Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 1989

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Pariiamentary Reporting Staff 5 September 1989 297

TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 1989

Under the provisions of the motion for special adjoumment agreed to by the House on 10 August 1989, the House met at 10 a.m. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K.R. Lingard, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will maintain the dignity of the House.

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING STAFF

Retirement of Chief Reporter; Appointment of Acting Chief Reporter and Acting Deputy Chief Reporter Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to inform the House of the retirement of Mr Warwick Trotman Foote as Chief Reporter on 1 September. From 4 September Mr Peter Bradshaw Rohl will be Acting Chief Reporter and Mr Alan John Watson will be Acting Deputy Chief Reporter. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (10.02 a.m.): I would Uke to take this opportunity to say a few words in recognition of the work done by Warwick Foote as Chief Reporter of the Queensland Parliament. I am sure that he has eamed the respect of all honourable members. He was here during my total period in this Parliament. I have learned to respect him, and I am sure that he goes into retirement with the goodwill of all parties in the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Changes in Ministry Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I desire to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor— (a) on 29 August 1989 (i) Accepted the resignations of— the Honourable Robert Carl Katter, the Honourable Paul John Clauson and the Honourable Theo Russell Cooper, as members of the Executive Council of Queensland; (ii) Accepted the resignations of— the Honourable Robert Carl Katter, as Minister for Community Services and Ethnic Aflfairs of Queensland; the Honourable Paul John Clauson, as Minister for Justice and Attomey- General and Minister for Cortective Services of Queensland; and the Honourable Theo Russell Cooper, as Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services of Queensland. 298 5 September 1989 Pariiamentary Reporting Staff

(b) on 31 August 1989 (i) Accepted the resignations of— the Honourable Ivan James Gibbs, as Minister for Health of Queensland; the Honourable Martin James Tenni, as Minister for Mines, Energy and Northern Development of Queensland; the Honourable Robert Edward Borbidge, as Minister for Industry, Small Business, Technology and Tourism of Queensland; the Honourable Brian George Littleproud, as Minister for Education, Youth and Sport of Queensland; and the Honourable Craig Arden Sherrin, as Minister for Family Services of Queensland; (ii) Appointed— Andrew Anthony FitzGerald, Huan Donald John Fraser and Thomas John George Gilmore, to be members of the Executive Council of Queensland; (iii) Appointed— the Honourable Ivan James Gibbs, to be Minister for Health and Attomey- General of Queensland; the Honourable Martin James Tenni, to be Minister for Mines and Energy of Queensland; the Honourable Robert Edward Borbidge, to be Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Tourism of Queensland; the Honourable Brian George Littleproud, to be Minister for Education, Youth, Sport and Recreation of Queensland; the Honourable Craig Arden Sherrin, to be Minister for Family Services and Corrective Services of Queensland; the Honourable Andrew Anthony FitzGerald, to be Minister for Justice of Queensland; the Honourable Huan Donald John Fraser, to be Minister for Industry, Small Business, Technology and Administrative Services of Queensland; and the Honourable Thomas John George Gilmore, to be Minister for Com­ munity Services, Ethnic Affairs and Northern Developent of Queensland. I lay upon the table of the House copies of the Queensland Government Gazettes of 29 August 1989 and 31 August 1989 containing the relevant notifications. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table.

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING STAFF

Retirement of Chief Reporter; Appointment of Acting Chief Reporter and Acting Deputy Chief Reporter Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (10.06 a.m.): I rise simply to endorse the remarks of the Premier and, on behalf of the Opposition, to record our appreciation to Mr Foote and his staff The work of the reporting staff is, of course, often arduous, for long hours, and on those rare occasions when things are volatile and fast-moving in this place, their task is certainly not an easy one. Members of the Opposition certainly extend their good wishes to Mr Foote. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.07 a.m.): I would like to associate the Liberal Party with the comments that have been made with regard to Mr Supply 5 September 1989 299

Foote. Of course, I have known Mr Foote personally since the days when he was a reporter in the law courts. His standards are typical of those achieved by the service in this House. The members of the Hansard staff are an extraordinarily competent group of people. We are greatly indebted to them for their services, and Mr Foote was a very good leader of those people who serve us so well.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Department of Freehold Land Titles for the year ended 30 June 1989 Rural Lands Protection Board for the year ended 30 June 1989 Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies for the year ended 30 June 1988. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Motorways Agreements Act 1987-1988 Commission of Inquiry Act 1950-1989 Brisbane and Area Water Board Act 1979-1988 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1988 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949-1988 Harbours Act 1955-1989 Judges' Salaries and Pensions Act 1967-1989 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1988 Magistrates Courts Act 1921-1988 Liquor Act 1912-1988 District Courts Act 1967-1988 Regulations under— Fire Brigades Act 1964-1988 Collections Act 1966-1989 Rule under the Coroners Act 1958-1988 Reports— Lang Park Tmst Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 1988 Financial Statements of the Queensland Coal Board for the year ended 30 June 1989

Tmst Company of Australia Limited for the year ended 28 Febmary 1989.

SUPPLY

Constitution of Committee Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (10.10 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty." Motion agreed to. 300 5 September 1989 Ministerial Statement

WAYS AND MEANS

Constitution of Committee Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (10.11 a.m.), by leave, vrithout notice: I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty."

Motion agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Effect of Airline Pilots Dispute on Tourism Industry Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Indus­ trial Affairs) (10.11 a.m.), by leave: Late yesterday, my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Tourism and I met with senior represen­ tatives of the Queensland business community and leaders from the tourism industry to discuss the catastrophic effects of the ongoing airline pilots dispute and to take action. Mr Casey: Are you going to leam to fly? Mr LESTER: Why don't Opposition members just listen? That shows how inept the Labor Party is. As a consequence of that meeting, today the Queensland Govemment will approach the Federal Industrial Relations Commission to request it to force a meeting between the pilots and the airlines in an attempt to find a solution to this awfiil problem. Representatives from the Queensland Confederation of Industry, the Metal Trades Association, the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, retailer groups, the Queens­ land Government, the Federation of Travel Agents, Qintex, the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, major intemational hotels and the Gold Coast Visitors and Con­ vention Bureau have fully supported the Queensland Govemment's taking a stand against the industrial lawlessness of the airline pilots and the crippling effect that their action is having on the economy. Queensland is more susceptible than any other State to this type of industrial blackmail as our State is Australia's leader in tourism. The Queensland Government just cannot stand back and let it all go on. The Australian Tourist Industry Association has already begun implementing plans to appoint an independent mediator whom both parties can approach confidentially il the Federal commission continues to refuse to settle this dispute. At present, Australia is in an awful position because it has a Federal Industrial Relations Commission, which is funded by tax-payers' money, sitting back and doing nothing. The people in the tourism industry have had to find their own mediator. That is not on, and it should not happen. However, I make it very clear that, if it must happen, the Queensland Government will back those people to the hilt. The settiement of the airline pilots dispute is, without a doubt, a Federal problem. The onus is on the Federal Government and its instrumentalities to find a solution to it. But, for all his rhetoric, the Prime Minister has refused to bite the bullet and take hard action against the strikers. It is a good thing that Bob Hawke was not the one who had to solve the SEQEB dispute in 1985. If he had had that responsibility, we would still be sitting here in the dark with the lights off, just as Queensland's tourist operators and Queensland's small- business people are groping their way through the darkness that has been caused by this dispute in their industry. However, the Federal Government stands idly by. Ministerial Statement 5 September 1989 301

At least the Queensland Govemment has had the guts to actually do something about the problem. It is a pity that the wimps in the Federal Labor Govemment cannot or will not follow the Queensland Govemment's lead. Australia's reputation and Queens­ land's reputation as reliable providers of tourist services have been absolutely shot to pieces. Even if the pilots were to go back to work today, it would take at least five years for the effects of this dispute to settle. Mr Wells interjected. Mr LESTER: The honourable member should Usten, because this dispute is causing Queensland a lot of trouble. If the honourable member does not want to listen, that is okay, but I will continue speaking. Even if the pilots were to go back to work today, it would take at least five years for the effects of this dispute to settle. As it stands, Queensland's reputation and Queensland's income from the tourist industry will slump for up to 10 years because of this dispute, and for that we can thank the greedy airline pilots, the absolutely intransigent airline companies and the gutless Federal Government. Mr Speaker, could I just say a few words? Opposition members interjected. Mr LESTER: If Opposition members do not want to listen, that is up to them. However, the Queensland Govemment is trying to do something. I condemn the Federal Govemment for considering offering compensation to the airlines. Is that not going to keep the airlines in a strike situation, unwilling to talk? I say to the Federal Govemment A Government member: What about the littie people? Mr LESTER: I say to the Federal Govemment: what about the little people who are now being put off? What about small-business people who are not able to pay off their loans? What about everybody else in Queensland who is trying to make a few bob? What about those people who rely on the tourist industry? Shame on the Federal Govemment for wanting to prop up Sir Peter Abeles, Rupert Murdoch and the people from Australian Airlines! Of course. East-West Airlines is in the same position because it is owned by Murdoch and Abeles. The Prime Minister is helping his mates. As far as Mr Hawke is concemed, the small-business people can go to hell.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Builders Registration Board; Manfal Pty Ltd; Mansard Properties Ltd Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier and Minister for Public Works, Housing and Main Roads) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: I would like briefly to acquaint honourable members of the assistance provided by the Builders Registration Board to certain home-buyers involved with the Mansard companies. Members will be aware that, earlier this year, I informed the House that the Builders Registration Board had taken strong action against the Westem Australian-based home- building companies Manfal Pty Ltd and Mansard Properties Ltd. That step required the companies to show cause why their registration should not be cancelled or suspended. This followed extensive investigations carried out by Builders Registration Board officers and advice from the board's legal advisers. At present, the board is handling 117 insurance claims against the Mansard companies. The board believes that it has accounted for all of those Mansard home- buyers who may need its assistance in completing or rectifying work on their houses. In reaching this position the board has been forced to defend its actions against the companies by fighting a Supreme Court injunction. That injunction followed an earlier 302 5 September 1989 Ministerial Statement move which required the companies to show cause why their registration should not be cancelled or suspended. Following the disposal of the injunction, the companies had their registration cancelled by the board. I am pleased to say that the board's thorough and determined effort on behalf of home-buyers did not stop there. Upon cancellation of the company's registration, board representatives travelled to Westem Australia to appear before the Western Australian Supreme Court. That action was instmmental in successfully having the court adjourn the winding-up proceedings against the companies, which allowed the Queensland consumers time to lodge insurance claims with the board. To date, the board has spent more than $178,000 in mounting its defence of the consumers' rights. However, the key point is that the board expects to pay out to the consumers a sum in excess of $lm from the insurance fund operated by it for completion of the homes involved. In fact, the process of completing a number of those homes is already under way. The board and its officers are to be commended for the sustained efforts that they have made in the interests of consumer protection.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Brisbane-Gold Coast Petroleum Products Pipeline Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.19 a.m.), by leave: In recent months this House has listened—at times with impatience—to the angry outpourings of the honourable member for Lytton. Some outbursts can be dismissed as rambling racism, but others are little more than figments of an under-active imagination. One such outburst related to the honourable member's comments on the petroleum products pipeline from Brisbane to the Gold Coast. In order to expose the error of the honourable member for Lytton, I make the following statement: in Febmary 1986 Cabinet decided— "That proposals be invited for the constmction, ownership, and operation of a pipeline to carry petroleum products between Brisbane and the Gold Coast (terminal points to be nominated by the proposer)." Thus it is not correct to say, as the honourable member for Lytton said, that— (1) the Govemment called tenders; and (2) the proposal was to pump fuel from the refineries to Beenleigh and Toowoomba. Four proposals were received by the closing date, 30 May 1986, and evaluated by an interdepartmental committee. Subsequentiy, meetings were held with the Petroleum Marketing Operations Committee, known as PMOC, to resolve significant matters of concern to the refiners and distributors of petroleum products. In March and April of 1987, the four proposers formed two separate joint ventures in an attempt to overcome the problem of inadequate data on product distribution available from the oil companies. The two joint ventures comprised— Williams Brothers-CMPS Engineers, Transfield Pty Ltd and TMOC Resources Pty Ltd; and TNT Shipping and Development Limited and Bechtel-Clough. In June 1987, the first joint venturer advised the Government of its inability to produce a commercially viable project and withdrew. In August 1987, the TNT/Bechtel- Clough joint venture was invited to make application pursuant to section 45 (2) of the Petroleum Act to enter upon lands for the purpose of carrying out surveys and inves­ tigations in connection with the proposed pipeline. In September 1987, an application was received from TNT/Clough Engineering—Bechtel having withdrawn. Ministerial Statement 5 September 1989 303

The TNT/Clough joint venture was granted entry on lands by Order in Council dated 21 January 1988 for a period of six months from 23 January 1988. An extension of a further six months was given by Order in Council dated 7 July 1988. In July 1988, the TNT/Clough joint venture advised that the project would not be pursued. The reason given for withdrawing from the project was that the cost of transporting fuels by pipeline could not compete with another option. In summary, the Govemment gave every encouragement and support for the pipeline. The project failed to materialise for purely economic reasons, contrary to what the honourable member for Lytton said. Any proposal in the future to develop a pipeline for transporting petroleum products will receive similar encouragement from this Government. From my comments, it is abundantly clear that the honourable member may have been suffering from sunstroke as a consequence of his frequent fishing trips during suspensions from this House. It may also be the case that the brown paper bag he mentioned in his outburst in this House was, at the time, being worn over his head. That may account for the shortness of his vision. It is unfortunate that, whereas many good people within the minerals and energy sector of this State are working towards securing our future, the honourable member for Lytton cannot rise above a cheap broth of falsehood and base allegations.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Gold Coast Harness Racing Club Hon. J. H. RANDELL (Mirani—Minister for Local Govemment and Racing) (10.23 a.m.), by leave: Honourable members will recall that on 8 March of this year, in a statement to this House, I announced that I had approved a recommendation to me from the Queensland Hamess Racing Board that the committee of the Gold Coast Harness Racing Club be dissolved and that an administrator be appointed to take charge immediately of all operations of the club. My approval for that action was not given lightly. Serious allegations had been made about certain matters within the Gold Coast Hamess Racing Club, and I believed that it was important for the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible. I am now in receipt of the report of the Queensland Harness Racing Board into the affairs of the Gold Coast Hamess Racing Club Limited and, for the information of honourable members, I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr RANDELL: I have approved a recommendation contained in the report that the necessary arrangements be made for the election of a committee, subject to the requirement that certain parties will not be eligible for election to that committee. The report makes reference to the possible necessity of some form of financial assistance to the Gold Coast Hamess Racing Club. If and when a formal submission is received, I will be happy to give full consideration to such a request in accordance with the guide-lines laid down. My stated objective as Racing Minister has always been for the seven control bodies that largely make up racing in this State to carry out their duties under the provisions of the Racing and Betting Act. I am delighted to say that the Queensland Hamess Racing Board has done just that in relation to this matter. I take this opportunity to thank it for its co-operation. 304 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (10.24 a.m.), by leave: Today I received advice from my solicitors that former Premier Bjelke-Petersen has failed to pay within the time specified by law an amount of almost $18,000 owing to me as a result of costs ordered against him following his withdrawal of a defamation action. Consequentiy, I wish to advise the House that I have today arranged for the filing of documents in the court for the purpose of enforcing the order. Bjelke-Petersen will no doubt be required to pay additional legal costs incurted. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Wolston under Standing Order 123A.

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Want of Confidence in Premier and Treasurer Mr SPEAKER: I wish to report that I have received the following written statement from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 137— "4th September, 1989 The Hon. K. R. Lingard, M.L.A., Speaker, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane. QLD. 4000 Dear Mr Speaker, In accordance with Standing Order 137, I propose that tomorrow, Tuesday, September 5, a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. The matter in question is that the House has lost confidence in the leadership of the Queensland Govemment and the govemment's administration of this State, as evidenced by: — public concem over the govemment's lack of commitment to reforms rec­ ommended by the Fitzgerald Report; — the govemment's lack of credibility on the cmcial issue of independent electoral reform, highlighted by the cancellation of its politically-motivated October 14 referendum; — the totally ertatic manner in which the government decided first against and then in favour of the introduction of daylight saving; — the govemment's refusal to agree to a pubhc inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee into the Q.I.D.C. loans scandal; — the failure of the Premier and his Ministers to table details of their Ministerial expense accounts, credit cards and cash advances, which are now the subject of a criminal investigation by the Special Prosecutor; and — the damage to the Queensland economy caused by the uncertainty and instability arising out of the Premier's refusal to disclose the date which he claims he has chosen for the State election. Yours faithfully, WAYNE GOSS, M.L.A., Leader of the Opposition." Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 305

Not fewer than five members having risen in their places to indicate approval— Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 a.m.): I believe that it is absolutely cmcial that the provisions of Standing Order 137 be brought to bear in this House today to resolve finally and substantively the continuing crisis—the period of instability—in Queensland, and more particularly the aura of crisis emanating from the Govemment and the Cabinet. This instability commenced at least a year ago and has been getting worse. In recent weeks it has reached crisis point and there is no sign of the crisis and instability ceasing. This crisis must be resolved, and must be resolved in the Parliament, not in the bunker, from which have come reports ovemight that Sir Robert Sparkes is seeking to resolve it by replacing this leader with another. The question should not be resolved by unelected officials; it should be resolved here. The instability, the continuing crisis and chaos and the uncertainty in relation to government are doing tremendous damage to the Queensland economy and to the delivery of public administration in this State. It is a well-known fact in this country and, for that matter, in other countries that, when a period of crisis occurs, and on top of that there is unnecessary and destabilising speculation about a general election, affairs in the community tend to grind to a halt. The business community goes into neutral and because of the climate of uncertainty it does not make investment decisions. Every day the Opposition receives reports directly from senior public servants that they cannot get decisions from this Government and that there is uncertainty in relation to policy. On top of that is the remarkable confusion about public sector reform, if it could be called that, displayed by this Premier. I cite as an example the mix of portfolios such as those of Health and Attomey-General, which fails completely to understand the reason why Tony Fitzgerald wanted to separate the portfolios of Attorney-General and Justice. The other curious mix is that of Police and Tourism, which is destroying the confidence of the police force, and cannot do much for the tourism industry. When a police officer now says to a person, "Do you want to go away?", at least the person knows he is being offered a choice. The mix of the Family Services and Corrective Services portfolios gives new meaning to the statement, "Lock up your daughters." Opposition members interjected. Mr GOSS: This may be a laughing matter when viewed from that perspective; but, in terms of the very important work that those departments should be doing, the confusion of leadership and the confusion in Government policy that is caused as a consequence, it is the Queensland economy and the Queensland public that suffer. I draw attention to one particular aspect of the letter read out by Mr Speaker, which is the reference to the House having lost confidence in the leadership of the Queensland Government and the Government's administration of this State. Certainly the Opposition repeats the criticism that is all around the community in relation to the leadership being provided by the Premier, but members of the National Party Cabinet—including the recent arrivals and the recent departures^must share responsibility, because in a tme corporate sense they are the Government. Six issues have been nominated and read out by Mr Speaker, but there could be many others. First among the others must be the interference by unelected officials from the bunker—Sir Robert Sparkes and the other old fogies who seek to control so much and apparently now seek Government members interjected. Mr GOSS: Am I touching a raw nerve? If Government members do not believe me, they just have to ask Mr Lester. He has been telling the gallery that the decision has been made and that Sparkes has shifted. 306 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I find that statement absolutely incredible. It is not tme. I find it personally offensive. I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has been asked to withdraw the comment. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr GOSS: I withdraw the statement, Mr Speaker. The situation is quite clear to everybody who has been wandering around the gallery and, more particularly, around the members' bar over the last few days. Sir Robert Sparkes has switched. I do not care and the Labor Party does not care whom members of the National Party install as leader—they can do as they wish—but what must be understood is that there is a corporate responsibility for what is going on in this State, and a superficial change in the Ministry will not affect that. The people of Queensland must see a commitment from this Cabinet and from the Govemment to the issues—in particular, the implementation of the Fitzgerald report- that urgentiy need addressing. It is an absolute disgrace and a scandal that Tony Fitzgerald, who did so much work and invested so much of his own blood, sweat and tears in compiling the report, has been forced, in disgust, to walk away from this Cabinet and this Govemment because of the way in which his reforms are being undermined. On 8 August the Premier introduced into this Parliament the draft Bill for EARC. The next day, under pressure from one-third of the Cabinet, he bowed to their wishes and announced that the Bill and the powers set out in it would be "severely quahfied". They were the words used by the Premier. The very first blueprint that was put on the table by Tony Fitzgerald was sold down the river. When is the public of this State going to get value for money? When will the people of this State get value for their $24m? When will they be given a real change, which is what they want? They have been sold out—not just by the Premier, but also by the Cabinet. It is significant—and I challenge the Premier to deny this—that the resignation of Fitzgerald occurred on the same day as the Premier announced that the Bill would be "severely qualified". While I am on the subject of eminent QCs resigning and walking out on this Government, let me also draw attention to the sham trade union inquiry and the cynical political motivation behind it. Government members interjected. Mr GOSS: Let me place on record that as far as I am concemed there is no difference between a cormpt union official and a cormpt Cabinet Minister. If they abuse funds over which they have jurisdiction and in respect of which they have been placed in a position of tmst, they should be prosecuted and sent to gaol. Under the next Labor Government, they will be. The point I am seeking to make is that the word around the legal profession— particularly the senior ranks of the Queensland bar—is that Mr O'Regan, Queen's Counsel, who was appointed to assist the trade union inquiry, resigned because, having examined all the evidence, he had come to the conclusion that the matters that had been referred by the Premier had either been adequately dealt with by the courts or could adequately be dealt with by the courts. He walked away from it on the grounds that his ethics would not allow him to be associated with a sham inquiry that amounted to an abuse of the institution of the commission of inquiry. The reason that Governments have commissions of inquiry is that the traditional institutions and traditional mechanisms have broken down and the blockage needs to be cleared. When it came to the Fitzgerald inquiry, that was clearly necessary. O'Regan's action clearly shows that the trade union inquiry is not a genuine commission of inquiry. Apparently it is going to go ahead and it may go ahead tomortow without a QC. Who knows? The point I make is that it has been exposed as a sham. Irtespective of the evidence that comes out of the inquiry, a Labor Govemment would act on it. So that Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 307

