Safety Preservation Bill

injury or distress to any person, loss of or damage to any property or pollution of the environment and for related purposes," Motion agreed to. First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (3.22 p.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time." The principal thmst of the Bill, which is to be titled the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986, is to provide protection for members of the public in situations of emergency that create or may create danger of death, injury or distress to any person, loss of or damage to any property or pollution of the environment, and for related purposes. The Bill is not designed to replace the State Counter-Disaster Organization Act. The provisions of the proposed Act will apply to matters that could occur or have occurred before the provisions of the State Emergency Service Act apply, or to matters that would not come within the ambit of that Act. The first three clauses of the Bill cover machinery matters. Clause I provides that the short title of the proposed Act will be the Pubhc Safety Preservation Act 1986. Clause 2 provides for the arrangement of the proposed Act. Clause 3 provides that the Crown shall be bound by the Act. Clause 4 provides for the interpretation to be given to specific words that are frequently used throughout the proposed Act. In particular, the term "emergency situation" is defined to mean— (a) any explosion or fire; (b) any oil or chemical spill; (c) any escape of gas, radioactive material or flammable or combustible Uquids; (d) any accident involving an aircraft, or a train, vessel or vehicle; (e) any incident involving a bomb or other explosive device or a firearm or other weapon; or (f) any other accident, that causes or may cause a danger of death, injury or distress to any person, a loss of or damage to any property or pollution of the environment. The term also includes a situation arising from a report in respect of any of the matters referred to in provisions (a) to (f), which, if proved to be correct, would cause or may cause a danger of death, injury or distress to any person, a loss of or damage to any property or pollution of the environment. The term "resource" is also defined to mean anything animate or inanimate that may be of assistance to the incident co-ordinator. Clause 5 provides for the declaration of an emergency situation. A commissioned officer of police who is satisfied that a situation exists as described in clause 4 may declare an emergency situation. The commissioned officer then becomes known as the incident co-ordinator. As soon as is practicable after the declaration, the incident co­ ordinator will issue a certificate stating the nature of the situation and the area in which it exists. On revocation of the emergency situation, a notation to that effect will be made on the certificate. The certificate will be held at the office of the Commissioner of Police for a period of at least six years. Public Safety Preservation Bill 12 March 1986 4077

Clause 6 is designed to ensure that no conflict arises between the State Counter- Disaster Organisation Act and the proposed Act. Should a state of disaster be declared for a particular incident, an emergency situation will not take effect for the same incident. Clause 7 allows for the incident co-ordinator to delegate all of his powers under the Act should he for any reason be unable to continue to act in that capacity. Should an emergency situation exist over a period of several days, as it might in the case of a terrorist seige, then it would be unrealistic to expect the incident co-ordinator to remain at the scene for the entire period. The clause outlines the method by which the delegation is to occur. Clause 8 provides the powers of the incident co-ordinator. Following the declaration of an emergency situation, the incident co-ordinator may— (a) Direct the owner or person in charge of any resource to surrender it to the incident co-ordinator for his use when dealing with an emergency situation. (b) Take control of any resource, whether any person is in charge of the resource or not. This allows the incident co-ordinator to use equipment for the purposes of alleviating the emergency situation in instances in which an owner cannot be readily located. (c) Direct any person who is capable of operating any resource to do so. Obviously, occasions may arise on which specialist knowledge is required to operate particular machinery. This part of the clause caters for those occasions, provided that the person so directed is not placed in imminent danger as a result of the direction, (d) Direct the evacuation and exclusion of any person from any premises. Incidents that have highlighted the need for a power of evacuation were the chemical fire at Zillmere and a gas leak from a 5 000 litre LPG cylinder at Boral Concrete, West End. In the latter incident, various employers blatantly refused to evacuate their staff from buildings situated in close proximity to the gas leak. Police in that situation were powerless to enforce an evacuation request. Information has been received from the Victorian Police Force to the effect that the owner of a major national department store has advised the police force that in future it will not, under any circumstances, evacuate its stores in the event of a bomb threat being received. That company has a number of stores in Queensland. (e) Close off any road, street or other access way to all traffic and pedestrians. This particular power would be exercised in the event that life or property may be endangered if members of the public were not excluded from certain areas. In the event of a seige occurring, it is imperative that members of the public be restricted from entering areas in which they might be injured by weapons being discharged. (f) Enter or cause to be entered (using such force as is necessary for that purpose) any premises. For the purpose of evacuating persons from premises in the event of a fire or gas leak, it may be necessary to enter those premises, particularly in cases in which elderly or handicapped persons are involved. Further, in the case of a report being made that an explosive device has been placed in unoccupied premises, it is essential that the power exist for police to enter those premises for the purpose of carrying out a search. (g) Search or cause to be searched any premises or anything found therein or thereon. This part of the clause allows, by way of example, for the search of premises in the case of a report being made that an explosive device is on those premises. (h) Remove or cause to be removed from any premises any obstmction. Where anything—for example, a motor vehicle—is causing an obstmction to the effective handling of an emergency situation, the incident co-ordinator may direct the obstmction be removed. 4078 12 March 1986 Public Safety Preservation Bill

(i) Direct any person to assist him. This part of the clause allows the incident co-ordinator to obtain the assistance of any person who may have a particular expertise in handling any aspect of the emergency situation. A proviso is incorporated into the part so that a person shall not be directed to perform any act that will place him in imminent danger. Clause 9 provides for the protection of employment rights for any person who is engaged in an activity associated with an emergent situation or obeying any direction given by an incident co-ordinator. Effectively, a person cannot be dismissed from his place of employment or lose any benefits, such as wages or sick leave, merely because he was complying with a direction given by the incident co-ordinator. Clause 10 allows for compensation to be paid to any person, other than a member of the police force, who is injured whilst acting under the direction of the incident co­ ordinator. Such person shall be deemed to be a worker within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act 1916-1983, and the provisions of that Act shaU apply. Clause 11 provides for compensation to be paid to any person who has suffered financial loss as a result of the use of or damage to any property foUowing a direction given by the incident co-ordinator. A claim for any such compensation shall be made to the Minister within 28 days of the revocation of an emergency situation. On assessing the application, the Minister shall fumish a report, together with his recommendation, to the Govemor in Council, The Govemor in Council may approve an ex gratia payment to the claimant from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Clause 12 provides police with the power to demand the name and address of any person who is found committing or reasonably suspected of having committed or about to commit an offence. Further provision is made to obtain the name and address of a person when investigations are being made by police to establish whether an offence has been or is about to be committed by any person. A power of arrest exists should a person fail to comply with the provisions of this clause after having first been cautioned. Clause 13 creates the offence of assaulting, resisting, obstmcting or hindering any police officer. Likewise, an offence is created to cover circumstances where a person aids or incites any other person to commit any of the previously mentioned offences. Clause 14 provides police with the power to arrest any person reasonably suspected of having committed or who is committing an offence against any of the clauses. Provision is made to proceed by way of complaint and summons where it is not deemed necessary to arrest the offender. Clause 15 allows for the taking of fingerprints and other means of identification from any person arrested for an offence. Provision has been made to allow that person to have destroyed the fingerprints and other forms of identification taken, in the event that he is found not guilty or is not proceeded against and in cases in which no other charges are pending. Clause 16 relates to offences generally. It provides that a person commits an offence if he fails to do that which he is directed or required to do, or does that which he is forbidden to do. A general penalty not exceeding $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both are provided for. The offences will be dealt with in the Magistrates Courts and wiU have the classification of being simple offences. Clause 17 absolves any person involved in an emergency situation from habihty at law where they have acted in good faith and without negligence. This clause is similar to provisions found in all Acts enforced by the Police Department. Clause 18 relates to evidentiary provisions. It allows for the production in court of the certificate declaring the emergency situation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is conclusive evidence that an emergency situation existed. At present, no legislation exists in Queensland which allows for police powers when dealing with circumstances that amount to emergency situations as described above. In the light of a lack of legislative protection and suitable powers, police are currently liable Stamp Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4079 to either criminal or civil action when carrying out their fiinctions in overcoming emergency situations. It foUows that, when police are acting in the best interests of the community they should be granted certain powers and protection by way of suitable legislation. I commend the BUl to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjoumed.

STAMP ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Stamp Act 1984-1985 in certain particulars and for a related purpose." Motion agreed to. First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (3.35 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Bill provides for two stamp duty concessions and for strengthening of the provisions of the Act in two areas to counter avoidance. The first concession relates to the present stamp duty exemption provided for issues by public companies of debentures for a fixed or certain term of six months or less. At present, debentures, which are at call or for a fixed period and then at call cannot qualify for this exemption even though their effective terms may not exceed six months. That is because the exemption is stmctured to apply only to debentures with fixed or certain terms. It has been requested that the exemption be extended to those debentures where they have an effective term of six months or less. It would be within the principle of the existing concession that it be extended in that way. It is therefore proposed that, where duty has been paid in respect of a debenture the term of which was not definite or certain, such duty be able to be refunded where the actual realised term of the debenture does not exceed six months and the commissioner is satisfied that it is a genuine short-term debenture. The second concession provided for in the Bill is that fixed duty of $200 is to apply in certain circumstances, where ad valorem conveyance duty would otherwise apply, upon the resettlement of a public unit tmst scheme or to a declaration of tmst upon an amendment to a tmst deed constituting such a scheme. The concession is provided to facilitate amendments being made to the tmst deeds of established public unit tmst schemes to enable them to have provisions simUar to those of the newer public unit tmsts without incurring substantial stamp duty. For example, it will allow the established tmsts to have bonus issues. Providing for this concession is consistent with the established stamp duty treatment of units in public unit tmsts, which are marketable securities for the purposes of the Act and are treated on a basis similar to that for shares. Such units are not dutiable on issue and, on transfer, attract the lower marketable security duty rate. In the example of a capital distribution by way of issue of bonus units, duty would not attach to the issue, and it is consistent to provide for duty not to apply to the instmment amending the tmst deed for the purpose of facilitating such issue. 4080 12 March 1986 Stamp Act Amendment BUl

Strict criteria for the application of the concession wiU ensure that the concessions cannot be used in achieving an effective transfer of units or of property subject to the tmst without payment of duty. In respect of the proposals for strengthening the Act, an identified practice involving the avoidance of duty on security documentation in respect of loans is to be countered. The practice involves a borrower executing an application for a loan which contains aU the terms and conditions of the loan, with the lender accepting by providing the loan moneys rather than by executing the apphcation which would, if executed, have been a dutiable security document. The lender has no less security but stamp duty is avoided. The proposal is for the loan application to become dutiable as if it had been executed upon the loan being made. For the provision to apply, the loan application must have a connection to Queensland in terms of where the loan negotiations took place, where the repayments are to be made, where the loan moneys are to be expended or in terms of the apphcation being made by a Queensland resident or Queensland company. There is provision in the Bill to avoid a double duty situation should, for example, formal loan documentation be later executed. Further, should ad valorem duty attach to the apphcation under the Queensland provision and under a corresponding provision of another State because the loan application has a connection with both States, the apphcation wiU be chargeable with duty only in respect of appUcations made by Queensland residents or companies or foreign companies registered here. The proposal, as well as covering the identified area of avoidance of duty upon applications for loans, also covers the case of offers for loans accepted other than by execution. It is not expected that there would be the possibUity for substantial avoidance in this area, but the acceptance of a loan offer by the deposit of titie deeds could occur, and this possibility is safeguarded against. Another area where the possibility for stamp duty avoidance has been identified relates to the use of caveats under the Real Property Acts. There is the possibihty that such caveats may assist in duty avoidance or evasion, particularly in respect of mortgage duty, and it is proposed that the avenue for avoidance be closed. Broadly, there are two types of caveat. The caveat under section 30A of the Real Property Act 1877-1981 is specifically designed to protect the interests of equitable mortgagees holding title deeds as security. This attracts duty as a mortgage. The general form of caveat under section 98 of the Real Property Act 1861-1985 attracts duty of $1, All caveats are required to be impress stamped. The difficulty is that the Registrar of Titles cannot refuse to receive caveats that are not duly stamped, as the Stamp Act currently only prohibits registration of instmments not duly stamped, not their receipt. Persons are therefore not arranging for due stamping of caveats before lodgment at the Titles Office, and the Stamp Duties Office task of foUowing up the duty after the lodgment of the caveat at the Titles Office is very difficult and, in some cases, impossible. Further, persons are lodging general caveats which attract duty of $1 in respect of equitable mortgages comprising or purportedly comprising only the deposit of title deeds, and this avoids mortgage duty where persons, by caveat, are achieving the protection of the register. Broadly, the proposal is for the registrar to be prohibited from receiving a caveat not duly stamped and for the commissioner to be able to stamp a caveat relating to a mortgage with mortgage duty unless satisfied that duty has or wiU be paid on some other instmment, in which case impressed duty of $ 1 will apply to the caveat. At the same time, the stamping of caveats relating to other than mortgages or charges is to be made more convenient by allowing them to be adhesively stamped. This is proposed to be provided for by Order in Council under section 13 of the Stamp Act. MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4081