that is clearly understood, I put it on the record now to enable the public of Queensland to understand the position. The second issue referred to in the letter is the question of genuine electoral reform. At the outset the Opposition said that this Govemment could not be tmsted primarily because of Sir Robert Sparkes, but also because this Govemment could not be tmsted when it came to genuine electoral reform. Of course, this Govemment stalled and then ran from electoral reform. When the members of this National Party Govemment found themselves in trouble, they cooked up this phoney referendum. Now that the referendum has been cancelled, they have achieved their original goal of going into an election on cormpt boundaries. The third issue that is destroying business confidence and destroying the confidence of the people in this State in the administration of this Govemment is the vexed question of daylight-saving. Leaks emanated from Cabinet that the Govemment was going to do something about daylight-saving. It promoted the expectation, but then cracked on the basis of a telephone call, again from none other than Sir Robert Sparkes—the grey eminence. The boys from the bunker called the shots yet again, as I am told they will tomorrow in the party room meeting. Then, in the face of market research—not leadership from the Cabinet or Government—the Government backflipped. That style of Govem­ ment has resulted in a collapse of confidence. The fourth issue is the continuing failure of this Government to refuse to allow the Public Accounts Committee, or any other institution, to conduct a public inquiry into the QIDC loans scandal. Every week disturbing new revelations occur, yet no action is taken to clear up this scandal. When it came to replacing people such as Tucker and Boschma, the reason given by this Government was that Tucker and Boschma had to be replaced because the QIDC dealt mainly with mral business. The Premier said that the Government wanted people with mral expertise. However, who was appointed by this Government—not by the Bjelke-Petersen administration, but by the Ahern administration—to provide this mral expertise? The Govemment appointed Mr Bell, a Brisbane insurance broker, Mr Maule, a Brisbane accountant, Mr Boyle, a Sunshine Coast property-developer, Jenny Russell, a former National Party research officer, and Mr Tony Ford, a former Brisbane manager of the failed Rothwells Bank. That is the rural expertise! That is the commitment this Govemment has to its mral base. That is the way it delivers expertise to the primary producers of this State. What a pathetic joke! No wonder it is not only the business community and the average member of the community, but also people in the north and west of the State, people from the bush and the primary producers who are losing confidence not only in this Premier but also in the whole of this Govemment, which has been in office for too long. The other issue which has not been addressed is the continuing failure, despite the opportunity to do so, of the Premier and his Ministers to table details of ministerial expenses and cash advances for the period of approximately the last three years. This is public money. If there is nothing to hide, then the books should be produced. If there is nothing to hide in the books, then the books should be seen. The Govemment says, "There is nothing to hide", but it hides the books. I ask: is this the vision of excellence? Is this the open and accountable govemment we were promised? The last point mentioned in the letter is the damage to the Queensland economy, which is clear. I will conclude on a positive note. I wish to give credit where credit is due to this Premier. I give credit to him for delivering on his very first promise to the people of Qiieensland. He promised us a vision and, with the departure from Parliament of Mr Tenni, Mr McKechnie, Mr Row and Mr Simpson, we are getting closer to the vision of excellence. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (10.42 a.m.): The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion would be one of the worst that I have ever heard him deliver. He was ill-prepared to deliver his speech at this time. It was a regurgitation of all of the press releases which he has delivered over the past couple of weeks. It was rambling, shambling 308 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance and irtelevant to the real problems facing Queenslanders today. He has taken up question- time when there are serious issues facing Queenslanders that require urgent deliberation by this Parliament. This is an exercise in cheap party politics by the Leader of the Opposition, who is trying to dodge the real issues that are really hurting people in the electorate at the moment. At present the pilots dispute is sending thousands of people broke, yet the Labor Party does nothing but fiddle on the issue. There is no question about that at all; yet today, at the very first opportunity the House has had to deliberate on the issues, to find out what this State Govemment has been doing and to ask what the Federal Labor Government has been doing or could do, the Leader of the Opposition has filibustered in order to fill up question-time. It is one of the worst efforts he has ever made. For the first time for many decades in this country the military has been used in a vain attempt to break a strike, thereby delivering the lie to everything the members of the Labor Party said in this House during the SEQEB dispute. Nothing has been said about the pilots dispute on this occasion. Where are all the protests from the members of the Labor Party today? All of the tactics that were used in this State by the Labor Party during the SEQEB dispute are now being used by the Federal Labor Party against their mates. What we have seen is a filibuster on issues which are simply party politics- nothing else. Where are the Opposition's plans to bring pressure on the Federal Gov­ ernment to resolve the pilots dispute? Where is the discussion in respect of the independent arbitrator? Where are the issues relating to some relief for people who are adversely affected by the dispute? Those people have been sold down the river by the Leader of the Opposition, who today has decided that all he wants to do is try to create some political embartassment in this House, and to hell with the average Queenslander. Where is the discussion about the impact of interest rates on the small-business people in the community? Where is all the constmctive discussion on what this Parliament might do about it? The letter criticised the state of Queensland's economy. The suggestion has been made that this Govemment is not performing well on the economy. The plain fact is that this State has never had a better year economically. According to national statistics this State is performing better than any other State in the Commonwealth today. That is tme of every index. Unemployment is down and, since I took office, real employment has increased by 150 000. Absolutely every criterion—Opposition members may turn it whichever way they like—indicates that this State is performing very, very well. If there were a Federal Labor Government that had some knowledge of business and some knowledge of intemational competitiveness, this State would be much better off. However, the Federal Labor Govemment is high taxing and intmsive and it is determined to deprive this State of its funding commitments. The Queensland economy is working better than it ever has before. I now turn to some of the other non-issues that have been raised. The first is the trade union inquiry. The commitment of the Labor Party in Queensland, if that party is elected to office, is to wind up the trade union inquiry. Mr Warburton: Who said that? Mr AHERN: That was said by the Labor Party's official spokesman, the shadow Attomey-General. It was said by the honourable member for Murmmba, who was ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Labor Party. That statement has not been disowned. It is Labor commitment to close that inquiry immediately, despite the daily information on problems in this and other States of Australia. I now refer to some of the material that has been directed to me by the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. Opposition members need not worry; I will table it. It takes me to task in certain respects. It is signed by Mr Maynes, the national president. Mr Goss: Table Maynes' letter. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 309

Mr AHERN: Is he not in favour with the Queensland branch or with the honourable member's faction? To whose faction does he belong? I do not know. The letter reads— "In respect to the Victorian Branch, where a so-called 'reform group' (which is actually mn by the Socialist Left element of the Australian Labor Party) claimed a narrow victory in 1988, the election was immediately challenged. The challenge was centered on a number of malpractices including multiple voting. The Union had three handwriting experts examine the ballot papers, all of whom agreed that multiple voting had occurred." And later— "In the last twelve months 1 million of the Union's reserves has been dissipated in Victoria." Mr R. J. Gibbs: Ask him about his conviction for ballot fraud. Mr AHERN: That is interesting. The honourable member for Wolston raises an issue which is also relevant. The Labor Party says that the inquiry should be wound up. What a nonsense. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition today to say what he is prepared to do about union cormption. Is he prepared to tolerate it, reject it or say that it should be left to the normal forms and processes? What happens when everything comes tumbling out? I have no doubt what will happen. The Labor Party will mn a mile from it. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Mr AHERN: In that respect, I have another issue to raise about the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. The report did not contain a copy of the legislation. It referred to the legislation and the form of the legislation on page 144 as follows— "The initial temptation in a report such as this is to firmly prescribe the new administrative laws needed, or needed in the opinions of the Commission, to overcome the deficiencies. While such a move would probably attract short-term public support, such a course would be just as deficient as the steps and prescriptions which has led to the curtent predicament." The commissioner goes on to deal with deliberation, research, community input and cursory parliamentary attention. I have done what Fitzgerald recommended. The Government has sought broad input from a wide variety of community groups in respect of this matter, and they have expressed some doubts. It is alleged by the Leader of the Opposition that anybody who expresses any doubt at all today about the detail of any of these recommendations is somehow part of the dark forces that are opposing reform in this State. What a nonsense. That is McCarthyism at its worst. That is what it is all about. The Government sought to address one of the issues by seeking advice from Mr Finnis, who was retained some time ago by the Government to provide independent research from time to time on constitutional matters. I will table it shortly. Mr Burns: Tell us a bit about him. Who is he? Mr AHERN: He is senior counsel who has been retained by the Queensland Government for many years. Perhaps he was retained during one of the honourable member's fishing trips. He is a member of the University College at Oxford. Let me outline what is being said by people associated with the House at Westminster. Mr Finnis said— "The definition of'Commission' in cl.2.1, taken with cl.2.8 and 2.19, appears to grant an excessive power of delegation to individual Commissioners to exercise the wide and potentially drastic powers of the Commission... Minimally, the power to confer the Commission's powers on an individual Commissioner should be exercisable only by a meeting of the Commissioners. 310 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

In my opinion, there are reasons for thinking that the function conferted by cl.2.10(2), taken together with the Schedule and cl.2.18 and with the powers conferted by e.g. cl.2.27 in relation to compulsorily summonsing any and every person whomsoever, is too widely specified, with the result that the Commission might come to be regarded as having a character Uke the 'Star Chamber' with a roving mandate to hold public inquisitions on all aspects of public life in Queensland, and on many aspects of the private life of those involved in, or connected with those involved in, public life." Should we not listen to that and take on board all of that concem? He continued— "I believe that this clause could have a far-reaching impact on the willingness of public servants and others to give impartial advice. It is a matter of political judgment whether the circumstances that have arisen in the State warrant so far- reaching a provision, departing to such a wide and uncertain an extent, and for such an indefinite time forward and back into the past, from the convention that Ministers are answerable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate for the conduct of their departments and of the public servants therein, and that it is not in the public interest that individual public servants, or former public servants, should be made to answer publicly (otherwise than on criminal charges properly laid) for the advice they give or steps they take or took in the conduct of their public office. In the United Kingdom, as is well-known, this convention reaches to the extent that the papers of former governments are not available even to Ministers in the present administration, where those papers would disclose the content of advice given to former Ministers. This convention is intended not to protect Ministers or their predecessors, but to secure the integrity of advice to Ministers." He went on to confirm that there is need by stating— "I infer from the terms of the Bill that there are serious grounds for concern about the conduct of public business in the State in recent years"— if there is— "and that it is responsibly judged that unusual measures are required or appropriate for rectifying whatever needs to be rectified. I in no way question or in any other way comment upon that judgment, when I conclude that in certain significant respects the Bill in its present form may go beyond what could reasonably be regarded as appropriate even in very unusual circumstances, arwi is in need of clarification in certain significant respects." I lay that document on the table of the House for the information of honourable members. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr AHERN: Is that information to be ignored? There is no doubt that we have a clear duty to listen to that type of advice, and we certainly do. At the time of the presentation of the report, that legislation was not around. The Govemment is required to seek public input, not only from the Labor Party but also from other quarters. The QIDC issue was raised and was described as a loans scandal. What loans scandal? There is no loans scandal. We have had much ado about nothing. It is merely about the appointment of public officials to the board. Throughout Australia, the Australian Labor Party has made an art form out of political appointments. It has outdone every State Govemment. In the Federal sphere, it has appointed John Menadue, the chairman of Qantas, Mick Young, Chris Hurford and hundreds of other people. Labor outdoes all other parties in that respect. No substance has been raised at all. I tum now to the issue of ministerial expenses. It has been properly dealt with, as I always said it should be—not by the party politicians who would deal with it in a party-political manner, but entirely appropriately and properly by professionals. That is Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 311 all being done now, as I said it would be all along when the issue was first raised by the Leader of the Opposition and other people in this House. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.52 a.m.): Mr Speaker, it is almost 11 o'clock on a day allotted to Matters of Public Interest. This is an important issue and the motion should be dealt with by the House. The Liberal Party will oppose any attempt to stop debate on this important issue and it will oppose the Opposition's proposition to the House. Let everybody understand that the Liberal Party wishes the debate to go on and it opposes the Labor Party's proposition to the House, because Labor is not the answer, either. There are matters of legitimate criticism of the style of this Govemment. We have identified them, and on most occasions we were there before the Labor Party. The Liberal Party does not circulate petitions calling for the postponement of State elections. Mr White: They were asleep—asleep on the job. Mr INNES: Exactly. The Liberal Party does not propose that a referendum on daylight-saving be held in 1991 in conjunction with local authority elections. The Liberal Party had a clear and precise answer from the beginning. It proposed a State election at the appointed time this year, irrespective of redistribution, and daylight-saving without a nonsense proposal for a delay of two years. The reality is that there is legitimate criticism of the Govemment. That criticism will be taken on board by the people of Queensland on election day this year, which is not far away. There certainly are matters of complaint. Some of those matters have been addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Liberal Party has been there and has complained. However, the real deception is that the Labor Party—the gloss, the gilt on this msty old machine—can provide the answers to this State. It has put forward the nonsense that commerce has ground to a halt and that everything has stopped. It is the combination of the threat of the Labor Party and the real effect of a crisis such as the airlines issue that causes the real trouble to the economy of Queensland, overlaid by the interest rates imposed by the Labor Govemment in Canberra and backed up by Goss on all occasions. Goss' recipe is the same as Keating's: high taxes, big govemment, big unions and reversal of the economy and the good times that this State has enjoyed. The Liberal Party can and will look at the other States. I am mnning out of time. I know that at 11 o'clock you, Mr Speaker, will state that the Matters of Public Interest debate has to begin. I therefore move— "That the debate on this motion be adjoumed to a later hour of the sitting." Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under Standing Orders, the honourable member can only seek leave to move a motion. Mr INNES: I seek leave to move that motion. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is leave granted? Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member has sought leave to move a motion. Is leave granted? Liberal Party members: Aye! Government members: No! Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the motion. Those in favour say "Aye", against say "No". The "Noes" have it. Honourable members, as per the Sessional Order, the Matters of Public Interest debate must take place from 11 a.m. till 12 noon. For the information of the House, I 312 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest point out that honourable members may retum to this matter if they vrish by moving special motions. However, honourable members must now move on to the Matters of Public Interest debate.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Queensland Health Services Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (11 a.m.): It is time for Queenslanders to receive the level of health service to which they are entitied. Over the past six years the Federal Labor Govemment and the Queensland National Party Govemment have cost the State of Queensland hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare funding by Mexican stand­ off type negotiation. The health care system in Queensland is lean and hungry. It is quite efficient, but the level of care provided under it is falling away. At both the State and Federal levels there has been a lack of understanding of the needs of patients and their carers. There has been a lack of understanding of the needs of health professionals. The Liberal Party will produce a three-year plan to reverse the decline in Queensland's health service. The reality is that the playing-field for health is created largely federally. The health issue is one which will bring down the Federal Labor Govemment. Labor has decimated health services in this nation. Medicare has been a disaster, as evidenced by the queues in public hospitals and the empty beds in private hospitals. Medicare services are costing this nation $11 billion each year, only one-quarter of which—less than $3 billion—is provided by the levy that we all pay. The fact is that the levy does not cover the cost of Medicare services. The balance is paid by general tax. General tax is subsidising the Medicare services in this nation by three times the amount of the levy. Those Australians—almost 50 per cent of them now—who do not tmst this socialist Medicare system take out private health insurance. They pay four times. They pay their levy, they pay their general tax, they pay their subscriptions to a private health fund and they pay again when they pay the gap between what the fund is allowed to pay in accordance with Govemment restrictions and what the medical service really costs. This is a ridiculous system. In this short speech I do not wish to concentrate only on health costs. However, I do want to talk about the level of care. The reality is that if we expect our agents to provide first-class health services, we need to provide for them incentives—at least remuneration that is fair and conditions that are fair. Dr Blewett has made no secret at all of the fact that he will confront the medical profession on every occasion. It is a scandal that Labor has the doctors of Australia completely and utterly off-side in delivering health services in this country. We talk about GPs; we talk about medical speciaUsts. We have seen cuts in Medicare benefits for sun cancer and for cataracts that affect the elderly. There is no Medicare cover to enable women over the age of 40 years to be screened for breast cancer by mammography. The pathology cuts that we have seen are scandalous. Mr Staples has been no different from Dr Blewett in his confrontational approach. We have seen insufficient funds for home and community care programs. The real thmst of health care in the future is out there in the families in the community. We are now seeing cuts in respite care for the confused elderly in an era when our population is ageing. When the real costs of health in this area are going to bite, Labor is cutting the benefits for those who suffer from dementia, Alzheimer's disease and so on. One has only to consider the poor state of pharmacy throughout the nation. Again Labor Minister Staples shows an astonishing misunderstanding of the position of this responsible group in the community who are forced to take the sort of action that we have seen them taking. I refer to the drastic action of closing the pharmacies of Australia. The problems of pharmacists are mentioned in the newspapers every day. The 300 Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 313

pharmacies in the State of Queensland that will close will directly affect the elderly and families in particular. They will be the big losers, not the Commonwealth Labor Govemment, which really seeks not to assess the benefits of pharmacy to the nation but merely to deal with the costs. I retum to the health scenario in this State—a State in which the health funds have been decimated by the Federal Labor Government. Queensland does have a good health system, because it is provided by people of high calibre at all levels. However, this State does have a Health Department, a health administration, which is poorly managed, which is marked by bureaucratic red tape and which has poorly defined objectives. We are now facing a period of instability in which we have seen the resignation of the director-general—a position that needs to be quickly resolved. This State will be poorer because of the recent resignation of the deputy director-general, Dr Donald. The doctors working in the Health Department in Charlotte Street are in a state of low morale. They have enormous responsibility under the Health Act and the Medical Act and they have little of the authority needed. Some reorganisation is definitely needed within the Health Department. That is necessary. There is a need to redefine functions, and roles, and it is essential that this sort of reorganisational analysis takes place from the bottom up. In the last six years Queensland has had six Ministers for Health. That is simply not good enough. It is a time for stability and it is a time for Liberals in Govemment to introduce a three-year plan which will bring about more effective and more efficient health care in this State. Specifically, the Liberal Party will retain and improve the existing free public hospital system in Queensland, whilst encouraging transfer to the private sector of those services which it can more effectively deliver. The Liberal Party will effectively manage State hospitals with restmctured local and accountable hospital boards. Their budgets will be based on needs, performance and annually reviewed development plans. Senior medical staff will have positions on hospital boards with full voting rights. The Liberal Party will guarantee a better deal for the nurses of this State. The Liberal Party will have more effective and more accessible health care. It will guarantee to employ adequate staff—more nurses, more therapists and more doctors— in our mral communities. The Liberal Party will not introduce any capital works programs unless it can produce and put in place the infrastmcture which backs that up. No more Kirwan hospitals or Hervey Bay hospitals that do not open. The Liberal Party will address the specific health needs of women because women in the community have special health needs. I have already referred to the matter of screening for breast cancer. I mention cervical cancer as well, the real need that women have in relation to the ageing process and the real focus that the Liberal Party will put on community health in this State. The Liberal Party understands and recognises that much of the burden for caring for patients at home, whether they be disabled, elderly or terminally ill, falls upon the women in the family, and they need special support and special services. So the State has a responsibility to provide that support. That support needs to be provided is not well recognised by the Federal Labor Govemment under the HACC artangements. The Liberal Party will provide special support for country health services, such as 008 telephone numbers so that parents particularly in country areas can obtain quick answers to their health problems. Better training will be provided for country doctors and country nurses so that they are equipped to do the job in isolated communities. Opportunities will be provided to them to go to larger base hospitals for periods of training, and to get a break away from the constant 24-hour-a-day grind of country medicine. The Liberal Party will increase funds provided to preventive medicine and provide funds to restore the Department of Health promotions. The Liberal Party will dedicate 5 per cent of the tobacco tax—$5m in this State—towards developing better health promotion and healthy life-style promotion and carrying out research into cancer and other diseases, medical research and behavioural research. The Liberal Party will offer 314 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest a better deal for mental health services in this State to make them at least equal to the general health services. In recent times, members of the Liberal Party have spoken about the specific services that the Liberal Party will provide to nurses. I encourage honourable members to read the Liberal Party's policy on that issue. Liberals in Government in this State after the coming State election will provide Queensland with a health service that is comprehensive and meets the whole range of health needs—a service that is accessible and effective and demonstrates a capacity to bring about the delivery of better health care to patients that is eflScient and value for money. In the 1990s the Liberal Party will bring more effective and better managed health care to Queensland. It will have a style that embraces good communication, responsiveness, compassion and innovation in the health system; for example, providing respite care in country hospitals and providing in the small country hospitals in this State real centres of community health so that people in country areas have access to basic health services that are equal to those offered in the city.

Pig Industry Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (11.11 a.m.): I rise on a matter of very great importance to one of Queensland's most important primary industries. Today I would like to refer to an industry that I know very well, namely, the pig industry. Before my colleagues opposite scream, "Vested interest!", let me declare it. I know a great deal about the pig industry because for seven years I was the State president of the body that represents the pig industry and also that body's representative on the Livestock and Meat Authority. I was also a member of many national bodies associated with the pig industry, so I know what I am talking about when I see a threat to the industry in a very substantial form coming from the Federal ALP Government at present. The pig industry is worth approximately $ 1,000m to Australia. It is a massive employer of people both directly and indirectly. I am very sorry that the member for Lytton has left the Chamber. If a person goes down to the Murarrie area and sees the pig-processing plants there and the number of people employed in and dependent on the pig-processing industry in this State, he would appreciate the importance of the industry to the economy and to employment. Over the last few years, the pig industry has been very stable. There are three basic reasons for that. One factor is that Australia does not import pig meats and it has very little reliance on the export market. Australia has a classic supply-and-demand industry that is extremely efficient. The industry uses high technology and is streamlined to today's competitive world in the food industry, yet it operates on small margins. However, those margins are large enough for efficient operators. As in any industry, inefficient operators will fall by the wayside. Imports of pig meat have always been banned because of disease risks. However, the Federal ALP Govemment is proposing to allow Australian importers to purchase Canadian pig meats that are produced under subsidised material cost conditions when compared with those in Australia. Canada's pig meat industry is heavily subsidised. The Federal Government proposes to allow a substantial health risk to what is a very healthy herd in Australia. The Australian Pork Producers Federation has calculated that the Canadian Gov­ ernment subsidy, with rail freight subsidies and export enhancement programs, is to the tune of 50c a kilo. New Zealand is in the same position. Current countervailing duty action has provided substantial evidence of subsidisation for the first quarter of 1989 of 48c a kilo and 45c a kilo for the second quarter by the Federal and provincial Governments. The present price to Australian farmers varies round $2 a kilo. Quite frankly, the Australian pig industry faces annihilation by that competition. Supply and demand in the industry is such that even a small volume of imports would have a devastating effect Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 315 on Australian prices and would result in the collapse of the Australian pig industry, leading to ever-increasing imports. What sort of Govemment do we have in this country that allows that to happen in industry after industry throughout Australia? The pig industry is very stable, but the Federal Govemment is to allow that industry to be devastated. What stupidity! What the ALP is embarking on is suicidal for the industry from an economic point of view, a veterinary point of view and, I would suggest also, a national point of view. As to the veterinary side—because Australia has a very high health status in the world, some imports have previously been banned. The importation from Canada risks the introduction of a very serious disease known as TGE—transmissible gastro-enteritis— that could devastate the Australian pig herd. The Canadian Govemment claims to have eradicated that disease from Canadian herds. However, the Australian Veterinary Association is strongly advising the Govemment against taking such an unacceptable health risk. The Australian Veterinary Association, which is the foremost authority on veterinary matters in this country, is advising the Government not to take the risk, yet the Government is about to introduce those imports. The Federal Government has conducted trials at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong to ascertain the risk of infecting the Australian pig herd by accepting imports of uncooked pig carcasses from Canada. It was found that, although the risk is low, the risk still exists. As a result, the importation is strongly opposed by the Australian Veterinary Association and the board of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, which I would suggest is the second most important authority on veterinary matters in this country. The Federal ALP Government seems determined to ignore that advice and to press ahead. Canadian authorities have accepted that between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent of pig carcasses in Canada carry the vims, but the ALP Govemment seems prepared to accept imports from a country with that massive health risk. Some years ago the Australian producer body, the Australian Pork Producers Federation, opposed live pig imports. The ALP Govemment assured us that the disease risk at that time was nil and allowed imports into this country. As a result, a serious disease—a tropic rhinitis—was imported, which has infected many herds across the country and has led to exports from Australia to New Zealand being banned. A decision that was taken by the Federal Govemment against the wishes of the industry led to a ban on the export of that product from this country. Any chance of infection with the new threat is unacceptable to the industry. Although only one carcass in 300 000 could carry the infection, the first carcass imported into Australia might be the one that carries it. The Canadians claim that the Australian Govemment is using a health barrier to avoid its GATT responsibilities. What a laugh! Mr Veivers: Look what disease has done to the sheep industry. Mr HINTON: I agree with the member for Southport. Imported diseases have done great damage to the Australian sheep industry. Today I am concemed particularly about the pig industry. In the past, only one serious threat occurted in the industry, but the ALP Govemment's actions created a disaster. Another disaster is now impending. Australia's free-trade policies are the joke of the worid. The ALP Govemment consistently exports our jobs and our industries on the basis of free-trade obligations at the same time as it increases our import bill and our intemational trading deficit. Australia faces total trade barriers in the EC. The United States subsidises its exports. Japan is our major trading partner. I ask honourable members to imagine what would happen if Australia tried to sell to Japan varieties of rice that are already grown there and destroyed Japan's domestic production of rice. That is not on. 316 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Only Australia plays the free-trade game in a non-free-trade world. I suggest to honourable members that it would be like pulling down one's pants on Surfers Paradise beach—which is situated in the electorate of my friend the member for Southport—and saying that everybody else on the beach should do the same. It is not on. The pineapple industry in my electorate is vanishing because of cheap imports. The prawn industry is devastated by imports from prawn farms in south-east Asia. The Federal Government now proposes the destmction of the pig industry. Australia's industries need economic and veterinary protection. Against all Australian veterinary advice, the Australian Govemment is prepared to risk an industry to honour trade commitments that nobody else in this world honours. What will be the result? The pig industry will be decimated; the health status of the industry will be risked; Australian producers will be subjected to unequal competition through Govemment- subsidised competition of up to 50c per kilo; the level of imports will rise; the extemal trade deficit will rise; and our intemational debt, which is presently $108 billion, will rise even further. This is insanity and lunacy against a very stable industry, and the nation needs to be alerted to it.

National Party Leadership Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (11.22 a.m.): One week ago the Premier, who holds office by only three votes out of 47, boasted about how well-planned was his coup against Bjelke-Petersen in November 1987. At the time of that coup Bjelke-Petersen was being pushed out because he was dragging the Nationals downhill. But even Bjelke-Petersen could not achieve the spec­ tacularly low figure of a 9 per cent approval rating for the National Party in the metropolitan area. The National Party under Mike Ahern—the Govemment of Queensland—is rating only 9 per cent in the State's capital city. Almost two years ago Mike Ahem announced his vision of excellence and said that Queenslanders would like it. They do not. In fact, the vision of excellence has tumed into a nightmare. Last week the Premier came within three votes of losing his job. The power-broker of the National Party, Sir Robert Sparkes, failed to support his party-leader but managed to keep a straight face when supporting Joh for Prime Minister. That he could not support Mike for Premier shows how low things have sunk. This morning Sir Robert is still refusing to comment publicly and to give his support to the Premier. However, the word is out that, privately, Sparkes is no longer sitting on the fence; that he has decided that Mike has to go, and the sooner the better. Queensland is suffering under a Government that is in terminal decline—a Govemment that has no leader, no answers and no ability to govem Queensland. Yesterday we saw once again the pathetic sight of the Premier of this State slamming his door on members of the media when they tried to ask about the bitter brawls and divisions within the National Party. Yesterday a former Cabinet Minister, Paul Clauson, in an interview with a major Melbourne newspaper, labelled Mike Ahem as "Dopey". What a tribute to pay to the leadership! Yesterday the member for Cooroora, Gordon Simpson—himself a former Cabinet Minister, even if his ministerial business cards were outdated before they were printed— pulled the pin on the National Party. We have already heard that Ministers such as Martin Tenni and Peter McKechnie have announced that they are jumping off the sinking ship. And of course. Bob Katter Jnr, the Nationals' great white dope, voted with his feet Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw the comment. Mr MACKENROTH: I will withdraw that, but I certainly will not Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the comment. Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 317

Mr MACKENROTH: I will withdraw the comment, but I certainly will not replace it with "hope". As I was saying, that Minister voted with his feet when Mr Cooper and Mr Clauson decided to leave Cabinet. No doubt more National Party back-benchers or Ministers will soon announce their intentions not to stand at the election and face certain defeat. This morning on radio the member for Greenslopes, Leisha Harvey, made it plain that if this tidal wave of defections is to stop. Ahem has to go. The National Party today is not a pretty sight. It is stuck with a leader who cannot lead, while the altemative is no better. If Mr Cooper is the only hope for the Nationals, then the Nationals have no hope. Let us look at the Cooper track record. In his time as Corrective Services Minister, Mr Cooper took all the credit for Jim Kennedy's work and none of the responsibility for the things that went wrong. He recmited Brigadier Formby to mn the Brisbane prison and later as a senior administrator within the Corrective Services Commission. Mr Formby was billed as a bright, new shining star who would sort out the prison and the prison system. Only last Friday Mr Formby himself decided enough was enough and quit. When Mr Cooper was Police Minister he failed to have the Toowoomba police riot properly investigated. He failed to act on allegations of sly grogging on Thursday Island. He failed to deliver on the Leivesley report into fire services. He failed to supply bullet­ proof vests to save the lives of Queensland police officers. He failed to introduce gun law reform, as he promised. He failed to introduce legislation to establish dmg-free zones, as he promised. He failed to act in a positive way against the Mr Bigs of the dmg trade, as he promised two days after he was appointed Police Minister. He failed to find a resolution to the Kingston toxic waste problem. He failed to hold the promised inquiry into allegations of favoured treatment for Peter Andrews, son of former Chief Justice Sir Dormer Andrews. The only inquiry he held was to try to have police come and question me as to how I had received my information. He failed to hold the promised inquiry into Queensland's beleaguered ambulance service. Most disturbing of all, he failed to take even the simplest and easiest steps to implement some basic and cost-free reforms to police work practices recommended by the Fitzgerald report. Mr Cooper tried to portray the image of a strong and decisive Minister. But that is all it was—an image. In reality, he was no different from any other National Party Minister whose department ran him instead of vice versa. He wanted to be the Minister for good news. He has no respect for the public purse. Let us never forget the matters about which one of Mr Cooper's party colleagues, Mr Tenni, was quick to remind the National Party meeting last Tuesday. I refer to the unanswered question of Mr Cooper's ministerial cash advances. This is a matter that Mr Cooper wants to hide so badly that he even threatens to sue Mr Tenni for mentioning it. The Labor Party has asked for answers from Mr Cooper, but they have never been forthcoming. Here is one more opportunity. When Mr Cooper was a Minister he received a salary of $88,288, an electorate allowance of $36,819, unlimited ministerial expenses, endless first-class air travel and a limousine and chauffeur. On top of that, each week he found it necessary to take from the public purse an average of $ 150 in cash advances. Some weeks it was $500. Those cash advances were public funds and Mr Cooper has never accounted for them. Why did he need that money and what did he spend it on? Was he doing what Don Lane said all Ministers did: buying the family groceries, liquor or other personal items? We in the Opposition have asked many times, but we are still waiting for an answer. That type of arrogant and unaccountable abuse of the public purse is one reason why a number of past and present Ministers of this Govemment are under criminal investigation by the Special Prosecutor as well as under scmtiny by the Taxation Office. That is further evidence of how low standards of govemment have sunk. 318 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest

I want the Govemment to act to ensure the success of the Dmmmond investigation into possible abuse of the public purse by National Party and Liberal Party Ministers. Today I call on the Govemment to give Mr Dmmmond the discretion to grant immunity from prosecution to any person—Minister or public servant—who can provide infor­ mation on how many rorts were carried out. The judicious use of indemnities was one of the keys to the success of the Fitzgerald inquiry, and the same tactics should be used in the Dmmmond investigation. I also call today on the Government to guarantee that the results of the Dmmmond investigation are made public before the State election. As I said before, the National Party Government is in its death throes. Mike Ahem is the hearse horse dragging the party to its political grave. Not even the old union- bashing tricks will save the Nationals this time. That was proved last Friday when counsel assisting the Government's special union inquiry, Robin O'Regan, QC, resigned because he saw no use for the inquiry. The Labor Party has consistently said that anyone who breaks the law, be he a union oflftcial or Cabinet Minister, should be prosecuted. But this special inquiry is just a political ploy. It is meant to capitalise on investigations or cases already dealt with or currently being handled by police and the courts. Mr O'Regan, QC, said so when he quit. The bungled referendum and the backflip on daylight-saving are just two in a long line of decisions taken and then abandoned by the Ahem Govemment. Things have become so desperate for Mike Ahern that he even says he will not tell anyone the date he has decided for the election, in the hope of using it as a threat to ward off another challenge. The National Party is doomed and the Nationals know it. They are doomed under Mr Ahern, and the altemative, Mr Cooper, as I have outlined here today, is no better. As the Minister for Corrective Services and lately as the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services, he has talked a lot but has failed to deliver. Mr Cooper could not stand up in this Parliament and point to one positive reform that he has implemented or one promise that he has honoured. I can tell the National Party back-benchers that if they want him as the Premier, that is fine, because the Opposition will fight him and the Executive.

Illegal Gambling and Prostitution in Brisbane Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (11.32 a.m.): I will briefly take the time of this House today to recall the events of May 1987. I will inform the House of events that I could not discuss at that time because of the sub judice convention, which I respect, and which applied to Fitzgerald inquiry matters. It will be interesting to look into some of those events and my own involvement in them. Today I wish to outline to this House some of the impressions that I gained at that stage. Honourable members may recall that A Current Affair interviewed the former Minister for Police, Mr Bill Gunn, about the existence in Brisbane of brothels and illegal casinos. The Minister was in an extremely unenviable position. The media said to him, "Look, if you claim that there are no illegal casinos and no massage parlours or brothels in Brisbane, we are prepared to take you out and show you where they actually exist." Let us examine the two possibilities that were open to the Minister at that time. He could have said, "Okay, you take me out and I will have a look at them." The consequence of that would have been that the media would have immediately said to him, "Don't you have any confidence in your own police force to do it for you? Why is it that the Minister has to do this? Are your police officers blind, or what are they?" Clearly the Minister could not win by accepting the invitation extended by A Current Affair. If he had declined, the fact of the matter is that they would have had him and would have said, "Well, you are obviously not interested. You are closing your eyes to the situation." In many ways, it was an unfair proposition because the Minister was Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 319 damned if he did accept it, and damned if he did not. To his credit, he said, "No. It is the correct role of the police to look into the matter. Therefore I do not propose to accept the invitation." Subsequently A Current Affair approached a number of other people and said, "Would you be interested in having a look?" I was one of the people approached. I was asked, "Are you aware of the situation in Brisbane in relation to massage parlours and illegal casinos?" In all honesty, I had to say that I was not, although I had heard mmours that had concemed me for a period. I might add that I respected the comments made in this House by the late Kevin Hooper because many of the things he said were correct. If I owe the late Mr Hooper an apology for not taking him seriously, I am prepared to apologise. Mr Austin: The Labor Party didn't believe him. They sacked him as their spokesman. Mr HENDERSON: That is right. The Labor Party did not believe him and he was dismissed from his shadow Police portfolio position. Subsequently the record shows that in May 1987, together with the honourable member for Springwood, Mr Huan Fraser, I accepted an invitation from A Current Affair to go out on a Saturday night and have a look at what was going on in the back streets of Brisbane. The first place we visited was a house at Bardon to interview a former madam who had managed several massage parlours. Several matters conceming this aspect of the tour concemed me. Up till that time, I had not realised how scared these people were of those who owned and ran the massage parlours and casinos in Brisbane. This woman was absolutely petrified. She was so concemed that A Current Affair had to disguise her voice and her appearance so that no-one would ever pick who she was. In addition, even when we were out in the car and looking at what was going on in Brisbane, she was visibly shaking. I can remember saying to her at one stage, "I can understand that you are frightened but the fact of the matter is that you seem to be almost scared out of your wits." I tumed round and asked Paul Ransley, "Are you frightened?" My recollection is that he said, "They're not likely to knock off a joumalist and are even less likely to knock off a couple of members of Parliament." I suppose there was some type of insurance in that. Mr Ransley asked, "What would you like to look at?" I said, "What have you got?" He had a list of several dozen massage parlours and illegal casinos and said, "Take your pick!" Mr Fraser and I did not really know where to start because there were so many and they seemed to be everywhere. Our first port of call was to a massage parlour at Moorooka that had the delightful name of The Gentle Touch. Honourable members can mminate about a massage parlour called The Gentie Touch. When I first stood outside that place, I thought it must have been the venue of a Christmas party because there were lights flashing. In fact, it was so bright that anyone could have stood on the footpath and read a newspaper on the darkest night. The television record will show an unusual incident occurred. A minibus was parked outside. Apparently a tmckers' convention was being held in Brisbane and attended by a group from somewhere on the Darling Downs. The boys' night out on the town on that Saturday night included a visit to The Gentie Touch at Moorooka. They told me what was happening inside and I can inform the House that my education grew by approximately a thousand per cent when I leamed what was happening. It was quite an experience. Our next port of call was an illegal casino at South Brisbane. I found this amazing. I could take honourable members to the building today. The front door of this place was made of reinforced steel and one would be flat out driving a Sherman tank through it. What was even more interesting was the fact that this casino was on the second storey of a building near the WooUoongabba Police Station. It was so close that we could have waved to the police oflftcers. I could have used a loud bailer to carry on a conversation with them. One wonders if the police were not aware of what was going on. 320 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Another interesting port of call was Pinky's on Main Street, Kangaroo Point. This is an infamous and notorious place. Our discussions were continued there and I remember Paul Ransley asking me if I knew what went on inside. I replied, "Not really", and he turned around and said to the ex-madam, "Would you like to tell Ian what happens?" She said, "You walk up the front steps and the first thing they give you is a menu." I said, "What? Do they feed you here, too?" I leamt that the menu did not contain the entree or the main meal, but other delights that were available in this place. She then proceeded to tell me what happened. At this point in time a woman ran down Main Street, Kangaroo Point, and went into the massage parlour. There was a great deal of activity and we then realised that we were being followed. At this time the lady who was with us began to panic and became so petrified that we felt it was more pmdent that she be returned to her home. This we proceeded to do, but we were followed down Main Street, Kangaroo Point. In the end the cars had to split up and head in separate directions so that we could not be followed to our destination. I can recount many more episodes of what actually happened that Saturday night, but whatever was going on in Brisbane was going on with the full knowledge of the Queensland Police Department. I find it intolerable that an order from the Minister to do something about massage parlours and illegal casinos could be so recklessly disregarded by the police force. It was pmdent for the Fitzgerald inquiry to look at these issues. I am proud that it did so and proud of my contribution towards assisting it. The people I feel really sorry for in this whole matter are the women who were working in these massage parlours. Mr Vaughan: And still are. Mr HENDERSON: Yes, and probably still are. I have never before seen a group of women over whom other people had such total control. It was like a form of blackmail or possession. The people who were mnning the parlours exercised an influence over the women that was like a huge empire of evil in which they were little more than puppets performing their jobs each night in order to earn enough money to keep themselves together. That is the most evil and sinister aspect of it all. I am particularly conscious of this fact and, if anything results from this inquiry, the principal thing is that most of those women are now free to lead their own lives without being the subject of blackmail or held to ransom by a pack of bludgers who deserve to be in gaol.

Queensland Industry Development Corporation Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (11.42 a.m.): I rise in this Matters of Public Interest debate to continue to detail further the ineptitude in the operations of the QIDC and the sloppy approach to dealing with tax-payers' money and investors' funds demonstrated by Premier Ahem. Mr Austin: Is this page 3? Mr HAYWARD: No, I am not talking about the Minister's relatives today. Mr Austin: Is this page 2 or 3? Mr HAYWARD: No, it is a media release from Mr Ahern. In a media release dated 15 August 1989 concerning a company called Mitec Limited, the Premier stated that State Govemment support through the QIDC had been a major factor in that company's success, that equity funding of $280,000 was provided by the QIDC, and that the company Mitec was a real success story in which his Govemment was proud to be involved. The record shows that a company called Nazali Pty Ltd was incorporated on 18 June 1987 and later changed its name to Mitec. In September 1987 the QIDC extended $280,000 in equity funds to Mitec. It is important to understand that equity funds exist Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 321

because no interest commitment is involved. Then in June 1988 the QIDC lent Mitec $200,000 which was secured by a fixed and floating charge over the assets of Mitec. The annual company return for the year ended 30 June 1988 revealed a loss of $338,651, which was a loss serious enough for the then acting chairman to comment on its gravity at Mitec's annual general meeting. Honourable members will remember the Premier's boast in his press release of 15 August 1988 when he said that Mitec was "a real success story that my Government is proud to be involved in". In March 1989, the QIDC provided a further $120,750 in equity funds for Mitec, thereby increasing the QIDC commitment to $400,750 in equity funds and a $200,000 loan. The commitment of the QIDC is over twice the amount revealed by the Premier in his press release of less than three weeks ago. Comments by the Premier in his role as Treasurer reveal a terribly sloppy approach to dealing with public money. Why would he tell the tax-payers of Queensland that the QIDC commitment was $280,000, when the public record shows that it is over $600,000? How out of touch can a Treasurer be to proclaim a company which has lost $338,000 as a real success story? This is just another example of the sheer financial incompetence of this Ahem Govemment admin­ istered QIDC. However, the saga of the QIDC is much more serious than pure financial incom­ petence; it involves issues of massive cronyism and conflicts of interest. Mr Ahem's "Queensland Incorporated" is the vessel of this new cronyism which has spmng up under the so-called vision of excellence. Mr Austin: Gee, you are cutting. Mr HAYWARD: Ahern and the honourable member opposite, Mr Austin, have stacked the QIDC board with prominent National Party members and have dismissed competent, independent, self-made businessmen. However, the conflict of interest which is endemic in the QIDC board is not only of a political nature; it is also financial. Previously in this Parliament members have heard the Finance Minister, Mr Austin, and Premier Ahern denigrate the former executive director of the QIDC, Mr Boschma. They have concentrated on some vague business pursuit of Mr Boschma and have alleged non-disclosure of his interest in a company. It was very unclear as to exactly what the Premier was alluding to. When the financial interest and the shareholdings of two current QIDC directors were disclosed in this Parliament—and I am referring to their interest through a company named Crongold Pty Ltd, which was done by the honourable member for Cairns—they were not allegations with no proof, as inflicted on Boschma; they were clear, irrefutable allegations of conflict of interest. There was even a letter published in the Courier-Mail by a P. G. Stewart, chief executive of Crongold Pty Ltd, in which he detailed the conflict of interest, so no-one can be mistaken in this regard. The point is that Brennan and Maule, together with their families, personally benefited. Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd has benefited from the QIDC to the extent of $l.2m in equity funds either directly or through its venture capital arm. Venture Fund Pty Ltd. The Premier told this Parliament on 1 August that Brennan had written to him explaining the conflict of interest. The Premier told Pariiament that Crongold investment advisers had recommended Aquaculture as a good, long-term investment. The Premier went on to quote Mr Brennan as saying— "At all times my interest was cortectly declared and I took no part in decisions in relation to any investment in Aquaculture." Maule has provided to this Parliament no explanation of his conflict of interest. It is not clear from the Premier's explanation as to Brennan's involvement in the decision to provide $lm of tax-payers' funds as equity to Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd. No financial information is publicly available on Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd. An examination of the 1988 annual retum shows a blank under the heading "Key