In respect of caveats in relation to mortgages or charges, it is recognised that it would not be desirable for the requirement of impressed stamping to delay their lodgment at the Titles Office, and special arrangements are to be made for their stamping. In this regard, a person wishing to have a caveat stamped urgently wiU be attended to at a special counter area that will be set aside to facilitate urgent stamping. Where the caveat relates to a documented mortgage or charge, it is expected that it wUl be able to be speedily stamped with the $1 and released, as it should be able to be shown that duty has been paid on a separate document or the parties should be able to satisfy the commissioner that the relevant duty will be paid. Where the caveat relates to an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and the caveat needs to be stamped with ad valorem duty before lodgment at the Titles Office, speedy stamping will be possible, provided that persons lodging the caveat also provide, at the same time the information necessary to assist the commissioner. Caveats in respect of mortgages and charges will, by these changes, be put on the same footing as other instmments, for example, mortgages themselves, which are required to be stamped prior to registration. There are two amendments associated with the proposal in relation to caveats. It is proposed to ensure that a charge and an agreement for the deposit of title deeds are both dutiable as a mortgage further to certain doubts being expressed in these regards. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Bums, adjoumed.

MILK SUPPLY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. J. TURNER (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Milk Supply Act 1977- 1985 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Tumer, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. N. J. TURNER (Wartego—Minister for Primary Industries) (3.43 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 1985 was introduced into the Pariiament in December 1985 primarily to provide for the introduction of a system of negotiability of producer market milk entitlements within processor groups. The Bill also purported to amend section 36 of the principal Act to provide for additional licences for producer groups and distributors, to provide for various classes of prescribed licences and to provide for greater flexibility in determining terms and conditions attaching to various licences. Owing to the wording of clause 7 of the Milk Supply Act Amendment BUl 1985 as it related to section 36, section 17 of the principal Act was incorrectly referred to instead of section 36. This meant that the proposed amendments to section 36 relating to licences had no effect. This Bill is designed to rectify that situation. The Bill is a procedural one, under which it is proposed that sections 17 and 36 of the 1983 and 1985 Acts be repealed and replaced by cortected consolidated versions, as was intended by the 1985 amending BiU. No new provisions are proposed. I commend the BiU to the House. 4082 12 March 1986 Queensland Grain HandUng Act Amendment BUl

Debate, on motion of Mr Kmger, adjouraed,

QUEENSLAND GRAIN HANDLING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. J. TURNER (Wartego—Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Queensland Grain Handling Act 1983 in certain particulars," Motion agreed to, Ffrst Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Tumer, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. N. J. TURNER (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries) (3.46 p.m,): I move— "That the BUl be now read a second time," The Queensland Grain Handhng Act 1983 constituted the Queensland Grain Handhng Authority to provide for the storage and handhng of grain within the State of Queensland. Since its establishment in 1983, the authority has discharged its responsibilities under the Act in a most effective and efficient manner. The authority not only enjoys the overwhelming support of the Queensland grain industry but has also been called on increasingly to provide a service to northem New South Wales grain-growers. As with most large-scale enterprises, however, the authority is facing changing circumstances and as a responsible and pmdent response has approached the Govemment to amend the Grain Handling Act 1983 to better equip it to serve the Queensland grain industry in the coming years. Two principal amendments are sought. The first is to allow the authority to offer a warehousing facility to growers for storage of grain for which there is no requirement to dehver to a marketing board. The second is to enable the authority, subject to the approval of the Govemor in Council, to handle commodities other than grain. The amendment to accommodate warehousing of grain by the authority is a response to growers of non-statutory grains, such as grain sorghum and oU-seeds in south Queensland, where storage is being sought while the grower is still arranging sale. This is a most pmdent commercial proposal, which will ensure that the facilities that the Queensland grain industry has developed over the past 60 years are used most effectively and efficiently to meet the needs of the industry that financed their development. In respect of the second amendment, it should be appreciated that the Fisherman Islands complex is designed with a view to the Queensland grain industry's needs to the year 2000. Following the commissioning of that facility, the authority expects that its handling capacity at the port will, in the immediate future, exceed the available throughput of grain. In order that the potential economies of the authority's investment are not threatened, it is deemed commercially pmdent to have in place the necessary legislative flexibihty to enable the authority to handle commodities other than grain. Although there are in fact no firm proposals in mind, the intention is to have the necessary powers for the Govemor in Council to approve of the use of these facilities for products in addition to grain. It should be kept in mind that, with these proposals, there is no intention to grant exclusivity to the authority in any activities entered into under these amendments. The grain industry's facilities, which in 1984-85 were valued at $lllm, are industry funded. The authority employs in excess of 1 000 people at the peak of the season. To assist in Superannuation Trust Funds, &c., Bill 12 March 1986 4083

protecting this large-scale investment and in the interests of the people employed by the authority, it is not unreasonable for the Govemment to extend to the authority the flexibility that the proposed amendments would provide. Another amendment aUows the chairman of the State Wheat Board to attend meetings of the authority should he not be a member. Currently, there is a joint chairman of the two organisations and all elected grower members of the State Wheat Board are also members of the authority. Although there is no intention at this stage to alter the existing arrangements, it is considered desirable to make provision for the chairman of the State Wheat Board to attend meetings of the authority, should he consider it necessary. A number of other amendments are proposed, which I shall deal with briefly. They are as foUows— The powers and functions of the Authority will be restated to include provision for undertaking the additional activities provided for in these amendments. The present Act does not contain a separate head of power for maintaining and operating reserve fiinds. A proposed amendment will establish this specific head of power. In accordance with normal commercial practice, the authority accumulates reserves for various purposes, including part fiinding of capital works and equahsation of handling charges in low production years. The proposed amendment also provides for investment of those reserves in the same manner as the authority's other funds. Such reserves will be established, maintained and used for such purposes as the Minister may from time to time approve upon the recommendation of the authority. It is also intended to include an exclusion of liability clause for actions done in good faith. Such a clause is normal in statutory authority legislation and provides protection for the Crown, the Minister and members and staff of the authority from claims in respect of any action "done in good faith". Finally, a minor amendment is proposed for the distribution of annual reports to growers. Presently the authority is required to forward sufficient reports to each marketing board for forwarding to each supplying grower. In line with existing practice, it is proposed that the legislation enable the authority to forward its annual reports directly to growers. These proposals do not constitute a significant change of direction for the authority but are rather a means both of putting in place additional flexibility to meet changing conditions and effecting some minor consolidation. Altogether, the Bill will materially assist the authority in its fiiture operations and further enhance the service provided to Queensland primary producers in the years ahead. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Kruger, adjoumed.

SUPERANNUATION TRUST FUNDS (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubura—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Superannuation Tmst Funds (Protection of Employee Entitlements) Act 1984 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. Ffrst Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time. 4084 12 March 1986 Superannuation Trust Funds, &c., BUl

Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (3.53 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Honourable members would recall that in October 1984 I introduced the Superannuation Tmst Funds (Protection of Employee Entitlements) Bill in order to ensure that adequate protection could be given to Queensland employees and employers in the field of superannuation. The Bill that I introduce today represents another step in this Goverament's fight to ensure that the interests of those persons are fiilly protected. It is designed to facilitate the efficient operation of the Act's provisions and to enhance the protection that the Act affords. Honourable members would be aware that the regulatory provisions of the Act apply only to those schemes that are prescribed by a declaration made under the Act, The BiU amends the existing procedure dealing with the coming into effect of such declarations. Under the Bill, the provisions of section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act will now apply to those declarations. They will thus take effect either immediately upon publication in the Queensland Government Gazette or at some later specified date, but will be subject to scmtiny by this House, The Bill also contains a number of other amendments that are designed to facilitate the application of those regulatory provisions. It makes provision for the declaration of specific superannuation schemes or classes of schemes as prescribed for the purposes of the Act. It also makes provision, where appropriate, for the exemption of particular schemes from the apphcation of the Act's regulatory provisions. Temporary relief from the operation of those provisions may also be granted so that the trustees can take the action necessary to secure the registrar's approval of their scheme's tmst deed. These amendments wiU ensure that the Act's regulatory provisions wiU affect only those schemes in relation to which it is considered necessary that such provisions should apply. The Act recognises that, in order to protect the interests of a scheme's contributors, it is necessary that the Registrar of Superannuation Tmst Deeds maintain a supervisory role throughout the life of the scheme. A number of the Bill's provisions also recognise the importance of that role. The success or otherwise of a superannuation scheme is to a large extent affected by the nature and quality of its investments. The Bill provides that if the tmstees are to be authorised to invest a scheme's funds in investments other than those approved by statute, the tmst deed must contain a provision authorising the tmstees to invest either in specified investments or in investments specificaUy approved by the registrar. Under the Bill, the registrar will be authorised to refiise to approve a tmst deed if such investments do not meet with his approval. These provisions will provide an important safeguard for the beneficiaries of the fund by helping to protect the fund's assets from misapplication or mismanagement. The Bill further enhances the registrar's supervisory role by providing that, in certain specified circumstances, such as where the scheme is not being managed in accordance with the tmst deed or is being managed impmdently or improperly, the registrar may, after giving notice, withdraw his approval of such a scheme's tmst deed. If the registrar does give notice of his intention to withdraw approval, the Govemor in Council is empowered, if necessary, to remove the tmstees from office and appoint new tmstees. The Bill also contains certain amendments with respect to the requirements as to tmst deeds and as to tmstees. It provides that under a scheme's tmst deed an employee will be entitled to transfer his entitlements only to another approved superannuation scheme or to a scheme specifically approved by the registrar. Further, tmst deeds will be required to contain a provision entitling an employer who has agreed to participate in a superannuation scheme to withdraw from the scheme after giving at least three months' notice. Optometrists Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4085

The Bill provides that unless specific approval is given by the Govemor in Council, the tmstees of a superannuation scheme shall consist of natural persons, Unless approval is given by the Minister, each of those persons, or persons employed as directors of a corporation acting as a tmstee, must ordinarily reside in Queensland. The Minister may approve of up to one half of such persons ordinarily residing outside of Queensland. The Bill also contains a number of provisions that are designed to facihtate the efficient operation of the Act. Provision is made for the appointment of deputy registrars, who will assist the registrar in the discharge of his functions. The registrar is also empowered to grant tmstees an extension of time in which to submit their schemes' annual financial statement and is empowered to examine any tmst deeds which are voluntarily lodged with him and to express an opinion as to whether provisions of such deeds comply with the Act's requirements. The Bill also makes provision for persons being protected from liability in respect of the administration of the Act. This Goverament is determined to protect Queensland employees and employers from the abuses to which some superannuation schemes may be susceptible. The Superannuation Tmst Funds (Protection of Employee Entitlements) Act is an important element in that determination and the amendments contained in this Bill further strengthen the protection that the Act affords Queensland employees and employers. This Bill is in sharp contrast to proposed Federal Goverament legislation, which will effectively lead Australia down a fast track to total socialisation. The various left wings of the labour movement are being aided and abetted in their aims to establish Australia as a socialistic republic by all factions within the Federal Goverament. That factor seems not to be clearly understood by thinking people Mr McEUigott: You've got a one-track mind. Mr HARPER: It is better to have a one-track mind than a fast track to sociahsation. If the honourable member opposite is hell-bent on leading Australia down a fast track to socialisation, so be it, but the Queensland Goverament will have no part of it. It seems not to be clearly understood by thinking people that the various left wings of the labour movement are being aided and abetted by all factions within the Federal Goverament in their aims to establish Australia as a socialistic republic. It is a fact that seems not to be clearly understood by thinking people who cherish our democratic Australian way of life. I accept that the honourable member for Townsville probably is not thinking; if he is, his thoughts are purely socialistic. Queensland will not stand by idly while trade-unionism takes over the govemment of this nation. The Queensland Government's determination to protect the financial interests of both employees and employers in superannuation schemes set up in Queensland is evidenced by the amendments presently to be considered, 1 commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Goss, adjourned.

OPTOMETRISTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health and Environment), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Optometrists Act 1974- 1984 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. 4086 12 March 1986 Optometrists Act Amendment Bill

Ffrst Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Austin, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health and Environment) (4.2 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Optometrists Board of Queensland has sought a review of certain areas of the legislation to ensure that its provisions are appropriately updated to meet present-day needs in the practice of optometry. An amending Bill, incorporating the necessary amendments, has been prepared to provide for substantial changes to the existing provisions of the Act, particularly those provisions relating to the restriction on the use of dmgs by optometrists. For a number of years, the Australian Optometrical Association (Queensland Division) has made representations to the Optometrists Board and to me, seeking a relaxation of the Act's provisions restricting the use of dmgs by optometrists. The association, in support of its representations, has made a detailed submission, which indicates that all other Australian States permit the use of dmgs by optometrists. In order to properly investigate that submission, the Optometrists Board was requested to research the matter to ascertain what legislative provisions were provided elsewhere in Australia and overseas and to ascertain any problems that might have been experienced in the use of dmgs by optometrists. Accordingly, for the information of honourable members, I provide the following summary of statistics received from the Optometrists Board in regard to this matter— Queensland is the only State in Australia that has statutory prohibition on the use of any dmgs by optometrists for any purpose. Victoria, in 1982, removed aU reference to dmgs from the Optometrists Act. Dmgs which may be used, and their strengths, are listed in the poisons schedule. South Australia, Tasmania, Westem Australia and the Northera Territory have no statutory prohibition on the use of dmgs by optometrists, except for cycloplegic dmgs. New Zealand has no statutory prohibition on the use of certain dmgs. Optometrists in the United Kingdom have access to facihtate dmgs as permitted by the Poisons Regulations. Generally throughout the United States of America the use of certain dmgs by optometrists has been accepted. Understandably, the medical profession is hesitant about the relaxation of this section of the Optometrists Act. But, in considering the world situation, it is evident that the use of certain dmgs is acceptable. It is interesting to note that the research carried out by the Optometrists Board did not reveal any reported misuse of dmgs by optometrists. As a result of the foregoing, it is proposed to repeal section 28 of the Optometrists Act to permit the use of facUitative dmgs by optometrists where necessary. In this regard, it will be left to the Optometrists Board to ensure that individual optometrists are suitably qualified to use facilitative dmgs prior to any approval being given for their use. It is proposed also to institute a further safeguard in respect to the use of dmgs by optometrists. The intention is to control the use of certain dmgs and their respective strengths by optometrists, in a similar manner to that already in existence for the control of anaesthetics by chiropodists as regulated under the provisions of the Poisons RegiUations of 1973. Qualifications for registration as an optometrist have also been reviewed. The proposed amendment to this section will transfer certain specified requirements for Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4087 registration as an optometrist from the Act to the by-laws as promulgated under the provisions of the Act, in line with the general requirements of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation and in accordance with other registration board Acts controUed by my department, A minor amendment has also been made to section 5 of the Act, which simply clarifies that each function—that is, fitting and servicing—is part of the practice of optometry. The proposed amendment will ensure that an argument cannot be raised that, as long as fitting and servicing of optical apphances do not take place, any person is free to issue a prescription. It will be noted that the penalties under the Act have been increased to accord with current-day values. The increases will also provide a detertent against the commission of an offence by an optometrist. The disciplinary provisions of the Act have been enhanced and brought into hne to cortespond with other registration board Acts. For example, a new subsection has been included to allow the Optometrists Board to recover costs associated with any successful action taken against an optometrist under the Act. A fiirther amendment ensures that pecuniary penalties or costs ordered by the board are remitted forthwith or immediately upon the expiration of the time aUowed for payment. New subsection 11 of section 24 enables the board to publish the outcome of its findings at the conclusion of an inquiry under this section of the Act, In conclusion—I consider that the amendments to this Act are necessary to enable the Optometrists Board to continue to exert an effective oversight of the profession of optometry, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McEUigott, adjoumed.

FIREARMS AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 21 November (see p, 2700) on Mr Glasson's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time," Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (4.7 p.m.): The Opposition supports the proposed amendments to the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, Briefly, I beheve that the amendments fall into two categories. Firstly, the Bill contains a number of minor amendments that more clearly define the operations of the present Act and, secondly, a new section aUows for the licensing of collectors. In regard to the first section of amendments—I certainly agree with the tightening up of section 6 of the principal Act, which will prevent prohibited persons from circumventing the present law by joining a rifle club. The new section 39A deals with the register kept by dealers, and clearly states that a dealer shall enter into the register any concealable firearm, conversion unit, restricted firearm, machine-gun or sub-machine-gun which he has in his possession or which comes into his possession. In his second-reading speech, the former Minister for Police (Mr Glasson) detailed the instance of one dealer having 26 concealable firearms in his possession, one of which was fitted with a silencer. The Minister said that that dealer declined to tell the pohce how he had come to have possession of these weapons. Perhaps the present Minister for Police (Mr Gunn) could tell me what action was taken against that dealer and whether 4088 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill

in fact his licence was revoked. I do not believe that such a person is a suitable person to hold a dealer's licence. One purpose in having a Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act is to limit the supply of concealable firearms to criminals. If dealers are to have, in their possession, firearms that are not entered in the register, certainly the supply to criminal elements is made that much easier. The second section of this amendment Bill creates a new division that allows for the licensing of collectors. New section 42A in clause 11 clearly defines who is a "collector", how a licence can be obtained and the requirements of the hcence. Perhaps it is because the Govemment has had the opportunity of observing the operation of the present Act for a number of years that this clause is more clearly defined than the section in the original Act. Whilst on the subject-matter of the amendment, I take the opportunity to raise a matter that concems me, that is, the extent to which some elements of the gun lobby will go in an effort to achieve their aim. Although I would never disagree with the rights of groups to lobby on behalf of their organisations or in support of their behefs, I reahse that there is a certain fringe, ratbag element in the gun lobby that would say or do anything to achieve the goal of having absolutely no control over firearms in Australia, In fact, I believe that they would be happy only if it was made mandatory for all Australians to carry firearms. At the last State election, quite a vicious campaign was mn against the Australian Labor Party. It even reached the stage of one group claiming that Labor Party politicians were latent homosexuals because they did not unequivocally support the aim of the gun lobby. Groups such as this should be exposed, as I do not believe they represent the majority of sane, sensible shooters. Let me state the pohcy of the Australian Labor Party quite clearly, I would ask, if any group wishes to quote any part of my speech, that it also includes the foUowing: The Australian Labor Party is not opposed to the ownership of firearms for recreation or sporting pursuits. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is that the owners of the long guns or rifles, as distinct from the weapons, should be registered, I realise that registration takes the matter a little further than the present firearms legislation that operates in Queensland, but registration is something that operates very effectively in New Zealand. I believe that it could operate very effectively in Queensland. At present, too many people own guns and have absolutely no knowledge of how to use or control them. Under a policy that requires registration of shooters, those shooters will have to show that they are capable of using a gun and such a pohcy, if it were implemented by the Govemment, would be a very sane and sensible one. I ask people who are opposed to the licensing of firearms or the shooters to consider this: Do they oppose the licensing of individuals to drive motor vehicles, aeroplanes or speed boats? I am sure that their answer to that would be, "No". In reaUty, those vehicles have been built for one reason and that is to transport people and, in our society, it is accepted that a licence is necessary to operate them. The reason is to ensure the safety of the individual and the community. There is no lobby saying that people should be able to drive on the roads without a licence, and I would imagine that any thinking person would regard that idea as being absurd. 1 consider that it is worth remembering that firearms were originally made with one purpose in mind—to kill. Some people tend to object to extremes for any controls over firearms or people who use them. This extreme ratbag element, which seems to think that the majority of people agree with it, should consider that a 1981 Gallup poU found that only 6 per cent of Queenslanders were opposed to stricter firearm control whereas 84 p6r cent were in favour. Surely, these figures show that Queenslanders are conceraed about firearms and that concera is not for the ownership of firearms but for the misuse of firearms, which inevitably results in death, injury or damage to property. I would be the first to support a law which simply banned the misuse of firearms and allowed the correct use of firearms to go unrestricted. But, unfortunately, such a Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4089

law could not exist. When considering the misuse of firearms—whetheri t be intentional or not—I believe that it is worth considering the following research, which comes from Firearms and Violence in Australian Life by R. Harding. Only 6 per cent of shooters belong to organised gun clubs. In Queensland, only 51.2 per cent of firearm-owners list their ownership motive as being for sport and 32.5 per cent list protection as an important motive for ownership. I consider the following to be alarming, statistics: 27.8 per cent of shooters in Queensland are untrained in the use of firearms; 22.1 per cent are inadequately trained, with only 50.1 per cent being adequately trained. In this regard, Harding's solution is that rifle and pistol clubs be licensed to provide the requisite firearm instmction and to issue appropriate certificates of proficiency. That type of pohcy could be extended to the registration of people who wish to use rifles. Harding explains that such a certificate of competence should be a necessary, but not a sufficient, prerequisite to the granting of a licence but that the licensing authorities should still be able to reject the application of an apparently competent shooter on the basis of his mental state, criminal record or any other factor recognised by the apphcable law. Another alarming factor found by Harding is that 56.5 per cent of guns in Queensland are in an active state. An active firearm is defined as one that is in a readily usable condition and is stored in a reasonably accessible place, with ammunition also stored in the general vicinity. Harding further points out that, for the most part, those whose firearms were unsecured kept them in a wardrobe or other cupboard (57.5 per cent of all owners), while a further 16.8 per cent simply left them lying about the house somewhere. The most popular rooms for keeping firearms were the bedroom (60.7 per cent of all owners), garage or shed (8.5 per cent) or a store-room (4.8 per cent). The finding that, at a minimum, more than half of all privately owned firearms are stored in an active and potentially dangerous state is alarming. The Minister should be looking very closely at that finding and taking some action on it, particularly when one considers that half of the people in Queensland who own firearms are not trained in their use, and that most of those people keep those firearms in an active state just lying somewhere round the house where other people have access to them, I do not beheve that any member of the ratbag gun element could say that that should be allowed to continue. When one considers that one in every four homes in Australia contains a gun, 56 per cent of which are active, and that 50 per cent of owners have no training, one can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. Only recently I saw stories in Sydney newspapers that it was possible to equip an army through Queensland gun shops. It was stated that one could simply walk into a gun shop and buy as many Armahte rifles as one wanted. The joumalist had telephoned gun-dealers in Queensland and asked if he could buy large quantities of Armahte rifles and ammunition. He was told that, if he wanted to order them, he could do so. It is ' alarming that an allegedly responsible person offering rifles for sale would accept an order for 500 or 1 000 rifles. He would surely know that they were not for any recreational pursuit at the local gun club and that they must be required for an illegal pursuit. The majority of guns shipped out of Australia recently have come from Queensland. Recently a hoard of guns was seized from a ship in New Zealand on its way to New Caledonia. It had been loaded in Sydney with guns that had been purchased quite openly and legaUy here in Queensland. The Minister should be conceraed and do something about that. My comments in no way reflect on the responsible Queensland shooter or imply that the Labor Party wants to prevent him from engaging in his sport; nor is the Labor Party trying to redirect the recreational pursuit, either to target-shooting or some other form of the sport. The Labor Party wants to allow those people to pursue their pleasure and in no way restrict them. 4090 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill

It is not good enough that Queensland's laws aUow people to buy guns and then ship them overseas to be used by rebel armies. This is happening, and has been proved to be happening. I know that the Minister knows that it is happening, and he should look very closely at Queensland's laws. A number of members wish to raise other matters in this debate, so I will simply state, as I did in the first instance, that the Opposition does support the legislation because it will allow coUectors greater freedom than they had previously. Perhaps the coUectors are not completely happy with the legislation, but, when introducing legislation to Parliament, it is virtually impossible to make everyone completely happy, Mr CAHILL (Aspley) (4,21 p,m.): I have much pleasure in supporting the measure. As the Minister then in charge of the Bill said in his second-reading speech, certain special provisions in the Bill tighten control and bring the measure right into 1986, I am sure that the measure will be welcomed by collectors of antique and souvenfr firearms because, up to the present, the term "any dealer" has been slightly too general. The two words "dealer" and "collector" are defined. Because the Bill defines what is meant by a collector and what is meant by a dealer, it makes very clear the areas in which both those groups now operate. Importantly, too, it speUs out what they may not do. For example, certainly there have been problems with a number of dealers' not entering concealable firearms into their registers. Unless they do so and keep the registers up to date, the police have a hopeless task in trying to keep track of concealable firearms. As the Minister said, only a short time ago one dealer was found in possession of 26 concealable firearms, none of which had been entered on his register. When the BiU is passed, such a dealer will be considered to be in possession of unlicensed—and therefore illegal—concealable firearms, conversion units, restricted firearms and dangerous articles if their possession does not appear on his register. The Bill is also taken to mean that where a dealer has what might be described as the bits and pieces of concealable firearms—although not made up into a whole firearm— those units will also have to appear on the register. That is excellent, I come now to the provision for the licensing of collectors, which is covered by about 13 proposed new sections of the Act. The regulations wiU prescribe what types of firearms and dangerous articles a collector may possess so long as he holds a collector's licence and has them registered. They must, of course, be rendered inoperable by a police officer or other authorised person, who will furaish a certificate to that effect. However, genuine antique concealable firearms, registered as such, will not be required to be made inoperable. Further, a collector will be required to notify the authorities of acquisition or disposal of souvenir or antique firearms. He will no longer be required to hold separate licences for each item. So whether a collector is active or inactive in the field of collecting, one licence is all that will be required. A collector will no longer have to keep the weaponry at his place of residence and not be allowed to move it. He will be permitted to take the arms to displays organised every so often by groups such as the Arms CoUectors Guild; but when he does so, he will have to take his register with him. By the same token, this amendment will not give the collector carte blanche to take the arms all over the place with him. When he removes his collection from the place at which it is kept normally, he will be required to have a reasonable excuse for doing so. That is a very sensible provision. Recently, many problems have arisen conceraing replica firearms. 1 am sure that all honoiirable members are familiar with some of the problems. The Bill will amend the principal Act to make it an offence to use a replica firearm so as to cause alarm to any person. The proposed section providing for an amnesty is very good. It may be that a collector has in his possession an inherited memento which presently is illegal. Provided he registers that weapon, there will be no retrospectivity of any illegality. Likewise, so Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4091 long as other persons have not used such items in the commission of an offence, they may sell them to a licensed collector, who will then register them. One of the most important provisions in the amending Bill conceras persons prohibited from possessing and/or using firearms because of convictions for dmg offences or certain other offences under the Criminal Code. Until now, certain of those prohibited persons have been able to circumvent the Act by becoming members of or by taking part in, the activities of rifle or gun clubs. Only last year, a resident of Chinchilla who was a prohibited person was charged and convicted for shooting with a rifle club. Upon his appeal to the District Court on 21 August, the charge was dismissed, in that the judge held that the man was exempted from the Act under the provisions of section 6. That was a straight-out circumvention of the intention of the Act. No such circumvention will be available to a prohibited person in the future. It might well be that, to aid the rifle and gun clubs in their efforts to keep such undesirables out of their ranks, the Minister might consider compiling a list of prohibited persons, which could be supplied to the committee of any interested shooting club or to firearm-dealerss o that the Act could be more easily enforced against those prohibited' persons. That part of the Act has been abused. It will be abused no longer. I have no wish to take up any further time of the House. I have much pleasure in supporting the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police in this Bill. Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (4.26 p.m.): Whilst applauding this BUl as a brave and good start towards introducing some logic into the methods of goveming firearms in this State—something which, I must say, has been missing for some time—I must ask the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police a number of questions to clarify matters resulting from the Bill. Although the two previous speakers in the debate may have an intense interest in the subject, regrettably they displayed that they have very little knowledge of it. This is an area in which knowledge is really important. I do not say that to be overly critical of them. It is a highly specialised field. If people do not have a knowledge of firearms, all sorts of inanccuracies can creep in and all sorts of crazy things can be said. By way of illustration, I use the Opposition spokesman's tirade about Armahte rifles and how they are available in their hundreds and are virtually falling off the backs of tmcks. The honourable member, in his speech, obviously did not even understand what an Armalite rifle is. For his information, I point out that Armalite is a brand name of a group of companies in the United States of America that manufactures firearms. The so-called Armalite rifle that I think the honourable member referred to is a 5.56 mm M16 rifle. If the honourable member thinks that hundreds of those rifles are drifting round for sale in Queensland, he is wrong. About a year and a half ago, or perhaps longer, their import was totally prohibited by the Commonwealth Govemment, when the importation of every sort of firearm of a military style, as it was termed—and "military style" was defined, for reasons best known to the authorities, as being one which has a pistol grip—was prohibited. That was another one of those lunatic provisions that are included in regulations by people who know nothing about firearms. That is not to say that there are no Ml6, Ml5 or Ml7 rifles—they are aU roughly the same—in circulation in this State. However, the honourable member, if he were serious about this matter, would find that very few Ml6 rifles are available for sale through ordinary gun shops in this State. Those that were brought in before the prohibition have probably found their way by now into the hands of collectors and are being preserved quite carefully by them. Anybody who wants a 5.56 mm rifle—and there seems to be some sort of hype and psychological tune attached to this calibre of weapon, because it was used in the recent South East Asian war—will find that there are literally dozens upon dozens of them available. Many of them are semi-automatic. For the purpose of this exercise, 1 point out that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the performance characteristics of a 5.56 mm rifle and those of the 4092 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill

Ml6. In fact, a rifle made by the Ruger company is a far superior weapon and is very popular with shooters in Queensland and in the other States in which they are legal. It is exactly the same sort of rifle. If fires a 5.56 mm rimless cartridge, which is the business end of any of these things, anyway. The automatic mechanism is far more reliable; it is a far better rifle all over. The hype about Ml 6s is a load of mbbish. If the honourable member for Chatsworth had done any research on this subject, I suggest that he did it by ringing up companies and asking, "Do you sell ArmaUte rifles?" They would promptly have said "Yes,", because the Armalite company happens to manufacture a .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle. It is very popular as a survival rifle because it folds down and can be kept by stockmen in saddle-bags, where it is not mined or wrecked. It can be kept in vehicles used by people in the country. Mr Eaton: And it also floats. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member says that the rifle floats. I wiU take his word for that. I have not heard that as one of its advertised features. It is a popular weapon. It has many qualities. It is difficult to knock the rifle about. It is available for people on the land to carry in vehicles or in their saddle-bags. Hundreds upon hundreds of Armalite rifles are available. They are .22 calibre semi-automatic survival rifles, not 5.56 mm Ml6s. If anybody thinks that Australia can be taken with Mr Mackenroth: You just said that Armalite rifles are not available, but they are. Mr GYGAR: I defined my terms while the honourable member was not hstening. I assumed that he was referring to Ml6 rifles. Mr Mackenroth: I did not say that. I said "Armalite rifles". You are assuming what I said. Do not try to twist the facts round. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member for Chatsworth admits to the House that he was talking about great hordes of terrorists going to invade Queensland and stock thefr revolutions, or whatever they are going to stock, with these Armahte survival rifles, I thought the honourable member was a little slow off the mark before but now he has proved that he is as thick as three short planks. Even in South America and southem Africa, where coups are held every day of the week, I have never heard of anybody using a rather badly designed and inaccurate .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle. I thank the honourable member for relating to the House, in his own words, his understanding of firearms, because that must call into question all of the other comments that he has made. I must express disappointment that the name of the honourable member for Mansfield (Mr Kaus) does not appear on the list of speakers for this Bill because, of all Govemment members, he perhaps has the most understanding of the subject and the most balanced approach to it. Mr CahUl: How do you know that? Mr GYGAR: I have dealt with the honourable member for many years, and if the honourable member for Aspley were aware of his record, he would find that the honourable member for Mansfield is the patron of the Queensland Rifle Association and is and has been one of the best shots in Queensland for some years. He is a man of knowledge and respect in this field at least. The honourable member for Chatsworth delivered a tirade about people who were gun nuts and all the rest of it. I remind him that the pendulum swings both ways and that there are people who are nuts the other way, and most of them seem to reside in his party. The way to constmct a comprehensive, appropriate and reasonable set of firearms laws is to go to neither extreme but to people who have the knowledge and the interest in these subjects. Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4093

I question whether, at this time, this Act is appropriate and reasonable. Rather than deal with these matters in Committee, and as they are of broad import, through the philosophy of the Act, I should like to deal with them now. The first deals with the subject of rendering incapable of operation. If the Minister has had time to explore this subject and this aspect of firearm laws, he will know that, over many years, the way these things are rendered incapable of operation has been one of the sore points with arms collectors. Nobody in his right mind thinks that people ought to be able to keep machine- guns at home, no matter what they plead by way of being collectors, souvenir-hunters or whatever. The weapons must be rendered incapable of operation, but it should be done sensibly and appropriately. If the Minister has ever been to an arms collectors guild fair, he will have seen the most despicable acts of vandalism committed upon historic firearms by morons with blow-torches and welding-rods. There is no need to render a weapon incapable of operation by sawing great chunks out of it and putting huge globs of welding-rod and flux all over it. The worst example I have ever seen was what was done to what was called a cutdown Bren. The Minister is of a generation that will remember the Bren gun and the role that it played in World War II. It is a historic weapon for many reasons. Out of the infantry school there came a cutdown version of it. Sections had been taken out of the barrel, out of the piston and out of all the operating parts. It was totally incapable of operation just the way it stood, because it had virtually no barrel. The breech block was cut in two, so that everything was displayed in it, yet I am told on the strongest authority that some clown got his hands onto this thing and went mad with a welding-rod. What was once not just a historic firearm but a piece of this nation's history should perhaps have better been preserved in the National Museum than ending up just a worthless scrap of iron because of this vandalism. I am told by some people that this matter is being taken care of by the department and that, in fact, Ron Hayes is one of the names being floated round as a person who would have the appropriate sensitivity to render these things incapable of being fired. I want the Minister to confirm, on the record in the House, that that is what will occur. If that assurance is given publicly in the House today, many collectors will rest far easier. Another matter that I wish to draw to the Minister's attention is that this Bill appears to contain for gun-coUectors no exemption from the provisions of the Second­ hand Dealers and Collectors Act. By the nature of what they are collecting, these people deal in second-hand goods. They are dealing with things that are 100 years old or older. On one interpretation, the coUectors will be required to keep two registers—one under this Act, which will be a very precise and detailed register, and another of the type that the House heard a great deal about when the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act was introduced. The latter register would have details such as at what minute of what day the item was produced and the driver's licence number of the person who sold it, I suggest to the Minister that that would be totally inappropriate and that the registers provided for in this Bill are more than adequate for the items involved. If there is no provision in the Bill to exempt these dealers from the Second-hand Dealers and CoUectors Act, that should be remedied. The matters to which I shall now move are ones of definition and clarification. If they are given on the floor of this Chamber, they will set many minds at ease and will tum this Bill from one that is causing some concem in gun circles to one that is given a great deal of support throughout the community. I ask the Minister to give a fairly precise definition of how the word "Items" as it appears in clause 11 and elsewhere will be interpreted by the police force. One school of thought is that, under this Bill, "Items" can mean anything. Why a register of items other than complete firearms has to be kept is understood. It is because it is quite easy to collect four or five pieces, assemble them and make one automatic, semi-automatic or other sort of firearm out of them. So some track of these pieces has to be kept. 4094 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill

I remind the Minister that, in many cases with weapons of really intrinsic, historic value, such items as the tiniest spring out of the receiver groups or out of the triggers are, in themselves, valuable and are collected items. I fear that unless an assurance is given and a directive is given to the police force, "Items" will be interpreted to mean every tiny spring out of a trigger group and every screw that holds a butt stock on a historic pistol. At the moment, collectors keep their miscellaneous springs in a shoe box. If "Items" is interpreted by the police force as meaning every tiny piece, the collectors will have to keep registers that mn to volumes. As the Minister's advisers will remember from the Arms Collectors Guild fairs that they attend, these items are the stock-in-trade of collectors. These people have boxes upon boxes full of little springs which, at some stage, came out of a firearm and are kept because one never knows when somebody else might want one. They are like currency in the trade of arms-collectors. Perhaps the Minister could define whether individual rounds by ammunition are to fall within the scope of "Items". Those who have an interest in the various types of ammunition would have dozens upon dozens of rounds—literally hundreds—.303s, .310s, .38s, rimless, rimmed and all the rest of it. They would have boxes upon boxes of them. The collectors could end up with their registers weighing much more than their collections. I understand what the Minister is trying to achieve. I understand the mechanism that he has used. However, I suggest to him that, unless a clear definition of these matters is given in the House, some over-enthusiastic policemen might take it upon themselves to get into the business of arresting firearms-collectors. As the Minister probably well knows now—or he will find out as he gets settled into his portfolio—a well-known member of the police force, who is supposedly assigned to the Break and Enter Squad, seems to think that he is a world genius on firearms and takes great delight in busting firearms-collectors. What that has to do with the Break and Enter Squad, I do not know, but this gentleman seems to have a fixation about it. If he can find the smallest, most minor breach of any technical aspect of the firearms laws, he is more than happy to go round arresting collectors. It is the activities of individuals like him that have caused such great concem among coUectors. I tum now to the removal and transportation of firearms from place to place. Provided within the Bill is a mechanism to allow that to occur. The Bill calls for one- off licences or permits to be issued for each proposed movement. I suggest to the Minister that that does not take into account the reality of the way in which firearm-collectors operate. Brisbane has a very active Arms Collectors Guild, which holds monthly meetings. It becomes virtually a swap shop for little bits and pieces of firearms. The members of that guild do not want to fill in great reams of forms every month; nor should they be required to do so if they want to mn a quiet swap shop of spare parts. For the sake of the paranoid Left, I point out that I am not referring to people lugging around machine- guns under their arms. If those people want to take along small items to a swap shop meet after their guild meetings, what harm are they doing? Why should they not be permitted to do that? 1 suggest that the Minister should reassure those people that they will be able to obtain blanket permits indicating, "You can do this to and from guild meetings and we will not jump up and down on you." The Minister should at least give a clear indication of the directions on the enforcement of the provisions in the Bill that he will be issuing to members of the Queensland Police Force. I deal now with a very serious aspect. I believe that an honest mistake has been made, and I urge the Minister to correct it on the floor of the Chamber today. The Bill inserts a new section 42M, which deals with collectors' fairs and their licensing. That is reasonable. Such fairs are a major highlight for those persons involved in arms collection, as much as the royal shows and agricultural shows are the highlight of the year for the man on the land. The collectors' guild fairs are a highlight of the year for people whose hobby is the coUection of firearms. Unlike the loony Left, I do not happen to think that Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4095

that automaticaUy makes the members of such associations some sort of paranoid, homicidal maniacs. The proposed new section calls for the issue of a licence, which is appropriate. However, it states that the licence application shall not be able to be processed more than 60 days prior to the proposed date of the exhibition. The exhibitions are not conducted by Fred Smith showing off a few guns in his garage. In fact, by habit, the Queensland Arms Collectors Guild hires the facilities of the table tennis club at Downey Park or one of the ethnic society buildings near Boggo Road and fills it with people who come from all parts of Australia to exhibit their collections. Such an exhibition cannot be organised in 60 days. It is like the show circuit that travels round Australia throughout the year and fits in with other people, planning 12 months or more in advance. The guild needs certainty about what it has to do to obtain a permit so that it can be issued well in advance. The guild members would then be able to advertise the show, sell space at the exhibition, obtain sponsors and build up their collections. Under the circumstances, 60 days is not reasonable, I cannot see any reason why any provision with the words "within a period of not more than X number of days" is appropriate. One day, Queensland might be recognised as the great convention centre of the world, I hope that it is. We might find that an intemational gun-collectors guild wiU come to Queensland. If that happens, that guild will want a permit two and a half years before the exhibition is held. It will need certainty so that it can book convention facihties and so on. Perhaps that is drawing a fairly long bow. However, I do not think that it is inappropriate for these matters to be considered. I have foreshadowed an amendment, I would happily withdraw it in favour of an amendment, in the Minister's name, in the same or similar terms, I urge the Minister to give it his eamest consideration. The 60-day limit serves no purpose. It will be an unnecessary and artificial restriction on the appropriate activities of such organisations and could drive from this State major revenue-producing tourist activities and visitor promotion activities, I suggest that the 60-day limit serves no purpose and that a simple error has been made somewhere along the line. I invite the Minister to take that into consideration and to introduce an appropriate amendment. Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (4.44 p.m.): For some time, I have been looking forward to the introduction of the Bill. Over the years, like Goverament members. Opposition members have received many deputations and submissions on behalf of bank officers and many other people who oppose the use of firearms in Queensland and in other parts of Australia. The Bill was dealt with in detail by the shadow Minister (Mr Mackenroth). I support his comments whole-heartedly. The firearms laws passed by this Parliament really only affect honest people. Criminals and other people who should not have in their possession pistols, concealable firearms and other illegal weapons seem to be able to acquire them without very much trouble at all. It is not until after the crime has been committed that the underhanded manner in which criminals have obtained weapons is revealed. Probably more contraband and illegal concealable firearms are to be found in cities such as Brisbane, which have the largest number of police. Police officers are busy. They do not always have the time to search out people who are bringing in illegal weapons. Honourable members know that dmgs and many other forms of contraband are brought into Australia from Asia and other overseas countries through our vast coast­ line. Recently, the media reported a big raid in Westera Australia which discovered dmgs brought in on ships from overseas. A ship-load of contraband was brought into the Northem Territory from Europe. In a vast country such as Australia, despite the fact that the Govemment tries to protect its shores, it simply cannot do the job properly. The criminals of today are weU equipped and well educated. They are probably just as smart as any of the people who 4096 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill are trying to catch them. There is a balance in adaptability, initiative and intuition. The criminals have the advantage of not having their hands tied by the laws of the land. In many instances, the Govemment could increase the penalties for possession of ownership of or dealing in illegal firearms, irrespective of whether they are concealable firearms or illegal rifles, I have many friends who are members of the Sporting Shooters Association and various rifle and pistol clubs. Those people are of good character. Mr Gunn: Good sportsmen. Mr EATON: As the Minister says, they are good sportsmen. They are also very community-minded and responsible citizens. People of that sort present no danger through the possession of firearms. However, the legislation is making it hard for those people to obtain firearms. It is the criminal and bad element in society today who can obtain illegal weapons without very much trouble. The penalties for the possession of illegal weapons ought to be made much more severe. I fully understand the opposition of bank officers to all guns. A person standing behind the counter in a bank or guarding a pay-roll who is threatened with a gun is not interested in whether it is real, artificial or a replica. The only way in which one can really find out if the weapon is a replica is to wait for the trigger to be puUed and to see if it fires. Mr Gunn: It's a bit late then. Mr EATON: That is right; it is a bit late. The holder of a replica firearm should be punished in exactly the same manner as the holder of a real firearm, I support the Goverament all the way on that aspect. The Government continually criticises the Opposition's lack of support. The Goverament will receive support from the Opposition for any common-sense legislation that is in the best interests of the community and mankind. As the honourable member for Chatsworth (Mr Mackenroth) said, a few people advocating opposing sides of the argument become hyped up in their desire to do their utmost in support of their view about the possession of firearms. About five years ago, members received a questionnaire from the Sporting Shooters Association, which has branches in all States of Australia. That questionnaire required a "yes" or "no" answer. I refuse to fill in a questionnaire requiring a "yes" or "no" answer, because it cannot be qualified. Another example is the questionnaires sent out by conservationists on which one is required to indicate for or against—a clear-cut "yes" or "no". I write back and inform them that I will answer the questions but that I want to be able to qualify my answers. I wrote between the lines of the questionnaire sent to me by the Sporting Shooters Association to qualify my "yes" or "no" answers. After I had completed the questionnaire, I wrote one and a half pages to explain my responses. However, when the list was pubhshed in a national magazine, I found my name and those of many Goverament members who apparently acted in a similar manner contained in a list of people who were regarded as being totaUy in opposition. That categorisation is completely contradictory to my intention when I filled in the questionnaire. I have recorded this matter in Hansard because many people who are members of sporting organisations came to me afterwards and raised it with me. I point out also that sporting organisations and gun clubs receive copies of a magazine that has listed politicians as being opponents of pistol clubs and rifle clubs although that may not be so. In my younger days, I never went bush without a rifle. I always took a rifle although, admittedly, I had to travel hundreds of miles into the bush across this State. Mr Burns: I hear that you still do. Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4097

Mr EATON: That is correct. If I have the opportunity to go on a long trip, I say here and now that I will be taking a rifle with me. Mr Lee: A wise move. Mr EATON: Yes. I believe that that is how it should be. This is an instance in which the Australian Labor Party has supported the Govera­ ment's efforts to control the use of firearms. Mr Innes: Is it tme that you know the taste of plains turkey? Mr EATON: No. If the Govemment proposed to introduce more stringent regulations goveming the use of firearms, members of the Opposition would support such a move, particularly if it involved registration. 1, myself, am prepared to own and register a rifle and have the serial number recorded. I would even be prepared to have test bullets fired, because I would feel that I was a more responsible citizen for having done so. Tighter control would cause people who own guns to adopt a more responsible attitude. It should be remembered that people who eara a living from the land, such as farmers and graziers, usually carry firearms in Jeeps and Land Rovers. On windmill mns, farmers often come across pests and vermin. Unless action is taken on the spot, havoc could be caused later. The people I have described would not object to registering their firearms, even if they had more than one. It is most important that firearms be registered. I believe that anyone who refuses to be licensed and to have a record made of the fact that he owns a firearm ought to be dealt with harshly. Heavy penalties should be imposed for breaches. However, I am sure that the average farmer would be prepared to adopt a responsible attitude and would attempt to live up to his responsibilities as a member of the community. I have covered all of the topics that I wish to raise, so I conclude by reiterating my support for this legislation and for the comments made by my colleagues. It should be noted that the Opposition supports this measure, and cannot therefore be accused of not supporting the Queensland Goverament's actions that are intended to preserve the welfare of the community at large, Mr BURNS (Lytton) (4,52 p,m.): It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Mourilyan in this debate. Because I have been camping with him, I can inform the House that he is one of the best camp-cooks I have ever met. If any honourable member wished to camp in the Gulf country and travel with the honourable member in a four- wheel-drive vehicle on a fishing trip, he could not ask for a better companion. It is fair to say that people who have knocked about in the Gulf country most of their lives are sensible people, and that is reflected in their use of firearms. Mr Lee: Did you get any barramundi in the net? Mr BURNS: No, but I could spin you a good yara about a crocodile that took a line one night, which resulted in everybody scrambling onto the roof of a four-wheel- drive vehicle. However, I may have to leave that story until another time. Mr Gunn: Tell us all about it. Mr BURNS: All right, I will. I have to digress while I do so. The honourable member for Mourilyan accompanied some lads on a camping trip, and the lads had set a line in the mouth of the creek. All night long the lads had been playing tricks on him, and then they started laughing and mnning up the the creek- bank. They said, "Billy, there's a crocodile coming." He did not beUeve them, but the next minute a crocodile came over the top of the bank. At that moment, a gun or a rifle would have been of tremendous value, because they all had to sit up on top of the four-wheel-drive vehicle and wait for the crocodile to move away. 4098 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill

The point 1 want to make is that the honourable member for Mourilyan is a good camping companion, a good bushman and a man who should be hstened to when he speaks about firearms. I tum my attention now to gun-dealers. In this moraing's Courier-Mail, I was stmck by an article under the heading "Fellow dog lover sold hitmen a gun, court told". The article concems members of the mafia who were responsible for the murders of Donald Mackay and the Wilsons. I shall quote from that article so that everyone can foUow the point I Wish to make. It states— "George Joseph, 55, a former Melboume gun dealer, said he illegally sold the gun the Crown claimed was used to kill anti-dmgs campaigner Donald Mackay at Griffith in 1977 and dmg couriers Douglas and Isobel Wilson at Seymour in 1979.