101362—11 322 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Financial Data", which is item 12 in any annual retum. It is blank because corporate affairs regulations state— "This item must be completed by all companies except exempt proprietary companies which have appointed an auditor." Item 13 requires the name of the auditor. Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd's auditor is the firm of Kitchen, Maule and Stewart, 461 Ipswich Road, Annerley. That information is contained in the 1988 annual retum. Let me now deal with the financial situation of the principal shareholders including QIDC. They are Crongold Pty Ltd and N. A. Gallagher and Sons Pty Ltd. No key financial data is available in the 1988 annual retum because both of them have an auditor who, again, is Kitchen, Maule and Stewart. On page 427 of the Queensland Government Gazette, No. 27 of 25 January 1989, Geoflfrey James Maule, registered office 461 Ipswich Road, Annerley, appears. That is the same registered address as the auditors of Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd, that is. Kitchen, Maule and Stewart. There is a clear conflict of interest here. Two of the directors of the QIDC are Brennan and Maule. Maule has not even bothered to have the Premier read to the Parliament some sort of prepared statement in his case. The QIDC has caused $1.2m in equity funds to be invested with Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd. Both directors are shareholders in Crongold Pty Ltd, which is a shareholder in Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd. The Premier of Queensland seems to be calling for some sort of inquiry into Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd. He has to work out where he is since last Tuesday or Wednesday. The firm of Kitchen, Maule and Stewart is the auditor of Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd, and two of its major shareholders are Crongold and N. A. Gallagher and Sons Pty Ltd. Its registered address is the same address as that of Geoflfrey James Maule, public accountant, and that is the same Geoflfrey James Maule who is a director of QIDC. From a position of public tmst as members of the board of QIDC, Brennan and Maule stand to benefit personally from that association. Brennan has provided an incomplete response to his conflict of interest. The Premier has not tabled in Parliament the relevant QIDC board minutes. No attempt was made to do that. Maule has not provided any response to the allegation about his conflict of interest. Mr Austin: You should have been able to get that at a private hearing of the Pubhc Accounts Committee. You have leaked everything else. Mr HAYWARD: Mr Deputy Speaker has said that we may speak about these issues in the Parliament. The Queensland public has no financial results of the Aquaculture Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd investment of public funds because key financial data is omitted from all public record on the legal pretext that the company is being independently audited. I retum to the letter to the editor from the chief executive of Crongold Pty Ltd in order to clear up the conflict of interest once and for all. The letter to the Courier-Mail reads— "Crongold investment in AIQ amounts to about 11 percent of the issued capital of that company; Mr Brennan and Mr Maule curtentiy hold a Vh percent shareholding Gointly with others) in Crongold Pty Ltd. They have no direct shareholding in AIQ." It is very clear from this letter that the conflict of interest is there. What has been happening in this case is that the Government has refused to allow a public inquiry into the complete operations of the QIDC. The stage has been reached at which the Premier and the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer took charge of the QIDC. Time expired. Matters of Public Interest 5 September 1989 323

Parking Problems, Gold Coast Area; Goodwin Park Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (11.51 a.m.): I rise to deal with the Coolangatta transit terminal and car-parking facilities in the Coolangatta area. I wish to highlight very clearly that the criticism being levelled against the Government for the parking chaos in Coolangatta and at the southem end of the Gold Coast area has as much substance as a packet of fairy floss. Alderman Bill Brewer of the Gold Coast City Council said— "Coolangatta retailers were suffering severe hardship and their business viability was seriously threatened because of chaotic parking problems... And a lack of action by the State Govemment to dedicate land the council needed for car parking and a bus terminal was to blame. Aid Brewer said the business community had reported a drastic downturn in business because customers could not park in the city. The council wrote to Land Management Minister Bill Glasson and the Land Administration Commission ... to ask that land in Chalk, McLean, Lanham and Wamer streets be dedicated for car parking and a coach terminal." In relation to the suggested building of a transit terminal on land owned by the Federal Airports Corporation, Alderman Trevor Coomber stated that the delays were risking the southern Gold Coast's central business district. Those two Gold Coast City Council aldermen were prepared to be critical of moves being made by the Govemment to look realistically at providing proper facilities. Those same aldermen on the Gold Coast City Council are responsible for the figures that I will relate to the House. Beach House has a lack of car-parking spaces. The required number of car-parking spaces was 185, but the number approved by the council was 107, leaving a shortfall of 78. Stage 1 of Zarro required 680 car-parking spaces, but council approved only 540, leaving a shortfall of 140. Beachcomber, a new development, required 108 car-parking spaces, but council approved only 64, leaving a shortfall of 44. McDonalds restaurant required 20 car-parking spaces, but council approved 10, leaving a shortfall of 10. The total shortfall is 272 car-parking spaces. However, when the council was asked to advise the position with regard to Stage 2 of Zarro, it stated that the matter was not finalised at that stage. A multimillion-dollar development is taking place in the middle of town, yet no car-parking requirement is laid down. It is incredible that those two aldermen on the Gold Coast City Council can play politics and use the council for their own political ends. They are so small-minded and stupid that they cannot see the reality of the actions of the council. Yet they attempt to shift the blame for their shortcomings onto the Govemment. I make no apology for having used some common sense and looked at the total picture of development at Cooloongatta and Kirra and at the road systems. It is sheer stupidity that those aldermen wish to build a transit terminal on a site between Chalk, Lanham, Wamer and McLean Streets. They want to close Griffith Street and make a mall and close part of Marine Parade and build this stmcture on land between those streets. They talk about part of Lanham Street being used for road-widening. They should look at the realities of real town-planning. They would not have a clue. Those proposals have been put forward in concert with the Chamber of Commerce. It is incredible that those same people are claiming that, because of lack of business opportunity, businesses are going broke. A note put out by the Chamber of Commerce prior to its meetings stated that there was nothing to report by the retailers committee. Yet businesses are going broke on the Gold Coast. The members of the chamber could not give a damn. I took the trouble of carrying out a survey of the Cooloongatta central business district. The businesspeople were asked if they were satisfied with the curtent coach pick­ up and set-down points in Cooloongatta. The Chamber of Commerce has stated that 324 5 September 1989 Matters of Public Interest the transit terminal must be built immediately in the centre of town. In answer to the first question, 96.65 per cent of the businesspeople said that they were not satisfied to have several pick-up and set-down points. I can produce those results. The second question put to the businesspeople was, "If there should be just one major coach terminal, should it be located in the centre of Cooloongatta?" In answer to that question, 84.3 per cent of the businesspeople said "No". The third question was, "If there should be just one, should it be at another location with more space but close to Cooloongatta?" In answer to that question, 82.25 per cent of the businesspeople said "Yes". The clear evidence is that the business community is not being consulted by the Chamber of Commerce; it is being manipulated by the chamber, and I make no apology for saying that. The businesshouses were also asked whether the Chamber of Commerce did enough for retailers in Cooloongatta. Honourable members would be amazed at the answers. Some said that they were interested only in the vested interests of their friends and themselves. They were definitely not working in the interests of all retailers. After I got stuck into the members of the chamber at the last meeting that I attended and said that it was an indictment against the chamber that there was nothing to report about retailers who were going broke, they have now started to do something positive by carrying out marketing and attempting to bring people into the town. However, Alderman Brewer is attempting to introduce his own bed tax. He was involved in introducing a levy in the Tweed Shire Council for all businesshouses. That action has been proved to be illegal, yet he wants to do the same thing in Queensland. I am dead set opposed to his introducing a levy that will require every person who operates a guest-house or a set of units to pay a bed tax. It is not on, and it is time that he woke up to it. I will turn to another scam that is occurring on the Gold Coast. Why have Alderman Brewer and the Chamber of Commerce attempted to prevent children from playing soccer on Goodwin Park? The reason is that Alderman Brewer is supporting his friends, particularly the president of the chamber, who is having a set of units for people over 50 built beside the park. Why is the money being spent on lights and why is the bus terminal wanted in town? It is all for vested interests. I ask also why the person who operates the skating rink is so involved and why he wants this new development which includes a new skating rink on top. He would not have a vested interest, would he, Mr Speaker! Far be it for me to suggest that there is anything sinister in that. I would not do that, Mr Speaker. This matter needs to be examined. I want to ensure that the people of the electorate of Curmmbin are fully aware of this matter and that they start to question why these things are taking place. The other day I went down there and took another look. A count was made of the car park spaces. It is said that the project will provide 1 000 car park spaces. That is great, if one is silly enough to accept what is contained in the glossy brochure. However, when one asks, "How many are needed for the buildings there and the retail space to comply with the Local Govemment Act?", the answer is, "Six hundred." So, if it is taken just on face value, the people of Curmmbin will get 400 car park spaces. However, when one takes into account the other things that are planned, one loses 280 car parks in one area and 23 in another, which totals approximately 300. So there will be fewer than 100 car park spaces. The council and the Chamber of Commerce demand that the land between Chalk, Lanham, Wamer and McLean Streets be given away to a council that has shown itself to be prepared to give away our roads, parks and foreshores to developers at any cost, and damn the expense! There is no concem for the people of Curmmbin Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with the Sessional Order, the honourable member's time has expired. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 325

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Want of Confidence in Premier and Treasurer Debate resumed. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (12 noon), continuing: Before the Matters of Public Interest debate, I was addressing the hypocrisy involved in the motion moved by the Labor Party. While that debate was in progress, I happened to hear an interview involving the Leader of the Opposition, that great proponent of cleaning up the State and freeing it from cormption, and discovered that part of the tactics— and I talk about the gmbby tactics of today's exercise—involves negotiations with allegedly disgmntled members of the National Party. Apparently we are supposed to be propping somebody up. But the reality, as disclosed in that interview, is that the Leader of the Opposition has done deals, expecting some members of the Govemment— Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. That statement is completely false. There have been no negotiations involving myself or any other member of the Opposition. It is offensive and untme, and I seek a withdrawal. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition asks that the statement be withdrawn. Mr INNES: I withdraw. I will refer to the words that the Leader of the Opposition actually used. He said that people have approached the Opposition and made certain statements about what they might do. Clearly the tactics are predicated on what might happen. If we are to clean up this State, and if we are to go in a bold new direction, it will not involve the encouragement of treachery. It will involve people making simple commitments and taking simple, straightforward actions. The reality is that the Liberal Party will not be dictated to. They are the tactics adopted by the Labor Party. The Liberal Party will not do what is in the interests of the Govemment; it will do what is in the interests of this State. A couple of things are in the interests of this State. It is in the interests of this State to have the State Budget delivered on Thursday of this week. That will allocate resources and provide at least some understanding of what the commitment of resources is for the good government of this State for the next year. That can be changed, and will be changed, if necessary, when the Liberal Party takes the reins of Government. Mr Comben interjected. Mr INNES: We must have a State Budget. The member for Windsor knows that. We do not go straight from here to be pitchforked into some sort of election campaign before we get essential work out of the way. There has to be a Budget on Thursday of this week. The Liberal Party is interested in seeing that Budget brought down. It is interested in the State's receiving the benefit of that Budget. There is also an interest in having the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission legislation introduced in this House, having the commissioners appointed and having the commission and its examinations under way. The Premier well knows that I have an objection. I do not mind declaring the objection. It is the same objection as I have stated in public. The Liberal Party is asking that that legislation give the right to the leaders of all parties or to the members of an all-party committee to unanimously appoint the commissioners. Members of the Liberal Party are fair dinkum about this. They believe that the commissioners must be acceptable to all parties—the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party demands that. If that right is given, the commission can get under way, irrespective of election campaigns, and carry out urgent examinations. 326 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

One of the groups that the Leader of the Opposition is taking into account—that his strategy is predicated on—is the disgmntled who oppose the EARC legislation. That is what he is doing. His strategy is predicated on the very people to whom he says he is opposed and on the principles to which he says he is opposed. Nothing is ever straightforward. I suppose if things were straightforward, we might have a bit of faimess and honesty in Labor's glossy publication about the so-called Labor Cabinet ready to mle this State. If the Trade Practices Act applied, we might have the revelation that some of these gentlemen actually have backgrounds in the trade union movement. Is it not funny how that is not declared anywhere? Only one out of 18 is stated to be associated with the trade union movement. Tommy Burns' conviction for SP book-making is not in this publication either, in this great, bold, new world of freeing this State from cormption. We do not find that Mr Deane Wells worked for a trade union. We do not find that Ms Warner worked for a trade union. We do not find that Nev Warburton was a member of the ETU or that Ken Vaughan was a member of the ETU. We do not find that Bob Gibbs worked with the Miscellaneous Workers Union. According to this, he was certainly a Labor Party organiser, but not a trade union organiser. Why is there this sensitivity? It is because what they say when they go round the board rooms of this State demonstrates hypocrisy, is deceptive, is misleading and does not show Mr Comben: He is not even fighting you. Mr INNES: On the contrary. I have to keep correcting the lies and the deception involved. The Leader of the Opposition does not say that part of his industrial relations agenda for this State is compulsory unionism. He does not say that he is going to set up in every area of economic activity and social activity in this State bodies that include the trade unions involved. The Leader of the Opposition does not say that he would have an industrial relations advisory council, an employment planning authority, an occupational health and safety commission, an industrial democracy unit or an industrial democracy advisory service. He does not say how shackled we will become by the realities of the old Labor Party at work with that component of the Socialist Left and of active trade union organising that simply replaces one set of cronies with another set of cronies. Let us consider some of the States that have adopted this great new formula of hiding trade union links, together with appointing some superficially glib frontman such as Mr Goss. That was the formula in Victoria. What do we find in Victoria after all those years of prosperous, intelligent, incisive Labor administration? We find $31 billion worth of indebtedness and lost money, which is the equivalent of a third of the international debt of this nation. The Labor Party cannot get its act together in the States. The accumulated losses of Labor's Workcare amount to $5 billion alone. The Labor Party had a 10-point plan for the Queensland economy. Those points were as sharp as a sponge. If the plan is analysed, it can be seen that it contained only one concrete proposal, that is, the establishment of a State bank. It is the oldest chestnut in the Labor Party's armoury. One finds that the great and enlightened public administrators in Victoria lost $918m in the stock-market crash that occurred last year. That is an example of Labor's bold new worid. The Victorian Economic Development Corporation alone lost more than $lllm. Time expired. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.09 p.m.): How can the people of Queensland and the Parliament have confidence in a Government that is led by Mike Ahern? How can members of the public have confidence in a party that is led by Mr Innes? Today, the members of the Liberal Party are snivelling and crawling back Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 327

into coalition. Day in and day out, they are out on the stump, saying that they do not want anything to do with the National Party. However, all that they are interested in today is getting back into Cabinet. In this Parliament there are more Liberals supporting Premier Ahern than there are back-benchers on his own side. There are 18 Cabinet members. If one includes the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, that makes 20. Ahern received 26 votes. Six National Party back-benchers voted for him and 11 Liberal Party members will now vote for him. An Opposition member: Hypocrites! Mr BURNS: The Liberal Party members are the real hypocrites. They were worried that, if there was a legitimate charge in the Parliament and Ahern had fallen today, and if he went to the people tomorrow, they would have lost their seats. Half of the seats occupied by them would have been lost. Members of the Liberal Party are mnning scared. The Leader of the Liberal Party ought not to start talking about his courage. He ran out of the Northern Territory ahead of a few problems. He is now in Queensland running away again today. The job of this Parliament and the Labor Party is to get rid of the Govemment. The people of Queensland want the Government to go. However, members of the Liberal Party want it to stay. For some unknown reason, the Leader of the Liberal Party wants Ahern to stay and for the Parliament to last as long as it possibly can. The majority of the Government's back bench does not support the Govemment. The Govemment lacks leadership; it lacks direction; it lacks consistency; it lacks credibility; and it lacks the capacity to deliver. But Mr Innes will vote with the Govemment because he is mnning scared. Let us have a look at the loyalty on the Government side of the House. There is the former Attorney-General, the second-rate conveyancer from out in the sticks. He spent last week sitting in his Bermuda shorts on Stradbroke Island caUing his leader "Dopey". He spoke about his leader in a most disparaging way. The former Attomey- General referred to some of his Cabinet mates. He said— "They sat there and said nothing. Their faces were like blank dinner plates in a railway cafeteria." That was a reference to a time when he was sitting with his Cabinet colleagues. Mr Hamill: There's one there. Mr BURNS: The honourable member is right. When Mr Ahern became Premier, Mr Clauson said that it was the beginning of a new era. He is reported as saying— "But what's happened since has been like a pack of cards. Like our credibility, one collapses and the rest went plonk, plonk, plonk and fell over." The newspaper report states— "The insult peppers an hour-long conversation in which the former Justice Minister and Attomey-General gives his account of how the move came to unseat the Queensland Premier." Cooper and Clauson were classic Country Party clots. They could not add up. They did not even consider the numbers. They brought their own Government into disrepute. They campaigned against Ahern in the media, and they are still campaigning against him. Two days before the Budget is due to be presented, members of the Liberal Party say that the Govemment should stay where it is and that for some reason we should not move a motion of want of confidence in the Govemment. Two days before the Budget, a person picks up the morning paper and sees that dark eminence—that faceless man. Bob Sparkes—is being asked to get rid of the National Party Leader. The word around the press gallery is that Ahem will go. Whether it is this Wednesday or next Wednesday, he will go because the National Party cronies outside said that he has to 328 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance go. The members of the Liberal Party have said, "Let's hang on to him. He might look after us in some way." Cronyism at its worst! The former Minister for Police, the leader's colleague, is talking about suing another Cabinet Minister because he talked about his ministerial expenses. He talked about that millionaire who, as soon as he entered Cabinet, asked for $400 or $500 cash advances every week-end for ministerial expenses. When one of his own colleagues raises it in the party room, that millionaire has the hide to say that he will sue him. I read in today's Sun that the Attorney-General said that he also might sue someone. First it was the vision of excellence, then Quality Queensland. Then it was "lock, stock and barrel". Now we have "anything goes" with Michael Ahern. The members of the Liberal Party and Govemment back-benchers will all cop it. Where are the people of principle who gave radio interviews this moming—Leisha Harvey; the member for Pine Rivers, Mrs Chapman Mr R. J. Gibbs: "Ma" Chapman. Mr BURNS: As my friend says, "Ma" Chapman. Where are those people now? If they do not support the Premier's leadership, they should have walked out of the debate. However, the Liberals will make certain that they do not have to do that. The Liberals will cover for them. The Liberals will protect them. The Liberals will square off with the Government and make it easy. In the morning, a person can turn on the radio and hear the Coopers, the Clausons, the Katters, the Chapmans, the Menzels and the Harveys. They are all unhappy with the leadership of the National Party in this State—a National Party that cannot deliver. The Premier can go nowhere at all because he is hamstmng by the back-benchers around him. The only support he can raise in this Parliament is from the Liberals. In a few weeks' time the Liberals will be out campaigning, saying that they are different. They will say that somewhere along the line they will enter some sort of coalition. The Liberals had a decent leader back in the days when Gordon Chalk was the Leader of the Liberal Party. He was the last decent leader the Liberal Party had. In the big swing in 1974, when the Labor Party was wiped out, the Liberals could not get the numbers in the coalition; they ended up down the drain. After the next election, the Liberals will be a junior partner in the coalition in Opposition. Half of the present members of the Liberal Party will not be in this Chamber. One week the Government said that there would be no daylight-saving and the next week it said that there would be. Leisha Harvey was in Cabinet one week and out the next week. It is a game of musical chairs. The biggest joke of all occurted this morning when Mr Katter sat in the Whip's seat. Mr Katter, who cannot be on time to catch a plane or attend a Cabinet meeting, will be in charge of whipping up honourable members in this House. It is no wonder that adverse comments are made about quality candidates. Quality Queensland and the vision of excellence. A couple of weeks ago legislation was introduced into the House to enable a referendum to be held. The electoral rolls are now closed and people cannot get on or off the rolls. The Government will have to introduce legislation to abolish that referendum legislation. For that reason alone the people of Queensland are entitled to have no confidence in this Government. They are entitled to have a vote as soon as possible. Members of the Labor Party will be urging the people of Queensland to throw that mob out. That is what it is all about. That is what this motion is about—getting rid of this Government as soon as possible and restoring some sense to this Parliament and to the Government of this State. I ask honourable members to remember that the Liberal Party does not intend to support the motion. The Premier has said, "I know the election date but I am not going to tell you. I am not going to tell the people of Queensland. The election date is my secret and I am going to keep it to myself" What a joke! That was said by the Leader of the Government. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 329

Honourable members have heard that Sparkes is going to discipline Simpson because he claimed that Mr Ahern is incompetent and a bad leader. Every day more than half of the National Government back-benchers say that Mr Ahem is incompetent. What will Sparkes do to Clauson for calling Mr Ahem "Dopey"? Will he make him deputy leader? I have been told that Mr Clauson will not be the deputy leader, that the numbers will go to Bill Gunn and that the three new Ministers who took their seats this moming in this House will be shuffled around. Mr Mackenroth: There are more ex-Ministers over there than anything else. Mr BURNS: There are more ex-Ministers there than there are members of the parliamentary Liberal Party. Mention has been made of the rorts and cronyism surrounding the QIDC. Every day the Courier-Mail and television stations report on cronyism in this State, but the problem is not being addressed. Approximately $24m of public money was spent on the Fitzgerald inquiry. Because the Labor Party thought that cormption in this State would be cleaned up, it supported the spending of that money. However, nothing has been done. Fitzgerald resigned because he knew that nothing will be done. The Government could not even complete the debate in this House on the Fitzgerald report. It cannot pass the legislation that Fitzgerald recommended. The Government is talking about extending this parliamentary session for a couple of weeks, but the betting around the ridges is that, after the Budget is brought down on Thursday, the House will adjourn and that will be that; that Mike Ahem would be a fool to hang around waiting for those fellows to cut his throat. He cannot make decisions while his party is so badly divided. Today he has announced the proposed constmction of four casinos in this State. Will the next thing be the demolition of Boggo Road? Day in and day out Mike Ahern will try to find some quick-fix answers, but there is no quick fix for a party that is split asunder and whose members hate each other so much that they are taking turns at doing each other in on the radio. It is a shame that the Liberal Party has not had the guts to stand up and say—in common with what everybody else in Queensland wants said—that it is time for a change and it is time for a Goss Labor Govemment. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (12.20 p.m.): Mr Speaker Mr Hamill interjected. Mr AUSTIN: It is easy to see why the honourable member is a Rhodes scholar. What a genius! This debate originated from a letter that was forwarded to you, Mr Speaker, by the Leader of the Opposition about discussing a matter of public importance. In that letter the honourable Leader of the Opposition raised a number of matters that he considered were of great public importance. I intend to deal with the first two matters. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the lack of implementation of the Fitzgerald inquiry recommendations and the EARC legislation. The Opposition—particularly the Leader of the Opposition—is not serious about the implementation of the Fitzgerald inquiry recommendations. Because each member of ALP has signed a piece of paper that guarantees the implementation of Labor Party policy in this House, the Australian Labor Party cannot support the recommended legislation in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry, the EARC and the CJC. If the CJC was to be implemented in accordance with Mr Fitzgerald's recommendations, not one member of the ALP could support the legislation. Mr Hamill: Are you hallucinating again? 330 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr AUSTIN: No, I am not. That is what the report says. It recommends that the policy-making powers be taken away from the elected representatives in this Parliament. The ALP has embarked upon a political stunt in an attempt to embarrass the Government. The Labor Party claims that, if it were in Govemment, it would implement the recommendations, but the first thing that it would do would be to cancel the legislation. If this Government introduces this legislation unamended, the Labor Party in Govemment would cancel it because members of the Labor Party cannot support legislation that does not allow them to control policy-making powers. Opposition members interjected. Mr AUSTIN: Opposition members are laughing, but I know that that is tme. Some of their colleagues have told me that it is tme. If some Opposition members do not believe me, I invite them to read the report. The Fitzgerald report contained a suggestion that legislation was being mshed through the Parliament and that insufficient time was being allowed for public consul­ tation. Although a piece of legislation was laid on the table of this House for public consultation and public submissions, before the closing date for public submissions the hypocritical Leader of the Opposition called for the immediate processing of that legislation. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. Either time is allowed for public consultation or it is not. The Leader of the Opposition and other members of the ALP are hypocrites who need to be exposed for the exercise that they are undertaking in relation to the Fitzgerald recommendations. On many occasions the Leader of the Opposition has said that he believes in honest, open and accountable govemment. About a fortnight ago in this House the honourable member for Hinders made a speech about a firm of solicitors, namely, Goss Downey Came. Did anyone read anything in the newspapers about that? Did anyone see anything on television? Did anyone hear anything on the radio about it? I will tell honourable members why nothing was seen or heard. I have here a copy of a press statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition, a person who believes in honest, open and accountable govemment. The statement reads— "Attention: News editors and chiefs of staff. Media outlets proposing to publish allegations made by the Minister for Community Services, Mr Katter, today involving Mr Goss are asked to take note of the following press statement." It continues— "Any suggestion that I have any involvement, or financial interest in, court proceedings known as 'the Mabo case' is false and without any foundation whatsoever. Any suggestion of improper conduct or financial gain is not only false but also defamatory and will be the subject of appropriate legal action." Are we to infer from that that the Leader of the Opposition, by way of a press statement, is threatening the media of this community? Obviously the threat worked because the media made no mention of it. I venture to say that if a member of the Opposition Mr Hamill: Have you paid for your writs yet? Mr AUSTIN: I pay for my own court actions. If a member of the Opposition gets up in this place and buckets a member of this Government, the news media will be the first to report it without qualification, using the privilege of the Parliament. Not one word was written about the speech made by the honourable member for Flinders. I suggest to Opposition members that that occurred because of the press statement that threatened the media. That press statement came from the Leader of the Opposition, a person who believes in honest, open and accountable govemment. He threatens the media about what is said in this House. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 331

Mr Hamill: You don't threaten, you do it. Mr AUSTIN: I do not threaten it, I do it, and I do it when lies are told. I believe in the absolute right and privilege of this Parliament. The Fitzgerald report does not believe in that; it wants to take away that right. Honourable members opposite can say what they like about me in this place; I can defend myself Why did the Leader of the Opposition not get on his own two feet and defend himself? Why didn't he? He is weak. He is a coward. He is a wimp. Why did he not get on his feet and defend himself when the member for Flinders made his speech? He is a political wimp; that is what he is. He could not get on his feet. Mr Hamill: Are you mnning for leader now, Brian? Mr AUSTIN: No, I am not. Members of the media should get that clear: no, I am not. The letter that the Leader of the Opposition sent to you, Mr Speaker, referred to the economy. What gross hypocrisy for members of the Labor Party to talk about the economy. The honourable member for Sherwood correctly addressed some of the problems that have occurred in the VEDC. Over the past years, the honourable Leader of the Opposition and other members of his party have been saying what a wonderful job Mr Cain has done. They have been saying that this Govemment has not matched him for expenditure in this and that. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would mn a Govemment in the same way as John Cain has. I want to refer in a bit more detail to information that needs to be brought before this House, and which was addressed by the member for Sherwood. I refer to an article in the Australian Business of 2 August which deals with Victoria, the State of insolvency. This is an indication of what a Labor Government will do. The article deals with the unfunded liabilities of the Victorian Govemment, which has squandered the public purse. Its workers' compensation scheme is $5 billion in debt; its third-party motor vehicle insurance, $717m; and superannuation, unknown but estimated to be $8 billion and future benefits totalling $19 billion. At 30 June 1988, the contingent liabilities of that Govemment were guarantees of $27.9 billion, including liabilities of the State Bank and the State Insurance Office. On top of that is a debt of $277m incurred by the failed Victorian Economic Development Corporation. The member for Caboolture spoke about the QIDC. It made a profit. What about its cohorts down south? The Victorian net public sector debt, budgeted at 30 June 1989, was $23.6 billion. The actual result was $22 billion. The Portland Smelter Unit Tmst, holder of the Victorian Government's share in the Portland aluminium smelter, owes $250m. The Victorian Govemment set up a phoney tmst, moved it out of the Budget accounts and put it in the public sector debt. In 1987-88, under the heading "equity service", $507m in dividends was paid to the Govemment by public authorities. The Victorian Govemment taxed its statutory authorities to the extent of $507m. The people of Queensland need to be aware that, under a Labor Government, statutory authorities will be taxed, which means that water and electricity charges will rise and that everything that is mn by a statutory authority will be taxed. That is the vision of excellence of the Labor Party. It is a vision of taxation. As the member for Sherwood cortectly said, the VEDC lost $11 Im and the Cain Govemment ducked for cover. It has not explained that loss to the public. The State Bank lost $100m on the National Safety Council. The Victorian Transport Department loses $ 1 billion a year. As the member for Sherwood also correctly said, the Victorian Govemment lost $918m on share market transactions. It is a disgrace. Let us look now at what happened under a Labor Govemment in New South Wales. I feel sorry for poor old Nick Greiner. The poor bugger came in there and he had debts Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw that. 332 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr AUSTIN: I withdraw it. I am terribly sorry, but I get excited. Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Nundah. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (12.30 p.m.): A short time ago honourable members heard a speech made by the member for Lytton, who is a former National President of the Australian Labor Party and a former Leader of the Labor Party in this Pariiament. He should be the last person to talk about betrayal and associations with people because, when he was Leader of the Opposition, he continually carried in his hip-pocket his resignation. Any time he was opposed in his party room on any matter, he would threaten to resign. One day his members said, "Yes, resign", and he did. That was the end of it. Mr Mackenroth: That is what happened to you. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I never resigned. As Federal President of the ALP, he came into this House and occupied a seat at the rear of the Chamber on the Opposition side. On the opening day of Parliament, when he had said he would establish a new order and would have everything done differently, he called on all his members—in spite of his being only a humble back-bencher—not to attend the garden party after the House adjourned. He told them to boycott the garden party. Is that not right? Mr Burns: No. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: He cannot tell the tmth even now. Mr Burns: Three of them went. The two Wood boys and I went to the pensioners' party and you stayed down here, brown-nosing. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Even then the honourable member could not muster the numbers to boycott the garden party. He could not even muster the numbers to get members of the Opposition into the House when he was a Whip. I wonder how many members of the Opposition will be missing today when the vote is taken? How many will be missing? Will it be three, or two? Mr Gygar: Where is D'Arcy? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes. Where are they? They are not even here. If the stunt that is being attempted by the Opposition today were successful, what would it mean? It would mean that no Budget would be provided. Mr Mackenroth: Come on! Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That is what it would mean. If this motion is passed today, there will be no Budget. Legislation that appears on the business paper and that is urgently required will not proceed, including the Bills to create the EARC and the CJC. They are two Bills that will not proceed if this motion is passed. The Opposition is doing everything to cut off its nose to spite its face, and that is the trouble. Members of the Opposition are thrashing about but they have absolutely no hope of getting the numbers from the electorate in this State—none whatsoever. When members of the Opposition discuss matters among themselves outside Parliament, they will realise perfectly well that that is tme. They have no hope at all of ever becoming the Govemment of this State. Let me examine the record of ALP Governments in this nation. The Federal Government, which is supported in the community by the ALP Opposition in Queensland, has treated pensioners to an increase of $2 next April. By that time, the value of the $2 will have disappeared because it will have been eroded by inflation. Not one cent of it will be worth while. That is the style of government that is supported by members of the Opposition. What does the Leader of the Opposition think about interest rates? He thinks that they are of no consequence, yet people in my electorate, in the electorate of the Deputy Matter of Pubhc Importance 5 September 1989 333

Leader of the Opposition and in the electorates of other members of Parliament are bleeding to death because, as a direct result of ALP policy, they cannot meet their mortgage payments. Members of the Opposition hope that nobody will find out about it, but thousands of people know. People cannot pay their mortgages and they are desperate. Many people in my electorate, and certainly in the electorates of many other honourable members, have had to sacrifice their homes and go onto the lists for public housing. Mr Gygar: That's what they want. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That is exactiy what the ALP wants. It wants to tum all these people into mendicants—young people and old people. That is a socialist objective. The more people who find out about it, the more members of the ALP Opposition in Queensland will be revealed as a bunch of hypocrites. They will certainly be tumed down by the electorate. Today members of the Opposition seek to take advantage of the disarray of the National Party to try to stop the Parliament from functioning. The National Party has political problems that should be sorted out outside the Parliament. I hope that that will happen. There is no reason at all for the Government to fall, or for stability to be taken away from the mnning of this Parliament by honourable members' supporting the motion proposed by the ALP. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Indus­ trial Affairs) (12.35 p.m.): It is time that the tmth was told in this ParUament about the hypocrisy of the ALP. Let us go back and examine the record of this Queensland Govemment. The businesspeople of the south are very interested in the fact that Queensland has fewer strikes and better education facilities and will give business a go. There is no doubt that Qantas is considering the relocation of its aircraft maintenance activities from Sydney to Brisbane, yet the Labor Party wants to be hypocritical about that. Every time the Govemment talks about progress in this State, the Labor Party wants to knock it. That is about all it does: it knocks everything that is good and does everything that is bad. I might also add that this State has great development planned for Cape York and the space station in the north. It is a fact of life that this project is threatened because the ALP is listening to the greenies. If honourable members do not believe me, they should listen to Liz Boume and to what the Labor Party has to say in agreement with her. If the Labor Party has its way, no development will take place on Cape York and there will be no additional jobs or initiative in this State. Shame on the ALP! The prospect of deregulation will bring new airlines into AustraUa. It is a fact of life that the new airlines. Capital and Compass, will introduce new incentives for people in the work-force, who will be employed on a contract basis and paid for productivity. Those airlines will base their operations in Brisbane, not in the other States. The reason that the airlines will not have their bases in other States is that they would not be able to organise wages/productivity agreements, but that will happen if they establish their bases, as they say they will, in Brisbane. Queensland will have productivity agreements, fair rates of pay and incentives, which no doubt will lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future. I turn now to the ALP policy on World Heritage listing. The ALP does not want any logging in Queensland's rainforests. The Opposition in this House supports its Federal colleagues. World Heritage legislation applies to trees in every part of the world. The ALP supports no logging in the rainforests of north Queensland, yet it is prepared to allow logging to continue in overseas forests that are now being laid bare. The ALP does not want prosperity. A very good management system was in operation in the rainforests of north Queensland. Now Queensland has to buy timber at much greater cost, thereby putting sawmills out of operation. Timber is being imported from countries such as Indonesia, which use clear-felling techniques. Queensland is worse off as a result of the ALP policy on World Heritage listing. 334 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

The ALP operates in a negative way. Some years ago Utah decided to commence mining operations in Australia. To introduce open-cut mining, the company would build new towns in Queensland and create thousands of jobs. The members of the ALP wanted Australian companies to commence this operation, but at that time Australian companies were unable to perform. The ALP constantly knocked the whole project. The project was allowed to go ahead, and as a result new mining towns have been developed in central Queensland and Utah is now Australian owned. It was good foresight, but certainly not good foresight on the part of the ALP. Today, Ralph Long from Utah in the United States visits the head office here in Australia and reports back to the branch office in the United States. If it had been left to the ALP, Utah would never have commenced operations here in Australia, the jobs would not have been created and the Queensland economy would have suffered a great deal. When the Queensland Govemment decided to introduce casinos in Queensland, the members of the ALP were the ones who put up all the objections. They suggested that it would not work; they wanted poker machines. In fact, they did not know what they wanted. They wanted to upset the whole project. The Gold Coast and Townsville casinos have provided many jobs. In the future more casinos will be built and more jobs created, which in turn will attract more people to Queensland. That brings me to the pilots dispute. The members of the Queensland ALP have been deafening in their silence on this matter; they have sat back and said nothing. It is obvious that they support their mates in Canberra, who have done nothing at all about it. The recent cartoon in the Courier-Mail that depicted Rome burning whilst the Prime Minister played his fiddle was very correct. It is to the shame of the members of the ALP in Canberta, who are supported by the Queensland ALP, that they want this dispute to continue. Mr Randell: What do the union reps think about Mr Hawke bringing in the army? Mr LESTER: What do the union representatives think about Mr Hawke's bringing in the army to break the strike? Have honourable members ever heard of anything so ridiculous? Aeroplanes must be flown by properly qualified pilots, yet Mr Hawke talks about bringing the army in to do the job! That shows just how out of touch the ALP Government is. It is hypocrisy for the Hawke Govemment to suggest that it will compensate the airlines for losses that result from this dispute. This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of, because Mr Hawke is simply putting money into the pockets of his mates. Sir Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch, so that the strike can continue. There is no doubt that that is what it is all about. The Labor Party seems content for the little people to get hurt by this strike. Mr Warburton must agree, because he is nodding his head and laughing. When the chips are really down the Labor Party never wants to stick up for the little people, it gets right behind people like Mr Packer. Before the last election Mr Hawke stated that Mr Packer is a great man. I am not suggesting otherwise, but Mr Hawke did not have much to say about the little people in this country whom the Labor Party is supposed to represent. I ask the members of the ALP: what do they think of the Moody's investment rating? Australia has been downgraded yet again to an AA2 rating. This shows where the ineptitude of the "worid's greatest Treasurer" has taken Australia. Queensland has the equivalent of an AAA rating as a result of the very sound work that is being done in this State. A totally new direction has been taken in post-secondary education. Many more university places have been offered, not with the help of the Federal Govemment, but as a result of the Sherrin report and the Project Pay Packet initiative. There is a new direction in TAFE teaching, which is now in partnership with industry. People in the community are being trained for their future and the State's future, and Labor Governments from other States are coming to Queensland for guidance on how TAFE should be mn in their States. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 335

In recent times some of the most modem occupational health and safety legislation in the world has been introduced in Queensland, giving employers the opportunity to work from centralised legislation and regulations, thereby assisting their own industries. Queensland is paying workers' compensation claims faster than any other State in Australia. On average, workers' compensation costs a Queensland employer $1.45 for every $100 of wages paid. In New South Wales and in the other States it is of the order of $3 per $100 of wages paid. That is the reason why so many companies want to relocate in Queensland. Workers' compensation is cheaper, post-secondary education is better and it is generally far cheaper to live in Queensland. I might add that the climate is better, as well. In addition, there have been enormous reforms in Queensland's prison system. This has been achieved not only by the building of new prisons but also by a change in the way in which inmates are treated. Time expired. Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (12.45 p.m.): It is timely that this debate should be held today because the Premier was elected to Pariiament in the 1960s and it is coincidental that this moming I heard on the radio that it is 20 years since we first heard the song It's My Party and 77/ Cry If I Want To. How apt a description that is of the National Party in this State at present. We have witnessed some of the most pathetic, defensive efforts ever from the Ministers. They are the worst efforts I have seen in the 12 years that I have been a member. The Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs made an abortive attempt to speak about what is happening in the tourist industry because of the airline dispute. The only party that has made a constmctive suggestion to assist the tourist industry in Queensland has been the Labor Party. The pathetic members of the Gov­ ernment speak about hiring jets and overseas pilots; the Labor Party has offered something constmctive to the tourist industry. The Labor Party has said that a Labor Govemment, when it is elected, will ensure that for the period of the strike pay-roll tax, fuel tax, liquor licence fees and other taxes are not collected. That would be financially constmctive for the industry. The Government offers nothing like that. What an absolutely pathetic group sits on the Govemment side. Last week two ambitious members of the National Party made an abortive attempt at a coup to remove the Premier. They have been relegated to conspirators' row. All of the conspirators in the coup now sit together. All who publicly tipped the bucket on the Premier sit together in one group. The man who never was is now sitting beside the honourable member for Currumbin. I refer to the pathetic member for Cooroora, who failed miserably for the couple of days that he was a Minister. Those members conspired yet, when they were put on the mat in the party room, what happened? The honourable member for Roma came out and screamed at the media that he had been cut off, that he was gagged in the debate, that he was not allowed to speak. As one of his colleagues and former supporters put it to me, they were in a trench situation; it was like World War I. They were in the trenches, somebody blew the whistle and they had to go over the top. He said that they had been waiting for the honourable member for Roma to lead them, but he never had—I cannot use the word because it is unparliamentary; I will say simply that I was told the honourable member did not have the political genitals to do it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wolston will withdraw that comment. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw it. During the last couple of days we have heard absolute nonsense from the Govem­ ment. Yesterday there was an announcement by the Premier, who is trying to win back public support, that Queensland will have an additional three casinos. Reference has been made previously to the casino in Townsville. Ministers should go to Townsville and have a look at the casino. The fact is that the economy of this State will not carry another three casinos. Ministers should ask the share-holders. 336 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr Mackenroth: The shares are worth 29c. Mr R. J. GIBBS: The $1 shares are now worth 29c. It is not a financially sound proposition. Money is being made from accommodation, but the casino has been an absolute failure. It is stupid to suggest that at present the economy can carry another three casinos. Today I saw the worst performance I have ever seen in this Parliament from the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer, who is obviously on a ride to nowhere and realises it. The big daddy this moming, the most pathetic performance honourable members have ever seen, came from the Leader of the Liberal Party. He believes that, with National Party support in Brisbane mnning at 9 per cent and the strong possibility that it will drop by 2 per cent in the next couple of weeks, he will lead the senior party in a coalition. Let me outline the walk-up start the Liberal Party will get at the next election with the National Party performing so badly in the metropolitan area. The Leader of the Liberal Party starts off with the grand total of 11 seats and he will lose Redcliffe, Ashgrove, Nundah, Mount Isa, Yeronga and Stafford. The Liberal Party cannot win those seats unless it receives sufficient preferences from the National Party. That is the real reason why he is today supporting the flunkies on the other side of the House. He is biding his time. The only time his party will have more members than the National Party is when the Labor Party occupies the Treasury benches. A small part of his ambition will then have been realised. His party will have the majority of seats in the Opposition. Congratulations to him. That is all he deserves. I do not like attacking individual members, but the honourable member for Merthyr entered Parliament five months ago and has yet to make his maiden speech. The million- dollar boy of the Liberal Party has yet to make his maiden speech. He sits in the back row looking over the shoulder of his leader, who deliberately tried to stab him and prevent his coming into this Parliament. The Leader of the Liberal Party did not want the present member for Merthyr; he wanted someone else. That honourable member is biding his time and waiting to square up with his leader. The honourable member for Stafford thought so much of his constituents and about this institution of Parliament that he took six months' study leave and went to London. He was away so long that, when he retumed, we thought he should be swom as a new member. Mr GYGAR: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Wolston misleads the House. I did not miss six months of the session. I ask him to withdraw that statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr R. J. GIBBS: He was away for six months and he left his constituents on their own. What about the performance of the honourable member for Sherwood? The member for Stafford and his colleagues know, because their party's research gives the same result as the research conducted by the National Party and Labor Party, that the honourable member for Sherwood is taking his party nowhere. With the accent that Mr Innes puts on in this Parliament, members of his electorate look upon him as a fop. If he had stayed in the legal profession, because of his incompetence, he would have starved. Today, the Liberal Party is grasping for survival. If honourable members want absolute proof that the Liberal Party cannot win an election, they should reflect on the election result in 1974 when the Labor Party was decimated from 33 to 11 members. After that election, the Liberal Party had 26 members of Parliament, yet it was not the senior partner in a coalition Government. It is a numerical and mathematical impossibility for the pack of frauds sitting at the back of the House to even wish to win an election. When I consider the election chances of the member for Ashgrove, whose hair colour comes directly out of one of his chemist shop bottles, I can state with absolute confidence that, after the election, the Liberal Party Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 337