He sold Bazley a French-produced Unique .22 pistol in 1971, making a false entry in his gun register to conceal the illegal sale.

Joseph said he met Bazley in 1969 when he came to his gun shop in Bmnswick Street, Fitzroy.

Joseph said he was a member of the Victoria Police Pistol Club from 1964 untU the mid-1970s. Joseph said he was currently serving a prison term in Pentridge after pleading guilty to conspiring to murder Donald Mackay and to an armed robbery charge. He told the court he introduced Bazley in 1977 to another friend of his named Gianfrano Tizzone who was looking for a person to kill 'a man in the country'. Joseph said he later understood the man to be Donald Mackay." He was a licensed gun-dealer, and he is one of the people in whom members put their faith when they pass legislation relative to the registration of dealers. The former Minister for Police, in his second-reading speech on this BUl, referred to a dealer who had in his possession 29 concealable firearms that he had not recorded. It is necessary that the legislation relative to dealers be tightened up. The Minister did not go on to say what happened to that dealer Mr Gunn: I will teU you. Mr BURNS: He ought to end up in the clink—that is for sure. A ratbag from round Beerwah—I think his name is Dohring—writes letters to members of Parliament accusing us of all sorts of things. He is a complete and utter nut. In his letters, he says that he is a gun-dealer. How he could obtain a licence to own a gun of his own, let alone decide whether another person is a fit and proper person to own a gun, is beyond me. I have great sympathy for young policemen today when people such as that man from Beerwah are able to sell guns to more and more people who watch Rambo-style movies. Something is wrong with censorship today. On television one can watch someone shoot 50 people, but a show in which the hero sleeps with three girls is banned. That is what is wrong with Queensland's censorship laws. That seems to be the way it is: murder is fine, but sex is pretty lousy as far as the National Party legislators are concemed. 1 think Joh must have been scared by the baby under the pumpkin many years ago—or scared that someone would find out what makes babies. I rose specifically today to speak about antique gun-collectors. Fort Lytton was built originally in the last century to defend this State against the Russians. At Fort Lytton, torpedoes were set across the river. It was at Fort Lytton that Lord Kitchener reviewed the troops as they were going off to the Boer War. Charles Kingsford Smith used to land his aeroplanes at Fort Lytton when he began his commercial operations. Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4099

Mr Hamill: The member for Warwick would probably remember those things, Mr BURNS: I am leaving him alone now. Claudie Wharton would; Claudie was there to wave them off to the Boer War. Mr Hamill: We ought to be waving him off. Mr BURNS: We will be farewelling Claudie in the very near fiiture, A proposal was put before the Queensland committee organising the bicentennial celebrations that Fort Lytton should become part of our national heritage bicentennial developments and handed over to arms-collectors, or a body of similar persons, A number of very fine people want to tum Fort Lytton into a place at which old armaments can be displayed, I am referring to cannon that were dropped off the old sailing ships into the bay and have now been restored, A number of them did stand in front of the old power house at Bulimba; a number of others were loaned to various organisation?. For instance, a number of artillery pieces are mounted outside council chambers. All sorts of relics from the First and Second World Wars and all sorts of other material associated with war and the defence force could be displayed at the fort. Govemment members talk about tourist attractions—Fort Lytton is certainly the right spot. It is sufficiently isolated that security would be easy to organise. The problem at present is that Fort Lytton forms part of the lease granted to Ampol many years ago when it began to build its refinery, and Ampol is concemed that if it gives up Fort Lytton it will need another area to replace it. Fort Lytton should be a major part of Australia's bicentenary celebrations. The idea is to bring together those items from our history associated with the army and the light infantry who fought in the Boer War, First and Second World Wars, and Korean and Vietnam wars. It could, and should, be done, and it would be fairly simple to do. As part of the program of recognising collectors, it must be recognised that, apart from the private collector in it for the enjoyment or for the money, many people join together for the purpose of collecting antique arms, just as other people have formed together to set up maritime, aircraft and other museums. In their own way, these bodies are trying to preserve parts of the history of our nation. It is essential to do something urgently about Fort Lytton. The State Govemment should come to the party. It has a big say and involvement in the Bicentennial Committee. Fort Lytton is an ideal location for what 1 have in mind because of its tremendous history associated with the armed forces, Kingsford Smith and others, including Parer, who landed there after his flight from England to Australia. Considered in the right way, Fort Lytton is a monument to the old soldier. When talking about collectors, we should recognise that Fort Lytton is a part of our history. Mr VEIVERS (Ashgrove) (5.1 p.m.): Before dealing with the measure before the House, I draw the attention of the Minister and members to a question that I placed on notice which is very relevant to this Bill. In that question, I asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police several questions about a game called "Skirmish" that is being played in the Redland Bay area with equipment that is directly related to the principal Act. I note that the amendments proposed in the Bill are not related to some of the matters I intend to raise. In my question, I asked whether any of the equipment used in the game contravenes any Queensland law. 1 asked the Minister who were the organisers of the game held at Redland Bay on 23 Febmary, had the Police Department or his office been approached previously by people wishing to organise the game, and, if so, what advice had been given to them. Skirmish is a war game played with rifles, I look forward to the Minister's answer to the question tomortow. The game was first given publicity in The Sunday Mail of 23 Febmary. It was launched on that day. For the benefit of honourable members, I will explain the type of game that it is. Modified rifles that fire pellets of paint are used by teams of, I 4100 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill understand, 16 people, who pay $25 a head to participate. They go into the bush wearing camouflage uniforms and play a game of hide-and-seek. The article refers to the game as "hide, seek and hit". The idea is to seek out and destroy the enemy by firing the paint pellets with the modified rifles that are bought under franchise. Mr Prest: Rambo! Mr VEIVERS: It is a Rambo-type game. Many facets of the game contravene Queensland laws. That is why I placed the question on notice. Certain provisions in the Bill and the Act relate to Skirmish, In the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, under the interpretations, a firearm is described as— "A gun or other weapon ,,, designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious, corrosive, or irritant liquid, powder, gas, chemical or substance capable of causing bodily harm." Under that interpretation in the Act, I believe that this game Skirmish is questionable. The definition of "dangerous article" includes— "(c) any firearm or weapon capable of discharging by any means whatsoever any— (i) corrosive, noxious or irritant liquid, powder, gas, chemical or smoke or mixture thereof; or (ii) any substance (other than conventional ammunition) capable of causing any bodily harm;". Under that definition, again it would appear that this game is questionable, A paint pellet would certainly be covered by that definition. I refer to section 36 of the Act, which deals with firearm licences for minors. It states— "An authorized officer may grant a licence to a person over the age of 14 years and under the age of 17 years to possess and use a firearm (not being a conceadable firearm or restricted firearm) or ammunition therefor, if he is satisfied that that person— (a) is of good character and repute; (b) has a valid reason for possessing or using the firearm or ammunition; and (c) will use, carry or possess the firearm or ammunition without danger to the public or to the peace." Under that section, again I believe that this game Skirmish is questionable. Section 63 of the Act deals with offences in relation to prevented persons. I shaU not read that section but, under subsection (3), I think that the game Skirmish could be questioned legally. Section 74 of the Act deals with persons under the influence of liquor or dmgs. I will not read the section but, under it, again I question the legality of this game. Under section 75 of the Act, I believe that the game that is being played at Redland Bay could be classified as being illegal. That section states— "A person shall not, without reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall be upon him), have a firearm, cross-bow or spear gun— (a) in any place in a manner likely to—

(iv) cause alarm to any other person;". The pointing of a modified rifle at a person may certainly cause alarm to the participant in the game. In addition, the game is being played in an area not far from the major Redland Bay/Beenleigh road, and motorists driving past could conceivably see people mnning through the bush pointing rifles at each other. If that is not likely to Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4101

cause alarm, which has to be reported to the police, what would? I also believe that the game is illegal under section 75. Now, I refer to some aspects of local govemment. In this instance, the local authority is the Redland Shire Council. I have checked this matter out and am led to believe that the council views this game as entertainment. The people participating in the game are required to meet certain town-planning requirements. That entails providing facilities such as toUets, drinking water and adequate off-road parking. When deliberating on these matters, the council must look at the provision of those sorts of facilities, and it must consider any objections that are likely to be raised by the local rate-payers. I understand that, to date, the Redland Shire Council has not received any appUcation from the directors of Skirmish Intemational to play this game, activity or whatever it is called, in its shire. In that sense, irrespective of the questions that I have raised about the State law, the game seems to me to be illegally conducted according to the by-laws of the Redland Shire Council. I move to the safety aspects of Skirmish and refer to some of the things that may cause alarm or concem not only to participants but also to people witnessing the game from near or afar. In Victoria, the game has begun being played. An article in the Melboume Age reads— "... the organisers have had their own battle against pacifists, feminists, and those that would say that eight eye injuries in New Zealand and scores of broken bones in the US is a casualty list more akin to downtown Beimt than your urban backyard." Experience of this game in the United States of America, where it originated, and in New Zealand, where apparently it has been played, indicates that a number of quite serious injuries have resulted from playing the game. I imagine the paint pellets that are fired from these weapons could be similar to blanks. Blanks are certainly lethal within a certain range, and I would imagine that the pellets fired from close range at a person, whether it is in fun or otherwise, could be quite lethal. Some of the participants do wear some kind of glasses to protect their eyes, but there is nothing to protect their ears or other parts. What would happen if the glasses were removed or feU off? A paint pellet in one's eye would certainly An Honourable Member interjected. Mr VEIVERS: They would need something bigger than a cricket bat. I think that they would be certainly more difficult to avoid than some of Malcolm Marshall's bouncers. I have referred to the establishment of the game. The company is registered in Queensland under the title "Skirmish Intemational". The persons carrying on the business are Peter Anthony Bailey and Kim Marie Bailey. Other persons involved in the business are a Ross Alexander, who is an American, and Earle Bailey, MLA, the honourable member for Toowong who is a brother of Mr Peter Anthony Bailey. They are the people associated with the establishment of the company. I raise these questions because, if there are iUegal aspects of this game—and I do suggest quite seriously, on the matters I have raised this aftemoon, that there are—and a member of Pariiament is associated with it, the Minister's very close and thorough investigation into the activities that are taking place in Redland Bay are warranted. I have placed a question on notice about this matter, but I now pose the question as to whether any other applications have been made by companies to conduct the game in Queensland. I await the Minister's answer. Apart from the obvious entertainment, or whatever it is called, for the participants who are involved in the game in the bush, it is also highly lucrative. It consists of teams of 16 per side who pay $25 per head to participate in a game which could go for two or three hours until one side or the other is wiped out. The business can be very lucrative. 4102 12 March 1986 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill The Daily Sun of 8 March carried an advertisement for the formation of leagues consisting of teams of 16 players at $25 per game. The Courier-Mail of 4 March, in the column headed "Business Investments", carried the following advertisement— "SKIRMISH—THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE GAME Franchised licences for sale (8 only avail. Qld wide) $62,500 ea. Nett profit $93,200 p.a. (under management) 21 days delivery, installed professionally by American consortium, licences complete with rifles, ammunition, safety equipment etc. Ph. Ross Alexander (07) 808 2913." If eight franchises can be sold for $62,500 each, it will be quite a money-spinner for those selling them. In Victoria, a considerably greater number of franchises are for sale at a higher price. In that State, 22 franchise operations wiU be sold at $84,000 each. The claim is that, in Australia, Skirmish could realise a tumover of up to $9m per year. That is certainly big business. I look forward to the Minister's reply. The Bill contains no amendments that cover the activities of this game. I look forward to his comments on the legality of Skirmish and on other aspects that I have raised this aftemoon. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (5.16 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for thefr contributions. I am pleased to note that, on the whole, they support the BiU. The former Minister for Police introduced the Bill last year, so it has been on the table for some time. I also thank the members of the various organisations who have responded positively to the Bill. There is no doubt the Bill has been well received by the public. The dealer to whom the member for Chatsworth (Mr Mackenroth) referred is no longer the holder of a licence. He has been dealt with on a number of charges. Despite what may be said, Queensland is recognised as having some of the best firearm laws in Australia. The member for Stafford (Mr Gygar) mentioned the rendering inoperable of certain firearms. I acknowledge that, over the years, this matter has caused some problems. However, it is intended that experts will be allowed to render weapons inoperable. In fact, a firearms-dealer has already displayed a cut-down model of a Browning automatic rifle. That work was carried out by Ron Hayes. I tell the member for Stafford that firearms-dealers are exempted from the provisions of the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act. In subsequent amendments to that Act, gun-coUectors wiU be exempted from its provisions. A definition of "Items" will be provided for in the regulations to the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. That will happen only after discussions between the authorised officer, members of the Legal and Training Section and the Arms Collectors Guild. In reply to the member for Lytton (Mr Buras), I say that the amendment conceraing dealers making entries properiy in their registers is designed to help crack down on dealers who misbehave. I thank the member for Aspley (Mr Cahill) for his contribution. He is a very valuable member of my committee. He works very hard and has done so on this occasion. I thank him for his positive contribution. The member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers) mentioned the game Skirmish. Tomorrow, he will be supplied with the answer to his question on this matter. The game is being investigated further. The paint pellets about which the member spoke have been previously acquired from persons wanting to conduct these games. Samples have been sent to the Health Department for analysis. To date, such analysis has not concluded that the contents could be dangerous. My belief is that the substance is a vegetable dye. The various matters raised by the honourable member will be investigated. I am delighted with the response from honourable members. The Police Department has taken a very positive step in this very sensitive area. Motion (Mr Gunn) agreed to. Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act Amendment Bill 12 March 1986 4103