will not be in Govemment; it will be in Opposition. I can also state that the National Party will be decimated in the way that it deserves. There is only one way for Queensland to be led into the 1990s—a Goss-led Labor Govemment. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (12.55 p.m.): After listening to the attack by the ALP, I do not believe it will be in Govemment anywhere. Because of the attitude of the Federal Government, which has wrecked the Australian economy, the ALP will go down the chute. The Leader of the Opposition produced a lengthy letter, yet he failed to speak to it. The performance of the Labor Party has been so pathetic that the Liberal Party will not even support it. However, honourable members never know what the Liberal Party will do. The Leader of the Opposition referred to public concern over the Govemment's lack of commitment to reforms recommended by the Fitzgerald report. The member for Lytton claimed that it was a waste of millions of dollars. He would not have even spent the money on it. If we had looked to the Labor Party, we would not have a Fitzgerald report. That report has been made because the Premier and his deputy were solid on the matter. Mr McElligott: We wouldn't have needed it. Mr BOOTH: Has the honourable member heard of Mr Wran or what is happening in Westem Australia? He is admitting that the Labor Party would not have had the courage to bring in that report. However, in spite of opposition from the Labor Party, the Government had the courage and brought it in. The next matter to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was his concem at the Govemment's lack of credibility on the cmcial issue of independent electoral reform highlighted by the cancellation of the politically motivated 14 October referendum. Where did ALP support for the referendum come from? Labor Party members whinge about the boundaries. However, when they had the opportunity to correct them, they did not have the courage to do it. Mr Scott: That's not what the referendum was about, and you know that. Mr BOOTH: The referendum was about a review of the electoral boundaries. Labor Party members did not have the courage to front up to it. They did not want the review. They wanted to whinge throughout Queensland. The country people of Queensland know what the Labor Party was attempting to achieve. It wanted to make the vote of country people worth nothing. It wanted to be able to plunder the western people at Birdsville and wreck their lives, just as it has by allowing high interest rates. The Labor Party wants to take houses from the people. Hawke has high interest rates because it is a socialist ideal to try to flatten the people and take their houses from them. That is what the Labor Party is on about. Today, I have listened to the most pathetic speeches I have ever heard. The speech of the member for Wolston was pathetic, but the speech of the member for Lytton was much worse. He did not address the matter raised in the letter; he just rambled on. The people of Queensland know why the Labor Party ducked the referendum. Members of the Labor Party cannot claim now that the boundaries are rigged. They had the opportunity to correct them, but they were told to vote against the referendum. The Liberal Party did not want the boundaries corrected, either. The Govemment was prepared to have the electoral review, but the Labor Party did not have the courage to stand up to it. It wanted something to whinge about. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the totally erratic manner in which the Government decided first against, and then in favour of, the introduction of daylight- saving. What a hypocritical statement! The Labor Party wanted daylight-saving. Now the Government has decided on a trial that will give the people of Queensland an opportunity to consider its merits. If it upsets business and the workings of the State, the people of Queensland can say so. The Labor Party did not want a trial; it wanted 338 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance to bring daylight-saving in and say, "That's it." The Liberal Party took a similar stance. The Labor Party displayed no sympathy for young people with families or for anybody else who might be disadvantaged. It wanted to put the boot into the country people. The Govemment decided to have a trial of daylight-saving. The people of Queensland will have an opportunity to protest against it. If members of the Labor Party were sent a letter asking for comment, they would put it in the waste-paper basket, because they would attempt to get some kudos from this issue. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Govemment's refusal to agree to a public inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee into the QIDC loans scandal. What scandal? The only matter raised related to Mr Maunder. He did not accept the loan; he got a better deal from private sources. It is a great disgrace that a member of the Public Accounts Committee should state that Mr Maunder took a loan; he did not. Mr HAYWARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Booth has made a mistake. I did not mention Mr Maunder; I spoke about a Mr Maule. Mr Booth is talking about matters before the Public Accounts Committee. I did not mention anything before the Public Accounts Committee. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House notes the member's comments. Mr BOOTH: There is no such thing as a loan until it has been taken out. Mr Hayward: I never mentioned it. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member talked a lot of mbbish. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BOOTH: At the outset I want to say that this motion—I am not quite sure how else to describe it—is an attempt to deceive the people and an attempt to deceive this House. In his letter to the Speaker the Leader of the Opposition states— "In accordance with Standing Order 137 I propose that tomortow, Tuesday, September 5, a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion." I have never heard anything as weak as that in my life. The Leader of the Opposition is claiming that he is moving a motion of no confidence in the Govemment yet all he asks for is a discussion. However, he is not going to move such a motion. In my opinion this proposed motion is as dead as a dodo. It means nothing. It is a Clayton's motion of no confidence. The Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage to move a motion of no confidence, so he came up with this ridiculous proposition. As I am mnning out of time, I will move on to the content of the proposed motion. The Leader of the Opposition claims that the Premier should disclose the election date immediately. I challenge him to tell me the name of any Premier or Prime Minister who has disclosed an election date before he was ready. It is laughable. All that the Premier has to do is abide by the Constitution. He will do that, and he will have the support of this party in doing it. This is the most foolish motion that I have ever seen moved against any Government. If honourable members look through the records of Westminster, I bet that they will not be able to find many occasions on which a Leader of the Opposition has asked for a discussion on a major matter. It is the weakest thing that I have ever heard of It is an endeavour to confuse members of the public and make them think that the Leader of the Opposition was fair dinkum when in fact he was not game to move a motion of no confidence. I have dealt with the date of the election. Now I want to say something about a few other issues. One of them is the so-called leaks from the party room. During the last three or four weeks, one of the local major daily newspapers has mn what it claimed Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 339 were a number of major leaks from the party room, and they are all incorrect. They are not statements of fact. Mr Mackenroth: You tell us the tmth. Mr BOOTH: I will tell the honourable member the tmth. They are incortect. The people who are putting these things in the press are not getting leaks from the party room. They are simply putting things in the press that they like to see. I would say that there has never before been a time when such efforts have been made to confuse people. I cite the example of our so-called opinion polls. One of the honourable members who spoke eariier in the debate cited the results of an opinion poll. He did not tell us who conducted the poll or how many people contributed to it. I have tried to find out those people who have been contacted in my area for an opinion poll, and I cannot find one. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BOOTH: The member for Port Curtis might not have any in his area. They probably conduct such polls in the electorate of the member for Lytton, or somewhere like that. Mr Vaughan: Didn't they ring the Minister for Education? Mr BOOTH: I do not know whether they rang the Minister for Education or not. They certainly did not ring me. I want to get back to what I think is the main issue in the coming election, that is, the state of the economy in Australia. The Australian economy is going down the gurgler. Not one word has been said by any member of the Opposition about trying to save the economy. Has anyone ever seen any member of the ALP try to defend any industry? Has anyone ever heard any member of the ALP defend any area in which the economy is in a bad state? Members of the ALP are always knockers. This motion is another example of that. They just get up and knock people. The national economy is in a shocking state, and it is in a shocking state because Mr Prest: Which way did you vote? Mr BOOTH: There is no secret about the way I voted. The honourable member knows that. Time expired. Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (2.35 p.m.): Last week the National Party Govemment lost its most talented members—Mr Cooper, Mr Clauson and Mr Katter, to mention just two. Who did we get in their place? The honourable members for Springwood and Tablelands, whom nobody had ever heard of, and the honourable member for Lockyer. The honourable member for Lockyer started his first press conference by saying— contrary to his boots-and-all Premier, who has been saying that he is going to implement the Fitzgerald report "lock, stock and barrel"—that he did not really know whether the Govemment was going to implement the Fitzgerald report at all and that it was a question for the Cabinet. Honourable members might think that the National Party has not gained in this transaction. However, there is one respect in which it has gained. Now, at last, the National Party has on its front bench some members who are not being investigated by the Special Prosecutor. Until now, every single one of the National Party's front bench was under criminal investigation by the Special Prosecutor. In any other jurisdiction in this country such people would not be regarded as fit to govem. They are not fit to hold high office, and in any other jurisdiction they would consider themselves to be not fit. Elsewhere they would stand down during the curtency of an investigation being made into them. 340 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importence

In the past I have referred the House to the precedents, but I will just mn through them as a list: Theodore, 1930; McLachlan, 1938; Lawson, 1940; Connor, 1975; Garland, 1976; Lynch, 1977; Withers, 1978; Robinson, 1979; Sinclair, 1979 Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. I was downstairs working when I heard the gentieman on the other side of the Chamber make the allegation that every Minister in the Cabinet prior to the appointment of the three new Ministers was under investigation by the Special Prosecutor. I ask that the honourable member withdraw that statement. It is untme. I am not under investigation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Orderi The Minister has asked for a withdrawal. Mr WELLS: I do withdraw unequivocally, and I say that every member of Cabinet apart from the three new Ministers and the Honourable Craig Sherrin is under inves­ tigation by the Special Prosecutor, and I thank him for amending the record. The list that I was detailing includes McKellar and Moore in 1982 and subsequently Mick Young in 1984. All of those Ministers either resigned or were stood aside during the currency of an investigation into them. When that investigation was complete, if they were exonerated as a result, they retumed to Govemment. That is the Westminster convention. It applies not only to the Commonwealth Parliament but also to the State Parliaments. For example, Wran stood aside during the curtency of a royal commission. Rex Jackson was forced to stand down and subsequently ended up in gaol. Only this year a Minister of the Greiner Govemment stood down for those very reasons. The Westminster convention is very clear. It is observed by every poUtical party, even by Ian Sinclair, who, until recently, was the Leader of the National Party in the Commonwealth Parliament. The only outfit that does not observe that Westminster convention is the Queensland National Party. If that convention was observed, the whole of this Ministry would stand down, except for Mr Sherrin and his three mates. I suppose that it is useful that the honourable member opposite has drawn our attention to the fact that he is not being investigated, because that means that, if Westminster was observed, he would be the Premier, at least until the next election. Not only are Ministers being investigated, they are being reinvestigated. Some time ago the Taxation Commissioner looked at the affairs of certain Ministers. I understand that a large group of people, including Ministers and former Ministers, had been fined by the Taxation Commissioner. 1 received word that there had been an oversight by the Taxation Commissioner in that when he had investigated Ministers' offices he had investigated only those slips of paper that had the Ministers' names on them. I suggested to the Taxation Commissioner that what he really ought to do was to investigate those slips of paper that had the names of press secretaries and private secretaries on them as well, because often when Ministers went out for a night on the town or engaged in conspicuous consumption of some kind, they would take along their press secretary or private secretary in order to have them pick up the tab so that the sacred ministerial name would not appear on the relevant pieces of paper. I understand from other sources that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has taken this matter seriously and is conducting a reinvestigation. At the same time, I mentioned to the Special Prosecutor that certain of these behaviours were going on. I understand that the Special Prosecutor is investigating at least one department to which I referred him. Honourable members hear a lot about ministerial cash advances, ministerial expenses and so forth, but what we really need to bear in mind is the sheer enormity of it. We are not talking about just a few thousand dollars; we are not even talking about a few hundred thousand dollars; we are talking about an available National Party slush fund that comes to $128m. I seek leave of the House to table a statistical table taken from last year's Budget papers. These sums have been listed as having been expended by the Chief OflRce or equivalent. In each case, sums are not itemised, or incompletely itemised, the purpose Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 341 of the expenditure being concealed by such words as "general", "miscellaneous" or "etc." The table was compiled from last year's Budget papers. I seek leave to table the document and to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— The following sums have been listed as having been expended by the Chief Office or equivalent. In each case sums are not itemised, or imcompletely itemised, the purpose the expenditure being concealed by such words as "general". miscellaneous" or "etc." $ million $ million 1987-8 1988-9 expended claimed Premier 8.341 10.455 Deputy Premier 7.513 8.996 Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Servicees .648 .527 Minister for Education, Youth and Sport 3.122 3.154 Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs 1.448 2.952 Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism .. 13.055 13.011 Minister for Family Services 7.393 6.999 Minister for Finance 5.499 4.709 Minister for Health 6.240 10.138 Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology 5.316 6.604 Minister for Justice 4.099 3.899 Minister for Land Management .747 .751 Minister for Local Govemment and Racing 2.843 2.815 Minister for Mines and Energy 1.947 1.062 Minister for Northern Development and Community Services 1.819 m Minister for Primary Industries 34.877 (2) Minister for Transport 12.165 12.268 Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services 2.843 3.141 119.15 91.481 »' 36 696 (4) 128.177 Notes (1) and (2): No money claimed. Running costs to be taken as unforeseen expenditure. Note (3): The anticipated 88-89 expenditure is less than 87-88 because two departments which last year spent nearly $37 million between them have failed to give any indication of what they intend to spend in 1988-89. Note (4): Estimate of total figure claimed for 1988-89 based on substituting 1987-88 expenditure for Department of Northern Development and Department of Primary Industries. Mr WELLS: The table shows that in the Budget papers there are certain expenditures listed under the Chief Office of each Minister. These sums of money are listed not by any specific title of expenditure; they do not relate to any itemised or accounted article of expenditure; rather, they relate to some innominate category such as "miscellaneous", "general" and "sundries". The table that has been incorporated in Hansard goes through the whole of the Budget papers and singles out those things in the Chief Offices of Ministers which are listed as "sundries", "miscellaneous" and so forth. Items that are listed as salaries and items that are listed as specific operational expenditures, where those expenditures are named, do not find their way into the table. The bottom line of the table is that, in 1987-88, the amount expended was $119.15m. In 1988-89, the amount estimated is $128.177m. I hardly need to say that that is a lot of money for which the people of Queensland will have no accountability—a slush fund in the hands of this National Party Govemment which the people of Queensland can never examine. 342 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the Budget is presented in a couple of days' time. It will be very interesting to see whether those columns are still available and whether we can still go through the Budget papers and find out what their "miscellaneous", "general", "etc." expenditure is. If we can, it will be interesting to know whether they kept within the very generous estimate of $128.177m that they gave themselves. It will be very interesting to find out whether this slush fund has blown out under this new, "accountable" Government. I come back to where I began, namely, that we have a Govemment consisting of people who are under investigation by the Special Prosecutor. They do not deserve to govern; they are not fit to govem in a Westminster system. I expect that when the honourable member for Lockyer, the honourable member for Tablelands, the honourable member for Springwood and the Honourable the Minister at the table walked into the Cabinet room last week they felt like Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. The shame of it is that under this Government all they have to do is to say, "Open sesame" and the good times will roll for them as well. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (2.45 p.m.): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in the debate. Having listened to the speeches of Opposition members, I begin to wonder how much enthusiasm they had for what they said. Mr Davis: Our members did the talking. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member has not contributed very much to the debate; nor have any of his colleagues. It was very interesting to note the lack of enthusiasm from Opposition members and their inability to support their leader. This morning the Leader of the Opposition was really labouring the issue. The contribution he made was certainly not one of his best. In those circumstances, I do not know whether Opposition members want to support their leader. The Leader of the Opposition certainly did not show any enthusiasm. Mr McLean: Who do you support? Do you support Mr Ahem or Mr Cooper? Mr STEPHAN: I support the Premier. However, Opposition members are not prepared to say which "guard" they support. Mr Burns made the claim that 17 Ministers supported Mr Ahem. I wonder if he realises how Mr Clauson, Mr Cooper and Mr Katter voted in the party room. The honourable member's mathematics will need to improve a great deal if that is the best that he can do. Moody's credit-rating of Australia makes a big difference in the financial world. I am confident that Queensland's financial affairs are in good hands. Many people continue to come to live in Queensland. During the first nine months of the 1988-89 financial year, 32 000 interstate people packed their bags and moved to Queensland. Over that period an average of more than 900 people per week came to Queensland. During January to March 1989 that figure increased to 1 200 people per week. Because of the stability of Queensland's financial environment, people are voting with their feet. In his letter to the Speaker, Mr Goss cited— "... the government's lack of credibility on the cmcial issue of independent electoral reform, highlighted by the cancellation of its politically-motivated October 14 referendum;". The Opposition has changed course two or three times along the way. It demanded that electoral reform take place and that an election be held on different boundaries, but then it did not support the proposed referendum. Mr Hamill: No, fair boundaries. Mr STEPHAN: To a large extent, Queensland has fair electoral boundaries. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 343

I ask honourable members to compare Queensland's electoral system with those of other countries. The weightage system in England creates a difference of one to 11 and in Canada the system is much the same—one to 10 or one to 11. However, Queensland has a difference of one to 3. Honourable members should remember that Queensland's electorates are much larger than those in other countries. Mr Hamill: You should stand there shamefaced because you were the beneficiary of a rort. Your electorate is smaller in area and smaller in population than Maryborough. Mr STEPHAN: My electorate is not extremely small. It is certainly larger than the honourable member's electorate but contains almost the same number of constituents. The ability of a member to make contact with his constituents must be considered. I do not know whether the honourable member uses a push-bike or a car to get around his electorate, but I am sure that he could walk around it if he wanted to. He cannot compare his electorate with others in the State in which members must travel much greater distances. Mr Davis: How many constituents have you got? Mr STEPHAN: There are approximately 17 000 people in my electorate. Mr Davis: I've got 20 000. Mr STEPHAN: Once again the honourable member is telling stories. I turn now to Labor's financial record. The Labor Party is still considered to be a very taxing force. The Federal Govemment remains the highest taxing Govemment in Australia's history. Do honourable members opposite intend to continue that practice? Queensland is still the lowest taxed mainland State in the Commonwealth. Since Labor came to office, total tax revenues have increased from $44 billion in 1982-83 to an estimated $82 billion for 1988-89. In four years tax revenue to Federal coffers has doubled. Personal income tax revenue has increased from $20 billion in 1982-83 to an estimated $37.9 bilUon in 1988-89. The Labor Party cannot be proud of that record. As to tax cuts—the beneficial effect of the tax package is negated primarily because of Labor policies, which have introduced a whole range of new, increased and indexed indirect taxes on a host of consumer goods and maintained unacceptably high interest rates, especially home-loan interest rates that are currently at a new record level of 17, 19 and even 22 per cent. In 1984 Mr Hawke made the comment— "... because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down, interest rates will come down too." In 1984 he also said that interest rates would come down. Do honourable members opposite remember him saying that along with other comments and famous expectations? He also said— "We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop." He is harvesting the crop right now. He has ploughed the fields and sown the seeds of high interest rates and now he is harvesting that crop of interest rates up to 19 and 22 per cent. Mr Palaszczuk: This is the worst effort I've ever heard. Mr STEPHAN: Like Mr Palaszczuk, I would be ashamed, too, if I were associated with that sort of an attitude. 344 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr Hawke has said that he expects there will be a lowering of interest rates this year. He said—•' "The Government's expectations that interest rates can begin to fall this year are based on a thorough and continuous assessment of all the factors which go to make up the total macroeconomic picture." That is the daddy of them all. The interest rates are continuing to rise. It is hoped that they will come down and that there will be better days ahead. But while Hawke and Keating are in power, that hope will not be realised. Honourable members opposite know full well that those expectations will not eventuate. Time expired. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (2.55 p.m.): It is very interesting to contrast the behaviour of the three parties in this House during the course of this debate. I refer firstly to the behaviour of the National Party, which temporarily forms the Government in this place. During the speech made by the National Party Leader, the Premier, I particularly noticed that most of the Govemment back-bench members, most of whom had not voted for him last week, did not even listen to him; they were talking amongst themselves and in some instances showing derision. In the course of their speeches none of the Govemment members referted to Mr Ahern. That is most interesting, because as Govemment members they are supposedly defending the Premier and the behaviour of their Govemment. It is very clear that, after their party meeting, none of them is sure who will be Premier in this place tomorrow. None of them wants to be on the record today as saying anything praising Mr Ahern as Premier, because by this time tomorrow Mr Ahern may not be Premier. Therefore, all of them have gone to great lengths to avoid heaping one single, solitary piece of praise on their own leader, who has been under attack. Of the entire National Party back bench, there would be, at the most, only six who, if they were given a free vote, would vote confidence in this Government. At least 20 of them must have voted last week to condemn their leader and to seek a new leader. Therefore, it is no wonder that those members have avoided speaking in this place. No Government back-bench member has been prepared to make a contribution to this debate. The acting Whip rose and gabbled and garbled the same old nonsense we have heard for years. The back-bench members of the National Party Govemment have not been prepared to defend their Premier. In most instances, they are not prepared to speak at all. That is an example of the pathetic performance of the National Party Government in this place when it knows that the result of every opinion poll conducted in Queensland is spelling devastation and doom for them. Now we see all National Party members hedging their bets. What will happen tomorrow? Will there be another attempt at a spill? Will this spill succeed? Will there be a new Premier tomorrow? If there is to be a new Premier tomorrow, some National Party members are saying, "I don't want to be the only National Party member who said anything good about Mike Ahem yesterday in the Parliament, because I might have made a dreadful mistake." That has been the National Party's performance here today. What have we seen from the Liberal Party? The Liberal Party has also given a dreadful performance. The Liberal Party has been posturing in Brisbane, and occasionally elsewhere in the State, when it has enough energy to get outside Brisbane, which is not very often. But when it musters the energy it occasionally staggers away from Queen Street. What has the Liberal Party been saying here today? It is the party that has been going round and saying that this Government is finished and that until the Liberal Party is elected to Government there will be no opportunity to have a decent Govemment in Queensland. That is an example of the posturing that has occurred. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 345

What has been seen here in this House? The Leader of the Liberal Party rose and said at the outset that he would be voting in support of a Govemment that he says is doomed; that he says is cormpt and rife with cronyism. Why is that? The Liberal Party has exposed itself as the party of hypocrisy. The Liberals in Queensland are pretending that they can get the numbers to govem this State in their own right. Anyone who lives outside Brisbane and south-east Queensland knows that to be an absolute nonsense. I invite the Liberals to go into Rockhampton, Caims, Townsville, Charters Towers, Gladstone, Bundaberg and Mackay and test their real support. They know as well as I do what the public opinion polls are showing, namely, that the Liberal Party has absolutely no chance of forming a Govemment in its own right. If the Liberal Party really believed that it could win an election and form a Govemment in its own right, it would be voting here today in an attempt to bring this Govemment down. But the Liberal Party does not believe that it has any chance. The Liberals come in here posturing on the basis that it is absolutely necessary to keep this Govemment in power until a Budget is brought down. I say that that is absolute hypocrisy. Members of the Liberal Party know that Supply has been voted. They know that there is money to enable the Government to proceed, if an election is held within the next month, until the end of the year. They know that there is money available to mn the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were a member of a political party that was confident and knew what it was about, you would want to be the Govemment that was bringing in the Budget. You would not want to be a member of a party that was saying, "Let the other side bring in the Budget and, a few weeks later, elect us and we will turn it around." Today the Liberal Party has exposed itself as a party without confidence and without belief It has also exposed itself as a party comprised of frightened members. They know that National Party support has declined and is now so low that, if an election is held within the next month, at least five Liberal Party members will lose their seats because they will not get sufficient preferences from the National Party. The posturing Liberal Party is pretending that it can govern in its own right but its members know deep down that they do not have a hope of getting sufficient numbers to even be the majority party in a conservative coalition. In Rockhampton, the Liberal Party cannot get a reasonable candidate to represent it. The Liberal Party is still desperately searching for a candidate for that electorate although it claims to want an election. What a posturing party it has exposed itself to be! The Liberal Party is mnning in fear. It hopes that National Party support can lift it up enough to keep five of its members as representatives in this Parliament. That is a vain hope. Once again, the Liberal Party is exposed as a party without principle and one that is not ready for Government. At the next election, members of the Liberal Party will be condemned along with members of the National Party. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (3.03 p.m.): This debate is significant not because of those who have participated in it but because of those who have failed to participate. This is yet another example of the National Party's back-bench members—certainly, no admirers of the Premier—failing to rally round their Premier and this Government in an important debate on whether this Parliament and the people of Queensland have confidence in the Premier and the Government continuing to govem or, should I say, to maladminister the State of Queensland. This debate is significant also because of the attitude that has been adopted by the parliamentary Liberal Party. I can remember the times when the Liberal Party was castigated publicly for being the doormat upon which the National Party wiped its feet. Today it was significant that the Liberal Party's Leader—who had been a doormat on the back bench of the coalition Government—was aided and abetted in his supine attitude by one of the former doormats in the Liberal Party, none other than the honourable member for Nundah. Mr Wells: But it had "Welcome" written on it. 346 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

Mr HAMILL: I think that the honourable member is hoping that it will have "Welcome Back" written on it, but of course honourable members would know that the member for Nundah will not be back. That indicates, as it prepares for the forthcoming election, the parlous situation that the Liberal Party finds itself in. This Govemment cannot find support among its own ranks from those who should be prepared to stand up in the Parliament and debate a motion that strikes at the very confidence and capacity of the Government's ability to govem. The posturing party in this Parliament—the Liberal Party—is mnning around and attacking the National Party in an attempt to see the National Party scourged from office in Queensland. In spite of that, members of the Liberal Party come into this Pariiament and say, "We will support the Premier, Mr Ahem. We will support the National Party." The Liberal Party supports the very Government that has been exposed by the Fitzgerald inquiry report and has been exposed repeatedly in this House as a Government without direction and without ability, and as a Govemment that is incapable of goveming. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition clearly exposes the short­ comings—and there are many of them—of this Premier and his Govemment. Govern­ ment in Queensland is absolutely paralysed by the fact that the National Party Govemment led by Mr Ahem is incapable of making a decision on any of the substantive issues that trouble the people of Queensland presentiy. The people of Queensland are mesmerised by the capacity of this Premier to backflip and perform a variety of acrobatic manoeuvres while he changes his mind daily about the direction that public policy in Queensland should take. Members of the Opposition and members of the pubhc in Queensland have been appalled by the capacity of Mr Ahern and the National Party—and obviously, by implication, the Liberal Party—to throw out the Fitzgerald inquiry report "lock, stock and barrel". Before the report was presented. Premier Ahem repeatedly committed his Govemment to the implementation of the reforms and recommendations of that $24m document. What has happened subsequently? The Parliament of Queensland has been prevented from adequately and fully debating the recommendations of that report. The debate is yet to be completed. Tme progress towards the implementation of very many of the Fitzgerald inquiry report's reforms is yet to be made. I also add that not all the recommendations made in the Fitzgerald inquiry report require legislation to be passed by this Parliament. Many of the measures recommended by Mr Fitzgerald could be achieved by administrative change. However, as I said eariier, this Govemment is paralysed and incapable of making a decision. This Govemment is incapable of bringing about reforms, irrespective of whether they are to be brought about in the police force, in the administration of the public service in Queensland, in the electoral system or, indeed, in the way in which Ministers conduct their business, their pecuniary interests and their use of departmental funds. There has been no reform. This Government is incapable of delivering reform. The Government has totally disregarded the Fitzgerald inquiry report's recommen­ dations with respect to the use of public funds in what could not be regarded as an information campaign for public benefit but as, rather, the wanton use of public funds in advertising and promoting the National Party Government. It was no coincidence that on the very day when the Fitzgerald inquiry report was tabled, the Queensland Govemment poured thousands of dollars in public funds into a television advertising campaign designed to take public attention away from the shortcomings that had been exposed in the Fitzgerald inquiry report. Then we have the QIDC scandal and the failure of this Govemment to address the important issues of public policy which have been raised by my colleagues and myself in respect of the administration of the QIDC. As I pointed out in this Chamber a few weeks ago, it is inconceivable that any party could appoint to the board of the QIDC— an organisation which deals with corporate Queensland—a person whose only tme claim to fame is that he is a director of a National Party slush fund. However, tme to the Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 347

end, the National Party is not shamed by such a total disregard for propriety in the conduct of Govemment in Queensland. Then there was the referendum farce. Queensland was to have a referendum because the Queensland Government had no intention whatsoever of bringing about electoral reform in Queensland. This afternoon honourable members heard it again when the honourable member for Gympie told the House why the Queensland electoral system ought not be changed. His electorate is one of those rorts brought about by the National Party's manipulation of Queensland's electoral system. His electorate is in close proximity to the capital city of this State, but has a population and area less than its adjoining electorate, the electorate of Maryborough, which is more distant from the capital city. This shows the intellectual bankmptcy of the National Party; it cannot even present a logical argument to justify the electoral cormption which has been its hallmark of government in this State for the last 32 years. As if all this is not enough, there is the spectre of the Liberal Party that once again comes to aid the National Party in its time of need. The Liberal Party has always been the supine prop of the National Party in this State and the destiny of the Liberal Party is to once again become the supine prop for a National Party in trouble. Why should the people of Queensland have any confidence in the Liberal Party? The members of the Liberal Party mn around claiming some sort of monopoly on morality in the Government of this State. Rather than root out cormption in Queensland, at the polls later this year, firstly they ask the people of Queensland to vote for them—the ineffectual Liberal Party—and, secondly, put a number "2" in the box against the cormpt and discredited National Party. The members of the Liberal Party ask the people of Queensland to support the crooked, cormpt and inept maladministration that has been the hallmark of Govemment in this State and that existed when the Sir William Knoxes, Sir Llew Edwardses and the Sir Gordon Chalks backed repeated Bjelke-Petersen administrations. It is littie wonder that the majority of Liberal Party candidates who are putting their names forward to the public of Queensland at this election were in fact National Party members a week before they were endorsed. Also, the seats of the members for Nicklin and Maryborough—erstwhile Liberals who are now Nationals—are being contested by Liberals who were erstwhile Nationals. The public of Queensland will not be fooled; they can see that the Liberal and National Parties are indistinguishable in their support for the cormpt system. In conclusion, when Mr Ahern took office as Premier he said that there would be great changes in Queensland and that Queenslanders would love it. The public of Queensland are not masochists. They are not loving it any longer. All they want is to get rid of this whole grotty, motley herd who have dominated the Treasury benches for far too long. Mr BURREKET (Townsville) (3.13 p.m.): There has been some nonsense said during this debate in the House today. It has not been a very high-class debate. There seems to be a philosophy or a dream held by the Labor Party that somehow or other it will run Queensland after the next State election. It is not possible for the Labor Party to win in Queensland, because the people of Queensland do not want Labor. The ANOP and other polls do not refer to the 20 per cent or 25 per cent of undecided voters. Nothing is heard of them. I turn to look at the economic record of the Labor Party in Australia and the mess that the Federal Government has made of this country through its economic policies. The "world's greatest Treasurer", Mr Keating, is a disaster. Australia has a debt of over $100 billion. There is a Labor Govemment in Westem Australia, and look at what has happened in that State! That Govemment has disastrous economic policies and the State is going broke. In South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales the Labor Party is going broke. Mr Goss and the members of the Opposition say that they will mn Queensland as it has never been mn before. I will illustrate the financial mess and disaster that has resulted from the ALP Townsville City Council's management. Is that what we want to give the people of Queensland? Townsville has the highest rates and 348 5 September 1989 Matter of Public Importance

the highest city debt of any local authority because of the disastrous 15 years of ALP administration-of that simple council. I am certain that the people of Queensland do not want that. Queensland has not even got into the election mode, but the ALP will need a lot more money to spend between now and the date of the election. The National Party has not yet spoken publicly about the good things in Queensland; the low taxes, the highest growth, the highest employment creation and low unemployment. Many busi­ nesses are coming to Queensland from the southern States and 9 000 or 10 000 people a month are coming to Queensland from Victoria and New South Wales. Queensland is a top State because it has been properly mn and the National Party will keep it that way. The members of the Opposition can continue their fairy-floss dream, because there is no chance that the people of Queensland will vote for them at the next election. The National Party will talk about the many good things in Queensland. It will talk about 20 years of sound budgeting. Again the National Party Govemment has balanced the books, and not one Labor State Government in Australia has been able to balance its books. We on this side of the House have not spoken about what the Labor Party promises the people of Queensland. It will legalise homosexuality. Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that great? That will cause a large number of people to come to Queensland! The Labor Party will legalise dmgs, including marijuana. Do the people of Queensland want that? No way in the world. It is being indicated to me that I should wind up my speech. I should really like to be able to say more on this subject. I conclude on this point: the reality is that the Labor Party will need a swing of 14 seats to become the Government, and there is no way that that will happen. Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (3.16 p.m.), in reply: What has characterised the contributions of the members of the National Party and of the Liberal Party is that they have attacked the Labor Party. Therein lies the source of their concern. They are scared stiff about the election of a Labor Government. As they well know, this discussion relates to the confidence in the leadership of this Govemment and the administration of this State. Where were the outpourings of confidence? Where were the outpourings of praise for their leader and their Cabinet? There were none, because their heart was not in it. What is more, it did not occur to them to say anything positive at all about their administration of this State. Instead, they were on the back foot throughout the debate, defensive, trying to break down the Labor Party, which they see as a threat. Most significantly, the debate has exposed the Liberal Party, those closet Nationals at the back of the Chamber who, on each of the issues set out in the letter, have followed the Labor Party in recent months like a pup, trying to pick up our lines and our press releases and copy them—calling for the Govemment to be removed, calling for an election and expressing lack of confidence in the Govemment. But, when the Liberals were put to the test, what did they do? They folded. They backflipped away as they have always folded and backed away, in the same way as they fell back and were too weak to stand up to the Nationals during 26 years of coalition. Whenever they have been put to the test they have failed. A cartoon by Will Mitchell in the Queensland Times sums it up. The first panel depicts a beleaguered Mr Ahem being tugged on the back by what appears to be Angus Innes in a dress, carrying a rolling-pin, poking, proding and calling Mike Ahem names. The heading is, "A facade". In the next panel Mr Mitchell depicts the tmth. Behind the facade, those two are in the coalition sheets together. That is what we have seen today. When the cmnch came, when the test was on, the Liberals folded. They are closet Nationals and they have exposed the fact that a vote for the Liberals in the forthcoming election is a vote for the Nationals. When this Govemment was under pressure and when this Premier was under pressure on a range of issues and the Liberals were being critical, what did the Liberals do? They propped up the Nationals in the same way as they did in coalition for so long. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out. Matter of Public Importance 5 September 1989 349

the Premier has more support in the Liberal Party ranks than in the National Party back bench, considering the numbers last week. He has more support from the member for Sherwood and the other closet Nationals who sit in the back comer, where they hide away, than from the National Party back bench. What did the Premier have to say? Did he deal with the record of his Govemment? No. He talked about the airline strike. Everybody knows the damage that that strike is doing to the economy of this State and country. Everybody knows that we cannot afford to give in to those outrageous demands because of the consequential potential for a wages break-out. What is this Govemment doing except what it is always doing—complaining, whinging and whining. That is no solution. That is not the action of a positive Government. The Premier, in responding on behalf of himself and his Government, had nothing to offer in defence. He had nothing to offer that would engender confidence, which is what the motion is about. I was not in the Chamber when the Minister for Finance spoke. I heard his comments on the television, and they appeared to relate to some doubt about electoral reform and the Fitzgerald inquiry. Let me again place on the record the Labor Party's commitment to electoral reform pursuant to the establishment of the commission. Our qualification, which we have always stated, is that we will not accept watered-down legislation or hacks being appointed to the commission. If the Govemment qualifies it, it will compromise the integrity of the whole process. If it establishes a competent commission and one of integrity, we will accept its recommendations on electoral reform. That is our commitment to Fitzgerald, irrespective of the reform. It was pathetic to watch the Leader of the Liberal Party trying to squirm and wriggle his way off the barbed-wire fence. I can understand that. Because he is so firmly ensconced on the barbed-wire fence, he must have been in great pain. He deserved all of that pain. As he discovered at his press conference, the more he wriggled, the more painful it became. What could the Liberal Leader come up with to defend the indefensible propping- up of the National Party? He alleged some deal with seven members of the National Party back bench. As everybody knows, there is no deal. It was a dishonest, deceitful ploy to try to cover up the embarrassment and the tme intention of the Liberal Party. There will be no crossing of the floor. There will be no abstaining. The people who have been talking openly to members of the Labor Party, members of the press and members of the public about their concem and dismay and their lack of confidence in the National Party will not bite the bullet when the time comes. Now that they know that the Liberals are propping up the National Party, they certainly will not. Standing Orders, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would have correctly pointed out— or should have pointed out—provide for a discussion. However, I agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this issue is so important that there should be a resolution of it. Government members who have been making public statements about their lack of confidence in their leader and their Govemment should be made to stand up and be counted and say where they stand, as should the supine fops from the back of the Chamber, the members of the Liberal Party. You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. We should be calling for a vote. We should be asking members to decide the question. In the best traditions of Westminster, the question before the Parliament should be that this House has lost confidence in the leadership of the Govemment and its administration of this State. I so move. Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. In accordance with the Standing Orders, the motion by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! I mle that at the end of the Leader of the Opposition's time, the discussion will be terminated. Mr GOSS: Very well, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have thought that, if the Premier had nothing to fear from it, he would have accepted a vote. When you spoke previously, Mr Deputy Speaker, you challenged me to move a motion. However, you now want to 350 5 September 1989 Leave to Move Motion Without Notice apply the Standing Orders in a technical way to mn away from a vote. The Liberal Party and the National Party are employing a technical enforcement of the Standing Orders to prevent a vote. Why is the Premier so afraid of a vote? Why is he so afraid to test the numbers on the floor of the House as to whether he has the confidence of the House and of his own party on this issue? Has he the confidence of his own party? If he has nothing to fear from testing the numbers, he will have a vote. If he is not afraid, he will have a vote. Mr Booth challenged the Labor Party to a vote. If the Govemment is going to resort to that tactic, I will comply with the Standing Orders. In respect of the question that the House has lost confidence in the leadership of the Government, pursuant to Standing Order 52 I seek leave to move the motion in those terms. Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. In accordance with my understanding of Standing Order 137, it is not competent for the Leader of the Opposition to seek leave to move such a motion during a debate on a Matter of Public Importance. I seek your advice on that matter, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I seek advice. Mr GOSS: I am seeking leave. I am entitled to seek leave, without debate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been advised that this is a discussion and that I cannot allow the Leader of the Opposition to seek leave to move a motion. 1 cafl the Leader of the Opposition. Mr GOSS: I sought leave pursuant to Standing Order 52. Now that the debate has come to an end, I seek leave under Standing Order 52 to move that motion. Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the time allowed for the discussion has now concluded. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (3.28 p.m.): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. I rose after the discussion had concluded. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the time of two and a half hours for the discussion has now concluded. I am at that point. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will now call the Premier. Mr AHERN: I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. I rose on a point of order and I am entitled to the call. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order. Mr GOSS: Mr Speaker, you mled previously that, as the discussion was on foot, pursuant to Standing Orders you would not allow the seeking of leave. According to your mling, during the course of the discussion, which was up to 3.27 p.m., there was no provision under Standing Orders to seek leave. Immediately after the discussion concluded, after 3.27 p.m., I rose first and, pursuant to Standing Order 52, sought leave to move a motion. You gave me the call. I seek that leave. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 351

Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, in a difficuh time, this is my mling. I mled previously that, during the two and a half hours laid down for discussion, the Leader of the Opposition could not seek leave. I then declared that the two and a half hours had expired. I have since taken a point of order from the Premier, who has sought leave. I will still take that point. I will now commit the question to the House. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57 NOES, 29 Ahem Lee Ardill Austin Lester Braddy Beanland Lickiss Bums Beard Littleproud Campbell Berghofer McCauley Casey Booth McKechnie Comben Borbidge McPhie D'Arcy Burreket Menzel De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Clauson Neal Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Nelson Goss Elliott Newton Hamill FitzGerald Perrett Hayward Fraser Randell McElligott Gamin Row Mackenroth Gately Santoro McLean Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Milliner Gilmore Sherlock Palaszczuk Glasson Sherrin Scott Gunn Simpson Smith Gygar Slack Smyth Harper Stoneman Underwood Harvey Tenni Vaughan Henderson Veivers Warburton Hinton White Wamer Hobbs Wells Hynd Yewdale Innes Tellers: Tellers: Katter Alison Davis Knox Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative.

AIRLINE PILOTS DISPUTE Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development and the Arts) (3.37 p.m.): I move— "That this House places on record its disgust at the failure of the Leader of the Opposition and the parliamentary Labor Party to offer any support to the victims of the crippling airline pilots dispute and their failure to put pressure on their Federal Labor colleagues to develop a solution to the crisis." I move this motion of censure against the Opposition party because of its clearly identified contempt for the interests of the people of Queensland, in particular the business and tourism sector. This has been most obvious in the Queensland Labor Party's failure to make any attempt to exert pressure on its Federal Labor colleagues as the impact of the airline pilots dispute cuts deeper into the economy of this State. In particular, I point out that while tourist centres slowly and painfully go broke because of the lack of available air charter transport, the Leader of the Opposition has been jetting around this State on a political campaign trail, partly at the expense of unwitting trade union members. It is of no concem to him that the plane that he has been using for purely political purposes may well have been needed for more important business or family uses by stranded tourists and others. 352 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