Committee Mr Booth (Warwick) in the chair; Hon. W. A. M. Gunn (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) in charge of the BiU. Clauses I to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11—New Division 11 to Part II— Mr GYGAR (5.21 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 9, line 9, omit the words— 'not more than 60 days and'." During my speech at the second-reading stage, I covered the matters that are relevant to the amendment that I have moved. The amendment relates to the approval of collectors' fairs. As I pointed out, and as the Minister has taken on board, the fairs need to be scheduled a considerable time—at least 12 months and, in some cases, two years or more—in advance. The requirement that a licence be not given until 60 days before a fair is held will impinge greatly upon the abihty of organisers to conduct a fair or exhibition, I suggested that the "not more than 60 days" provision serves no purpose and could easily be eliminated, I invite the Minister to comment on my amendment, Mr MACKENROTH: The Opposition supports the amendment moved by the honourable member for Stafford. Opposition members see merit in what the honourable member outlined in his second-reading speech relative to the setting up of a fair and the lead-up time required. The Opposition sees merit in the amendment and supports it. Mr GUNN: The Goverament accepts the amendment. However, I foreshadow that I propose to move a further amendment to clause 11. Amendment (Mr Gygar) agreed to. Mr GUNN: I move the following amendment— "At page 9, after line 23, insert the following words— '(5) The authorised officer may, in his absolute discretion, revoke any certificate of approval by serving upon the person or organization to whom the approval has been granted a notice of revocation in or to the effect of the prescribed form.'" Mr GYGAR: I support the Minister's amendment and comphment him on his approach to this matter. It is appropriate that, on the floor of the Chamber, when errors or oversights are discovered, the Minister is prepared to take an amendment on board and accept it. It is an example of Parliament at work. It is appropriate that those who move such amendments from the floor of the Chamber should, in tura, grant the Minister some latitude. The Minister, quite reasonably, said, "If we are going to issue permits years in advance, it is only appropriate that, if circumstances change, hand in hand with that earlier issue goes the power to revoke the permit," It is an eminently reasonable proposition, I congratulate the Minister on his attitude and support his amendment. Amendment (Mr Gunn) agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15—Amendment of s. 67A; Handcuffs, etc., prohibited—and Clause 16— Amendment of s. 68; Prohibition on use or possession of dangerous articles— Mr GUNN (5.26 p.m.): I seek to omit clauses 15 and 16 from the BiU. The BiU has lain on the table for the required period. The Goverament has answered the response to it. Mr GYGAR: Once again, I am delighted to support the Minister. It is one of the cases of reversal of the onus of proof, up to a point. The Minister is restoring the 4104 12 March 1986 Regulatory Reform BUl common law provision that, if a person is accused, the onus is on the prosection. It is an excellent measure. I compliment the Minister. Clauses 15 and 16, as read, negatived. Clauses 17 to 20, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gunn, by leave, read a third time,

REGULATORY REFORM BILL Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the expiration of subordinate legislation and for other purposes," Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Gunn, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (5.29 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The purpose of this Bill is to clear away Goverament red tape so as to provide a better climate for business investment and job creation in Queensland. The Bill has been formulated on the basis of the recommendations contained in the first Report of the Committee of Review of Business Regulations. Members wiU recall that that committee was established in July 1985, under the chairmanship of Sir Eraest Savage, a distinguished Queensland businessman. The other members of the committee are Sir Albert Abbott, who is president of the Local Government Association of Queensland; Mr Keith Williams, who is principal executive of Hamilton Island Enterprises; Mr Howard Jones, who is a director of Capricora Coal Management, and Mr Arthur Scurr, who is managing director of Scurt Brothers. Mr Peter Ellis, who is director of the policy division of the Premier's Department, is the State Govemment representative on the committee. Although the members of the committee have not yet completed the review, I wish to thank them for their hard work in producing their first report in such a short time. In particular, I wish to pay special tribute to the dedication and enthusiasm of Sir Emest in undertaking what has become a full-time job. In its first report, the committee concluded that, because of the frequency of requests for Goverament intervention by both industry and the public, the business sector is now suffering from over-regulation and inefficient regulation. Individually, Ministers have, of course, been pursuing a variety of regulatory reform initiatives. For example, on the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister for Transport, the Goverament has decided to progressively deregulate the transportation of bulk petroleum. Despite that, it has been evident that only a concerted and co­ ordinated attack on red tape would provide significant, immediate benefits for the community and the business sector. This is why a broad review, with a Government- wide perspective of regulatory controls, was considered appropriate. To avoid getting bogged down in the details of individual regulations, the committee directed its attention to making recommendations that focus upon principles and Regulatory Reform Bill 12 March 1986 4105

procedures relating to the regulation of business. Those recommendations have been adopted by the Goverament. This action shows that the Goverament is determined to tackle a problem that reflects a gradual accumulation of Goverament controls since the 1800s. On the basis of the recommendations of the committee, the Goverament has decided to pursue a strategy of regulatory reform that reflects its free enterprise philosophy. Because they underpin the Bill, I believe that it is important to speU out the objectives of the strategy. They are— (1) to reduce substantiaUy the accumulated regulatory burden on business without compromising law and order and essential economic, social and envfronmental objectives; (2) to provide a regulatory framework that ehminates unnecessary costs on business—and minimises unavoidable costs; (3) to improve the effectiveness of essential regulatory activity; (4) to improve the efficiency of the formulation and administration of regulatory requirements; and (5) to provide a regulatory framework that can accommodate changes in economic circumstances, social standards and technology. This statement of objectives makes it clear that the Government recognises the need for regulations. Total deregulation is not desirable. To achieve the objectives, the Goverament will be pursuing a package of initiatives which include— a regulation revocation program; a rationalisation of regulatory requirements; the adoption of green paper procedures designed to ensure thorough assessment of proposals for new regulations; the inclusion of sunset clauses in new regulations; the inclusion of sunset clauses in legislation; and an immediate assessment of business information requirements. A variety of other initiatives will provide administrative improvements to the regulatory process and assist industry to comply with essential regulations. Although a number of those initiatives are being undertaken under administrative direction, the Bill is required for the regulation revocation program. The Bill clearly states the Goverament's commitment to regulatory reform and provides a mechanism for the progressive termination of the State's 500 sets of regulations. There are several important features of the Bill to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. Objectives Clause I referred earlier to the objectives of the Goverament's regulatory reform strategy. Those objectives have been embodied in the Bill to ensure that those who administer the legislation, and those who are affected by it, do not lose sight of the ultimate purpose of the regulation revocation program. The review committee has outhned a strong argument for the inclusion of objectives clauses in all legislation. It is worthwhile for all members, and all involved in the drafting of legislation, to study the relevant section— 8.3—very carefully. It will contribute to better legislation and better administration. Application of Act Although the Savage committee report is directed towards business regulations, the Bill generally covers all State regulations. It recognises that, although a great many regulations can be identified as directly affecting business, many other regulations affect the way in which Goverament departments deal with the public and industry.

70591—139 4106 12 March 1986 Regulatory Reform BUl

The BiU does not apply to local authority by-laws—or to ordinances of the Brisbaiie City Council. The Savage committee is curtently preparing a separate report on this class of regulation. For practical reasons, regulations resulting from intergoveramental agreements (for example, the National Companies and Securities Commission Regulations) have also been excluded from the provisions of the BiU, as have mles of court. I wiU be taking administrative action seeking to ensure the review and updating of these types of regulations. Revocation Program The central feature of the Bill is the provision requiring the termination of— aU pre-1962 regulations, by mid-1987; aU pi'e-1975 regulations, by mid-1988; and aU pre-1986 regulations, by mid-1989. This spring-clean will make way for the introduction of modem regulations, but only for those controls which are considered to be essential. To prevent the fiiture accumulation of outdated regulations, an automatic termination date will be set for all new regulations gazetted after June 1986. From 1989 onwards, the majority of State regulations wiU never be more than 7 years old. Exemption and Revival Clauses The Govemment recognises that unforeseen circumstances are bound to affect a pohcy initiative that is applied generally to the full Ministry. For that reason, the BiU includes a clause enabling the Goveraor in CouncU to exempt a particular set of regulations from the revocation program. Another clause provides for the revival of a terminated regulation. To ensure that these clauses are not invoked unnecessarUy, I wiU have to be convinced of the need for an exemption. I wiU also require that a firm commitment is given for review and updating. In addition, the views of industry wiU be sought. Although pmdence dictates the inclusion of such clauses, their use is expected to be a rare occurrence. Sunset Clauses The provisions of the BiU wiU terminate in 1993. The inclusion of a sunset clause for the Bill itself is in conformity with the Govemment's acceptance of the general principle of sunset legislation. Review of Revocation Program FoUowing the completion of the Revocation Program in 1989, provision has been made in the Bill for a review of its effectiveness. The intention is for this review to be undertaken by a committee comprising Goverament and industry representatives. Public Service While providing an economic stimulus to industry, the BiU will also trigger major beneficial changes in public administration in Queensland. For all Government departments, the revocation program represents a marveUous opportunity to jettison obsolete contiols and to formulate less intmsive and more effective means of implementing policy. I expect all Ministers and their permanent heads to take full advantage of this opportunity. As identified by the Savage committee, there is within industry and within the community generally, an over-reliance on Goverament regulation to solve problems. We need to get rid of that regulation mentality. In future, the Queensland Goverament will be asking the public service to suggest alteraatives to Goverament regulation. In particular, industry self-regulation will be Miners' Homestead Leases Act and Mining Titles, &c., Bill 12 March 1986 4107

encouraged. The Goverament will also be encouraging a new style in pubhc service managers. People who can achieve public policy objectives without over-use of regulation as the tool are necessary. It is expected that departments wiU achieve the regulation revocation program deadlines without extra staff resources. Those meeting serious problems wiU be assisted by the Premier's Department or the Pubhc Service Board. One of the recommendations of the Savage committee is that the business sector be encouraged to establish its own regulatory reform committee to assist the Goverament in implementing regulatory reform. Such a committee has now been established under the wing of the Queensland Confederation of Industry. The Savage committee report and the Govemment's decisive action have received enthusiastic support from the business sector. Conclusion I believe that this Bill and its associated initiatives are a major step for the community, for industry and for public administration. The Government will be concentrating on the major pohcy issues rather than getting involved in matters of detail. The cost of goverament will be reduced. The costs to industry wUl be reduced, which will result in increased employment, I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House, Debate, on motion of Mr Warburton, adjouraed,

MINERS' HOMESTEAD LEASES ACT AND MINING TITLES FREEHOLDING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 27 Febmary (see p. 3914) on Mr Glasson's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time," Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (5,41 p,m,): Superficially, the amendments to the Miners' Homestead Leases Act and the Mining Titles Freeholding Act are designed to move control of land, and tenures of land held under leases, from the Mines Department to the Land Administration Commission. It could be said that that is a good idea. However, Opposition members do not see it that way, and they will not be supporting the legislation. We are opposed to the measure because the Land Administration Commission has already started placing much higher values on the land than the values that were placed on the miners' homestead leases by the mining warden. When the change is effected, people who are now leasing properties from the Mines Department will have to pay much higher rents for them. The Goverament boasts about providing employment and looking after the people living in remote areas. However, it is not looking after the people in remote areas and it is not doing anything to provide employment for them. What it intends to do is to increase the rents they pay by moving the miners' homestead leases from the Mines Department to the Lands Department. The Minister correctly stated, in his second-reading speech, that many miners' homestead perpetual leases are no longer active mining sites, I know that that is so. If the Minister wanted to move those leases from the Mines Department to the Lands Department, Opposition members would have no objection, but they do not support the transfer of miners' homestead perpetual leases in active mining areas, from the Mines Department to the Lands Department, A number of Opposition members have active mining sites in their electorates and they know how this legislation will affect the people living on such sites. 4108 12 March 1986 Miners' Homestead Leases Act and Mining Titles, &c., Bill

The legislation is really simple in that it will transfer responsibility from one Minister to another. On the face of it, Opposition members could agree to it but, because it will mean an increase in rents for people in the affected areas, the Opposition will not support it. If the Minister wanted to move perpetual leases in areas that are no longer active mining areas, the Opposition would support the legislation. Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (5.44 p.m.): I represent a large number of people who hold miners' homestead perpetual leases and a large number of miners who live on the Herberton mineral field. Opposition members could well agree to tidying up the Acts but, over the years, a great deal of conflict has occurred between the Mines Department and the Lands Department. No-one would agree quicker than I that many matters needed tidying up so that there may be a more amiable relationship between the two departments. On occasions, the Lands Department has agreed to certain proposals, but the Mines Department has objected. At other times, the position has been reversed. Over the years, the Mines Department has controlled mining areas, despite conflict with the Lands Department. I shall refer to a couple of matters that concera my electorate. If the Minister is unaware of them, I am sure that they will soon be brought to his attention. Today, most citizens in the State are land-hungry. I admit that I would Uke to own a piece of land somewhere. However, the average John Citizen has problems in obtaining a piece of land. In the short time that I have been a member of this Parhament, I have written many letters to the Minister and to the Lands Department seeking small areas of State forest or Crown land on which people could live and raise their famUies and also produce crops. In today's society, the average working man has httle chance of obtaining finance with which to purchase a piece of land. That still does not alter the fact that he has a desire to own a piece of land. When the miner's homestead perpetual lease scheme was introduced, many people took the opportunity to acquire a lease. They obtained an area of land that they could work. Times have changed and the population has expanded, particularly in the mining areas. A different set of mles applies now. Many departments are involved in the administration of these mining areas. People who hold a miner's homestead perpetual lease have to fulfil a number of obligations. I refer to an alluvial claim that has been worked out. If it took that person a number of years to work out that claim, he would have built quite a substantial residence, and I use that word advisedly. The residence would be better than a hut but it would not be as good as an ordinary home. Another miner in my area purchased a modular home. He reared his family in that home. The end of his lease is fast approaching. I am sure that everyone is aware of the serious downtum in the tin industry. That man cannot afford to shift that modular home because, these days, the cost of a block of land in a town is prohibitive. From memory, I think that that man has an area of about three acres. He has a dam for his water supply. He has the perfect set-up. Within the next couple of years, he will reach retirement age. He and his wife are prepared to remain on that land. The land is outside the mining field. If the Lands Department takes over from the Mines Department, will that man have an opportunity to convert his mining lease or will his lease be terminated? I ask the Minister, in his reply, to answer that question. Over the years, I have approached both the Lands Department and the Mines Department about these problems in my electorate. I hope that there is a solution to them. I have already approached the Mines Department on behalf of one miner who wishes to utilise his dam for marton-farming. Because the Mines Department deals solely with mining matters, it will not permit him to engage in marron-farming. That comes under the jurisdiction of the Lands Department, I am not sure whether the person concemed is in the declared mining area or outside it. When the leases are completed. Miners' Homestead Leases Act and Mining Titles, &c., Bill 12 March 1986 4109

he will then be under the jurisdiction of the Lands Department. I am not too sure how that will work, and I would like the Minister to cover that in his reply. Several miners have approached me about starting enterprises. One of those enterprises is a marron farm or a fresh-water prawn farm. They are people who have initiative and who have worked hard all their lives. Many of them will be retiring in the next few years. They have built quite a high standard of residence there and are quite prepared to spend the rest of their days there, I would like the Minister to explain in his reply the situation there, and also whether people who have mining homestead leases outside the mining area can go ahead. Applications by people in the mining field in my electorate to freehold their MHPLs have been rejected, I have been informed by the department that the only people to whom it will issue those MHPLs are genuine miners, I agree with that to a certain extent, particularly when the size of the mining field has been reduced. There were opportunists in that field. I could give the Minister the names of people who have spent a life-time going round pegging miners homestead perpetual leases in the areas round Charters Towers, on the Atherton Tableland and west of the Atherton Tableland and then putting up a rough sort of residence and selling it for a fortune. Those people made fortunes out of doing that. The Mines Department would be able to check the names. I am prepared to give them to the Minister. There is a backlash from certain sections of the community against people taking advantage of the laws as they applied. I realise there was probably not a lot that they could have done if the person was genuine, but at times he had four or five miners homestead perpetual leases. In many ways, I agree with the Govemment's intention; but the Opposition is concemed that a situation should not be created in which charges will be increased, I can see an overlap in several areas. The Opposition is not sure whether there will be any benefit in the land being under the control of the Mines Department, or, whether the lands being outside the mining area, wiU automaticaUy revert to the Lands Department, which will then have the sole prerogative to say whether the person concemed can change that mining lease or mining claim into some sort of MHPL or some other form of tenure. That person should be able to obtain benefit from the years of work that he has put into those areas. There will be a conflict in the rating, because most shires do have rates on those areas and they have what they call a minimum rate. I do not know whether that will still apply. There could be a change in the title to the area on which a person is either working or living, I know the situation now in relation to transfer, but I am not too sure what the situation will be when the land comes under the control of the Lands Department. There has been a lot of conflict over the years because of the compensatory agreements that have to be signed to obtain mining leases, I would Uke the Minister to look at granting grazing leases rather than occupational leases or licences in certain areas. The miners have made improvements and provided water in areas that are suitable now for grazing. That would not have happened if the miners had not put the dams in for their water supply. Those areas can be grazed today because of the activities of the miners; yet any future miners cannot peg a claim or a lease until such time as they have a compensatory agreement with the licence-holder or the lease-holder. In some cases in my electorate, the department has granted occupation leases for only 12 months. That puts the lessee in no man's land, because banks are not interested in financing for short-term leases or licences. On a couple of occasions, disputes have gone to the Mining Wardens Court. As a result, an arbitrater has been appointed. His decision is final. That has caused much conflict in the area. I ask the Minister to cover that matter in his reply. Debate, on motion of Mr Wharton, adjouraed. 4110 12 March 1986 Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) BiU

CRIMINAL LAW (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS) BILL Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubura—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide with respect to the rehabilitation of persons convicted for offences, to amend the Evidence Act 1977- 1984 in a certain particular and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubura—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General) (5.56 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." As with the innovative Regulatory Offences Act, which I introduced last year, this Bill is designed to encourage reform by those who have offended against the criminal laws of society—to encourage a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence not to reoffend. It introduces a legislative scheme to provide for the notional sealing of criminal records under certain circumstances. The blemish of a criminal record, which places in jeopardy fiiture prospects for fuU participation in the life of the community, will effectively be removed for those offenders who qualify for rehabilitation in terms of this BUl. An incentive is being provided to encourage offenders to rehabilitate themselves, to cast aside the social stigma associated with a criminal conviction. Obviously, it is not appropriate to provide automatic rehabUitation to people who persistenly commit criminal offences, or to those who are guilty of very serious offences. The principles of this scheme will be limited to certain classes of offenders, who will henceforth be able to assert, in most circumstances, that they have not been convicted of a criminal offence. Gone should be the injustice dealt to those in our community who have made retribution for a criminal act committed perhaps at an early age or perhaps once only in a lifetime. Social, as well as most of the legal disabilities associated with criminal convictions, should be overcome. Obviously, a qualifying standard is required, and it is considered that severity of penalty should be the means of determining whether rehabilitation is to apply. It is therefore proposed that an offender who is ordered to serve any period not greater than 30 months in custody, or who is the subject of any lesser type of order of a court, should be eligible for rehabilitation. A further requirement of the scheme is that the order of the court should be satisfied by an offender before rehabilitation is made avaUable. Incentive is provided by automatic rehabilitation taking place only if, at the expiration of a specified period, no further convictions have been incurted by the offender. It is proposed that the scheme should apply to all members of the community, regardless of whether they were adult or juvenile at the time of conviction. However, it is considered that the rehabilitation period for a juvenile should be one-half of the adult period. This is an added incentive to young people. A period of 10 years will apply in the case of an adult and five years in the case of a juvenile. Discrimination with respect to convictions that have been quashed or set aside shall also be removed. Records of that type should not form any part of a person's criminal history and an appropriate declaration is contained in the Bill to give effect to that requirement. The questioning of a person upon those matters is prohibited by the Bill. As a consequence, a person's criminal history will relate to convictions only and will not Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Bill 12 March 1986 4111 relate to charges that have not proceeded to conviction or to convictions that have been quashed or set aside. These principles are clearly established in the Bill, Where the order of a court has been satisfied by the fine having been paid or the custodial sentence having been served and the appropriate rehabilitation period having expired with no fiirther convictions being recorded, the rehabihtation of the offender will be effected automatically. The rehabilitated offender will be then entitled to deny that he or she has suffered a conviction. To ensure that rehabilitation is achieved, it is necessary that the record of any conviction be not disclosed. When rehabilitation of a person is effected, any authorised disclosure of a conviction relating to that person wiU constitute an offence, although the Bill does recognise that a limited form of disclosure is required, in the public interest, in certain circumstances. The Bill will apply to persons who have suffered convictions before as well as after the coming into force of the proposed legislation, GeneraUy, it wiU be necessary for any person, other than the rehabilitated offender, to seek permission of the Attoraey-General before any disclosure of the record of convictions is authorised. Provision is made for the disclosure of convictions, notwithstanding rehabUitation, under certain circumstances, such as the assessment of character for a particular purpose authorised by statute. A court or the Parole Board of Queensland will be entitled to have access to an offender's convictions for purposes of determining whether those previous convictions should be taken into account in determining the type of order that should be made in the matter being considered. The Bill also ensures that information about a person's criminal history remains available to members of the police force in order to assist them in conducting their inquiries. It is considered necessary that in some cases in which the rehabilitation period has expired a conviction should be revived. Provision is made for that arrangement to apply, particularly upon the further conviction by a court of a rehabUitated offender. Where the conviction is for an indictable offence, the prior conviction wiU be revived automaticaUy. In the case of simple offences or regulatory offences, the conviction will be revived only when the court deems it necessary and orders accordingly. It is proposed to amend the Evidence Act to ensure that the questioning of a witness in court proceedings about convictions recorded against the witness, when the rehabilitation period has expired, or regarding matters such as charges that have not proceeded to a conviction, is not available unless the permission of the court is first obtained. Provision is made in the Bill to require the lawful disclosure of criminal history for the purposes of assessment of character of persons seeking admission to various professions, occupations or callings in which it is considered that the disclosure of criminal history is necessary. The Bill represents pioneering legislation not only for this State but also for the rest of Australia. Notwithstanding the extensive investigations that I have had undertaken in this area, actual practice may disclose certain areas in which the desirable social objectives of this Bill may be made more effective. If these areas can be identified, I will not hesitate to amend the legislation. Although the Goverament acknowledges that criminal offenders must be punished where necessary, it believes that people who have endeavoured to correct past criminal behaviour and conform with society's laws should gain suitable social support. The operation of the proposals contained in the Bill will, on their introduction, be carefully monitored to ensure that they are effective and, if any inconsistencies arise, appropriate action will then be taken to remedy them. I commend the Bill to the House, Debate, on motion of Mr Prest, adjouraed. The House adjouraed at 6.4 p.m.