I point out in passing that Govemment planes have been made available at all times for medical emergencies and that during this airline pilots strike all spare seats have been listed with Ansett Airlines for use by stranded passengers. However, it is not the rather untimely and ill-considered use of badly needed aircraft by the Opposition Leader that concerns the Government; it is his and his party's total failure to make any positive contribution to the process of solution-seeking on the airline strike issue that demands censure. Here we have a man who seeks to become Premier of this State and yet has no ideas, no solutions, no influence and no desire to help Queensland business-operators in their time of need. Here we have a man who has been sending political love letters to business-leaders while standing idly on the sidelines as they bleed to death through high interest rates. I would have expected at least some token expression of concern at the performance of his Canberra colleagues. I would have thought that even the Opposition Leader would have been appalled by the cynical approach of Bob Hawke, who clearly believes in the class war judging by his Jekyll-and-Hyde attitude to pilots and wharfies, because if you go by Mr Hawke's actions and statements, airline pilots are fair game while wharfies are a protected species. Airline pilots are subjected to verbal abuse by Hawke because of their pay claims while wharfies are massaged with promises of golden handshakes. The real impact of this dispute on Queensland at this stage is incalculable. It mns into millions of dollars daily. One estimate is that each day Australian tourist operators and affiliated business are losing up to $100m and that as each second ticks by the airlines dispute costs us $1,150. That amounts to about $l.4m during the course of this speech. Some tourist resorts are being plunged into financial crisis from which they will never be able to recover. They are bleeding badly. In some cases, they are dying. Mr Ardill: Have you made the Govemment plane available? Mr AHERN: Yes. We know that, in the Townsville region alone, estimated tourism losses are well on the way to $lm. We know that associated businesses such as restaurants and gift shops are experiencing major difficulties. I know of one restaurant in Brisbane that suffered a drop of $50,000 in its normal revenue for this period. Most casual staff in the Cairns tourism industry have been laid off. One major hotel in that city employed 45 per cent of its staff as casuals. They are now all out of work. In some instances. Great Barrier Reef island occupancy rates are now down as low as 30 per cent. In some areas, staff have been employed on the basis of meals only being supplied. At one resort, wages have been reduced to 40 per cent of the usual wage. Because of the pilots dispute, employees have been told, "Take it or leave it." The Gold Coast is even worse off, where occupancy rates in some instances are as low as 20 per cent. The north coast and other regions are suffering similar problems. Because the Leader of the Opposition has not lifted one finger to support the plight of business during the airlines dispute, he obviously has no answers. In fact, if one analyses his comments in recent months, one will see that he has no original ideas at all—because he is a prisoner of the trade union factions that dominate every activity within the Queensland Labor Party. He would not be game to take on a trade union in this State. Every businessman who has received one of the pleas for assistance from the Leader of the Opposition should remember that. Let there be no mistake—the Labor Party in this State is mn by the trade union movement. In tum, any future Labor Government would be mn by the trade unions. Tomorrow, this State sees the beginning of an inquiry into the cormpt activities of trade union officials. If honourable members are to believe reports in the media, the taxation hounds have already started baying at the heels of Labor trade union officials who have, over the years, lined their pockets with membership fees. What is Labor's answer? Wind up the inquiry! We all know that through the levy system millions of Airiine Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 353

dollars in trade union membership fees have ended up in the Labor Party's hands. But how much has ended up in Labor pockets and how much has been spent on Labor Party campaigns from the slush funds that are rife in the trade union movement? Let us analyse further the failure of the Opposition to support the business and economic base of Queensland. Let us examine closely the link between Federal Labor policies, which are so ardently supported by the Queensland Labor Party, and the disastrous plight of many families, farmers, business people and tourist operators. Let us see why as a nation we have been classed in the same investment bracket as Spain and why we are slowly becoming the economic servant class of the South Pacific. At the heart of the problem is our centralised wage-fixing system, which has no relevance to productivity that is driving the rest of the Westem World. Earlier I mentioned our wharfie friends, who are a classic example of what is wrong with Labor's wages policies. Here we have a group of people who operate with a very serious contempt for the productivity ethic. The Federal Budget, which is curtently before the Federal Parliament, provides $37m for golden handshakes for Federal members of Parliament. Export goods that reach Australian wharves at competitive prices imme­ diately become expensive and uncompetitive on overseas markets once they are handled by our wharfie gangs. Although Australia has a deregulated banking system and a free-floating dollar, we rigidly maintain a centralised wage-fixing system of the type long since abandoned by our overseas competitors. Those countries are more interested in productivity-based wage-fixing processes. While our balance of payments crisis continues to maintain terrifying levels of interest rates, the family unit undergoes further suffering. All of these policies come to us courtesy of the Labor Party and its unholy and very one-sided alliance with the trade union movement. This country is now mn by the ACTU. In Queensland at present the Labor Party keeps its partnership with the trade union movement at a very low profile. One could say that its profile is lower than a snake's belly. So it should be! Already very serious allegations have been levelled by union members against one senior ALP official who is a leading trade union figure. And there are more to come. Even more serious is the pact that is spelt out in Labor Party policy here but which is never referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in his forays into the world of business. That pack includes the total dismantling of Queensland's essential services legislation that protects our families and businesses from the thuggery of the unions. In moving this motion of censure I end on a positive note by repeating the proposal that I made last week-end, namely, that the Federal Govemment immediately appoint an independent arbitrator to settle the airlines dispute. The pilots of this country are not members of the ACTU. They are not party to the Accord, so an issue of this sort is of no interest to them. Clearly there is an obligation on the Federal Govemment to try to resolve this crippling dispute. Today in this House the Labor Party has not lifted a finger to do anything other than to play party politics. When asked by a Courier-Mail reporter whom I had in mind for such a daunting task, one person immediately sprang to mind. That man has carried out two major reviews for the Federal Govemment. One involved a recommendation of a commission which split the Postmaster-General's Department into Telecom and Australia Post. After fulfilling that role he took on the job of directing Australia Post through an incredible tangle of trade union problems and put it firmly on its feet. He carried out a review of tourism for the Labor Govemment and headed tourism and small-business boards for the Queensland Govemment. The man to whom I refer is a successful businessman who has operated major tourist ventures and given Queensland a blueprint for major prisons reform, which involved more dialogue with union officials. He is also a board member of several major Australian companies and the Commonwealth Bank. I firmly believe that he has the

101362—12 354 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

capacity, the will, the experience and the skills to bring about a rapid solution to the airlines crisis. In the interests of Queenslanders and, indeed, all Australians I take this opportunity to urge the Federal Labor Govemment to abandon its aggressive rhetoric long enough to appoint an independent tribunal of one man—Jim Kennedy—to settle the dispute. I hope that the Opposition will take up my call, but I doubt it. The tragedy is that the Labor Party is impervious to the suffering of Queensland business. It does not want to get involved in the difficult but necessary process of dealing with labour and management problems, particularly when trade unions are involved. The Labor Party will not support voluntary employment agreements even though they are based on a better deal for workers and better productivity for employers. However, VEAs for pilots are now being suggested by the Federal Labor Govemment as one solution to the problem. Will Labor in Queensland not have egg on its face if that eventually happens? Labor actively supports and embraces into its party hierarchy trade union officials whose very questionable activities demand explanation. The Opposition is a captive and a slave of the trade union movement in Queensland and deserves condemnation for its failure to adopt a positive and helpful approach during this period of crisis in Australia. In order to bring home to all Queenslanders the unhealthy and sometimes sinister link between the Queensland Labor Party and the worst elements of the trade union movement, this censure motion must be carried. The motion underlines the inability of the Labor Party and its leadership to offer hope for the family, business and mral producers of Queensland. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Indus­ trial Affairs) (3.50 p.m.): I second this motion of censure of the Labor Party, its leaders and all who are connected with it for the way in which they have said absolutely nothing during the past two weeks when almost no aeroplanes have been flying—at least not those from Ansett, Australian Airlines and East-West. Australia is the laughing-stock of the world. Business throughout the world is looking upon Australia as the country that cannot deliver, yet the ALP in Queensland has done absolutely nothing. In addition, because Queensland is the fastest growing tourist mecca in Australia, Queensland's tourism industry is affected more than that of any other State. More resorts are being built in Queensland than in any other State. More overseas visitors come to Queensland than they do to any other State. However, the Labor Party in Queensland wants to pretend that nothing is happening. In common with Mr Hawke, members of the Labor Party are playing their fiddles while Rome bums. That has been picked up by the media. While the pilots dispute continues, the cost to Queensland is absolutely outrageous. The longer the dispute continues, the more devastating will be the effects. Tourist authorities have told me that Queensland is losing $21m a week in revenue from international and domestic flights into Queensland. In other words, direct spending by tourists, both interstate and overseas, is reduced by $21m. As the strike continues, that figure will escalate. If the dispute is not settled, it will create far more permanent damage. Already overseas travel agents are placing tourists in other destinations throughout the world. Yesterday it was claimed that one overseas entrepreneur, who is responsible for about 25 000 passengers coming to Australia each year, will be directing that business to Europe, south-east Asia and other countries. Mr Milliner: What is his name? Mr LESTER: Mr Milliner's comments are not extremely intelligent. He should be listening to what I am saying so that he can leam about the great devastation that this dispute is causing to Queensland. Because overseas organisers have absolutely no idea when the strike will conclude, many conventions are being cancelled up to two years ahead. The Japanese are very Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 355

regimented people who tend to go along the line and not to deviate from it. If there is any uncertainty in the future about tourist movements, the Japanese will cancel their bookings and go elsewhere in the world. That is a crying shame. The simple fact is that Australia has much more to offer than do many other parts of the world. Even Queensland as a State has much more to offer than do most other parts of the world. Perhaps British Columbia in Canada would be on a par with Queensland. Queensland can offer plenty of open space, many up-market resorts equal to or better than the best in the world, the Great Barrier Reef, Cape York Peninsula, the Stockman's Hall of Fame, the gem-fields in the Central Highlands, Camarvon Gorge, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and cities such as Toowoomba. Queensland has it all. Queensland is about to tap markets from the intemational scene in a way bigger than has occurred before. In fact, the Boeing report has indicated that by 1995 the number of tourists coming into Queensland will be double what it presently is. That will happen without Queensland really being promoted. The effects of this present dispute will be felt in the short term for up to five years and in the long term for up to 10 years. At times people seem to believe that only the airline companies, tourist resorts, motels and bus lines are missing out because of the dispute. It goes much further than that. What about the tyres on hire cars? What about the beef that people eat? What about the groceries? What about the builders who will lose jobs because of the uncertainty of our future? That is the real situation facing the State of Queensland and, indeed, the rest of Australia. That has a further damaging effect on our economy, the stock-market and every other indicator. It also has the effect of bringing down our credit-rating even further again. Australia cannot really afford to be rated lower than the present AA2. Queensland's leading industry now is tourism. With a lot of hard work, tourism has taken the lead from industries such as the sheep industry, the beef industry and the coal industry. But tourism is being allowed to be sabotaged. What has the Commonwealth Government done about it? It has given the community two weeks of rhetoric and two weeks of absolutely nothing. Now the airlines are not talking at all, the unions are not talking to the airlines and the Industrial Relations Commission is sitting back doing absolutely nothing whatever to get the parties together. It is a fact that the Industrial Relations Commission is funded by money raised in taxes to ensure that it functions. The commission cannot hide behind the fact that the pilots award no longer exists. It cannot hide behind the fact that the pilots have lost their jobs. Everybody knows that this is a temporary thing and that if the dispute were to be settled, all of those matters would be overcome. Only today an article in the Sun—and it is there for everybody to see—states that the airline pilots have said that perhaps they would like to talk on the issue. The reason they would like to talk is that it is starting to hurt. It might not be starting to hurt the senior captain very much, but it is starting to hurt those airline pilots who are a little down the seniority line. Many of them have not been in the industry for very long. They would not have amassed an enormous amount of superannuation. They would live in fashionable suburbs such as Ringwood in Melboume. Their children would be attending the better schools. They would have large loans and they would be paying the present high interest rates. The effect of the dispute would be starting to hit home very, very forcefully. That is the reason why Captain McCarthy has said today that the pilots would like to talk. Quite obviously, they would like to talk. But the Hawke Govemment is doing nothing to facilitate those talks. The Industrial Relations Commission is doing absolutely nothing about it. I really wonder what Mr Hawke's tactics are. It is obvious that he is a mate of Sir Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch. The dispute probably does not worry Peter Abeles or Rupert Murdoch because they have other interests in various parts of the world. Their other freight lines are doing particularly well. They can come up with a deal that in the long term will obviously be beneficial to them. But while they are coming up 356 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute with this deal that will be better for them in the long term, they are going to wreck our country. I ask: why can they not come up with the deal now and get on with the job? Not to be all rhetoric and no action, the Queensland Govemment has taken very definite action. Today it has contacted the Industrial Relations Commission. The Govemment has put to Mr Justice Maddem a submission setting out all of the reasons why he should endeavour, through that commission, to bring the parties together. That facsimile was sent to Mr Justice Maddem early this morning. I seek leave to table this letter so that everybody may see it and to show that the Govemment is quite genuine in what it is putting forward to the Industrial Relations Commission. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr Vaughan: What took you so long? Mr LESTER: The obvious reason it has taken a while is that it is a Federal dispute and the Queensland Govemment expected the Commonwealth Govemment to take some action. Instead, the Federal Govemment sat down and let Rome bum while Mr Hawke played his fiddle. Mr Hawke has had an opportunity to do something about this matter, but he has done nothing. He has kowtowed to Sir Peter Abeles, Rupert Murdoch and a few other people. The Queensland Govemment now has no option other than to call upon the Industrial Relations Commission to do something. If the Govemment had moved at an earlier stage to invoke the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act, the Opposition in this place and the Federal Govemment would have said that this Government was trying to cause trouble and they would have blamed it for anything that had gone wrong. As a result, the State Govemment has allowed the Federal Govemment to do its job. It has failed to do it, so the State Govemment has come out and done it. It is hoped that a reply will be received from the Industrial Relations Commission within 48 hours. Surely that would be sufficient time in which to get organised. If a reply is not received within that time, I expect that the Prime Minister will ask the Industrial Relations Commission to take action. The commission has the power to do the job and bring the parties together. 1 challenge it to get on with the job. The stage has now been reached at which the tourist industry has embarked upon a course of obtaining its own mediator. Shame upon the Federal Govemment! By legislation passed recently through the Commonwealth Parliament the Industrial Relations Commission was set up as the be-all and end-all for resolving strikes. It has failed. The tourist industry now has to endeavour to obtain a mediator to do the job of the commission. It is very clear that if the Commonwealth Govemment fails to act, the Queensland Govemment will have no option except to get behind the tourism industry in providing every possible assistance to the mediator in resolving the dispute. Together with many industry groups in Queensland, including tourist industry representatives, the Queensland Government has adopted the approach of providing support Mr Borbidge: They fully support our initiatives. Mr LESTER: They totally support what the Govemment is doing. They are totally behind this Govemment. They are doing all they can and the Govemment is taking appropriate action. It is obvious that industry representatives and the Queensland Govemment will have to get behind the mediator to work towards a resolution. We will have to leave Mr Hawke to fiddle while Rome bums. I wish to make some comments about the Commonwealth Govemment's attitude that has disturbed me very greatiy. The suggestion has been made that the Federal Govemment will pay compensation to the airlines, but no indication has been given by the Federal Govemment that it will pay compensation to the small-business people who are really being hurt by this dispute. I would have thought that when the airlines are not even talking to the unions, Mr Hawke could hardly come forward and say, "Look, Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 357

I'll pay you compensation. I will help pay your bills. It is okay; keep on with the strike. It is all right." That would be one of the most atrocious statements I have heard in recent times. Wealthy airline companies are being offered compensation by the Commonwealth Govemment, which would be an indication to the airlines to keep their planes on the ground. That is all that the compensation will help them do. They will never want to meet the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and have the situation resolved before the Industrial Relations Commission. If Mr Hawke is in the mood to offer compensation, I ask him, "What about the tourist operators who are paying off high interest bank loans that are currently anything up to 25 per cent under this Federal ALP Govemment?" The Federal Govemment is not going to help them. They will go down the gurgler. What about industries that are currently being established? The Prime Minister does not intend to help them and he does not intend to help the thousands of people who have already lost their jobs or those who will lose their jobs. What about aU the part- time employees in this State and other States of Australia? The Prime Minister is not going to help them. It is very clear that when the chips are down, the Prime Minister sucks up to the bigger business people. Mr Vaughan: Oh! Mr LESTER: That is tme. There is no other way of describing it. The Prime Minister is getting down on bended knee and is doing exactly what Sir Peter Abeles or Rupert Murdoch tells him to do. Rupert Murdoch has dual nationality and does not think that Australia is good enough for him. He has taken out American citizenship. That is an indication of what the Prime Minister thinks about the battlers who live in Australia. I suggest that the losers in this dispute will be Australian Airlines and the tax­ payers. It is clear that Mr Hawke is prepared to allow his mates Sir Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch to get richer during this strike. If Australian tax-payers have to subsidise Australian airlines, the Prime Minister says, "Well, so what?" It does not worry Mr Hawke. The result will be that Sir Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch will be able to keep East-West Airlines, which is a monopoly owned by them. There is an interesting odour about the whole scenario. Although I know a great deal more about what is going on behind the scenes, perhaps this is not the time to discuss it. I believe that the airline dispute can be resolved. There is no risk about it. I believe also that at some point in the future it will be solved. I have no doubt that the actions of the mediator, who is quite likely to be the person referted to by the Premier, will be the focal point for the introduction of national voluntary employment agreements. That is what will come out of the airlines dispute. That is why Mr Hawke and the Industrial Relations Commission do not want to be involved in resolving the dispute. Honourable members can bet their boots that the deal will mean that airline pilots will spend more than eight hours a week engaged in actually flying aircraft and that their working time will increase to 16 or 17 hours a week. The pilots will probably receive more money than they receive now, but the airlines will be able to operate with fewer pilots. Instead of having to employ 1 600 pilots, the airlines will probably need only 900. As a result, the airlines will obtain greater levels of productivity from pilots and better value for the dollar. Better productivity will enable the existing airlines—Ansett, Australian Airlines and East-West—to compete with the new airlines that wiU be established next year. Capital and Compass. Those new companies will base their operations in Brisbane. The reason they intend to establish their base in Brisbane is that they intend to employ pilots on a totally different basis. The deal will involve a voluntary employment contract whereby pilots will be asked to fly probably 16 or 17 hours a week. It will be a productivity- based agreement. Pilots will be paid in accordance with their ability. In the future, it may be the case that airline disputes will not exist. 358 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

Clearly the whole matter must be resolved now and it must be resolved quickly. The Australian nation has woken up to the fact that if Australia is to be competitive it must change from the ordinary wage-fixing system that exists on the wharves and in other places, and move towards contracts of employment and productivity agreements. Mr Hawke obviously knows this and that is why he cannot be a part of what is happening at the present time. It is to Mr Hawke's shame that he is not allowing the Industrial Relations Commission to come up with this type of deal. It is possible because all the awards have been cancelled. The Industrial Relations Commission could negotiate with the pilots and the airlines, come up with a productivity agreement or a national voluntary employment agreement and quickly get the pilots back into the air. The average pilot wants to work longer hours and many of them have been ashamed of the short hours that they have worked in the past. They want to receive more money for the extra hours that they will be working, and this will keep Australia competitive on the international scene. Through a national voluntary employment agreement, pilots will receive all of these benefits and more, and the airlines will be more efficient. There would have been a solution if Mr Hawke had bothered to act. Obtaining the services of an outside mediator will take time, but this will have to happen if the Industrial Relations Commission continues to do nothing. There is no doubt that the mediator will come up with a basis upon which the pilots are paid according to their productivity. In censuring the members of the Queensland ALP, the National Party says, "Shame on them." They have not got behind any moves to implement a productivity-based agreement. It is irksome to them. They do not understand that many of the most successful companies in Queensland operate under all sorts of productivity agreements. The use of these agreements is expanding and it is about time that the ALP understood that it is all about productivity. If Australia wants to be competitive with other nations, it has to provide people with an incentive to work based on productivity. Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (4.11 p.m.): What a pathetic, irrelevant side-show this National Party Govemment has become! What characterised the Premier's speech is that it was yet again another attack upon me and the Labor Party. What stmck me about his speech and the speeches that have been made throughout the day is that the members of the National Party are already starting to behave like the Opposition. They are in training to become the Opposition and are not doing a very good job. They are obviously scared of the election, which is why they ran away from the debate on the question of confidence. I suspect that never before in the history of this Parliament has a Premier faced a debate that has proceeded all day on the question of confidence and then used Standing Orders to avoid having to face a vote. The Premier, who had nothing to say about the pilots dispute this morning, suddenly wandered into this House this afternoon and read word for word a speech prepared for him by one of his minders. Having finished the speech, he then pathetically walked out, leaving the debate and his so-called concem behind. Apart from the Minister who has just spoken, the other members of the Ministry also walked out. Almost all of the members of the National Party back bench walked out as well; and yet this is a Cabinet and a party that would parade and stmt before this House and claim that they have some genuine concern and that the Opposition has not. Look at the respective numbers! Look at who is here to contribute to this debate! Not the members of Cabinet or the other members of the National Party; they have gone off to plot and scheme. The members of the Labor Party are here in strength. The members of the Liberal Party are not here because they have gone off with their tails between their legs having been caught on the barbed wire this morning. What a pathetic bunch this would-be conservative coalition is! The Premier made a point of saying that the Labor Party in Queensland did not have anything positive to suggest or any encouraging voice to raise in relation to the predicament in which the tourist industry and other people find themselves as a result of this dispute. This is not tme; it is a lie. The Premier is so busy defending his own back that he is not aware that detailed statements and proposals were advanced last Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 359

week by Mr Gibbs, the shadow Minister for Tourism, who will go into them in more detail during this debate. In these proposals the ALP outlines practical measures, and I place on record the fact that the Opposition will support any practical measure that this Government or anyone else comes up with that will alleviate the harmful consequences of the pilots strike which is doing tremendous damage to this country's economy and this State's economy in particular. The Opposition regrets this dispute and is happy to be involved in and support any positive moves. The Premier calls for tough action and talks tough, but what does this National Party Govemment offer the businesses and tourist industry in this State? It offers them a three-page fax that was sent to the Industrial Relations Commission. This Govemment talks tough, but it asks someone else to solve the problem for it. What a pathetic, irrelevant side-show! I will nail another lie that was propagated previously. The allegation or suggestion by the Premier—without any evidence or detail—was that I or other members of the Labor Party had used aeroplanes which could have been used to provide transport for standard tourists. That is simply false; it is a lie; I have not used a plane, charter or otherwise, for such a purpose. I have engaged in one flight during the period of the strike, and it was a commercial flight. I booked, took my place in the queue and got a seat accordingly. This contribution by the Govemment has been pathetic. Even the Minister who seconded the motion has now wandered off. So great is the concern of the Premier and the seconder of the motion that they have both wandered off. They are not interested in the debate and their colleagues are not here, except in the smallest and least-talented numbers, to back up the debate. The Premier and the Leader of the Liberal Party bleated away and complained about the fact that the Labor Party has been in contact with the business community and has indeed written to the business community. What a terrible offence to have written to the business community outHning details of our transition-to-Govemment arrangements and our attitude to economic management and the business community! What hurts is that they are not getting the invitations and they are not getting the respect that the Labor Party is getting, and the Leader of the Liberal Party is particularly hurt by the people who, he thinks, are his actual constituency ignoring him. What the Liberals and the other conservatives have forgotten is that, so far as the business community is concemed, the mles have changed. The respect and support of the business community has to be eamed. The business community is laughing at the Liberal Party. It would have some respect for that party if that party had an agenda, a policy or a commitment to change. People who simply want to manage and occupy positions of power do not deserve respect and support. That is why the Liberal Party is not getting the invitations or a hearing from the business community and why the Labor Party is. I have expressed my concem and other Labor members have expressed their concem for the consequences of this strike. The Minister, in seconding the motion, exposed the hollow nature of the motion. He said it was a Federal issue. It is. There are severe limitations on what a State Govemment or a State Opposition can do. I repeat that members of the Labor Party are prepared to support any practical measure that this Government or anybody else can devise. The Premier referred to our failure to speak out on interest rates. We have done so and we have expressed our concern to our Federal colleagues. They peddle their own rates and they take their responsibility for that. We will peddle our rates and set our own agenda and we will be responsible for that. Reference was made to the terrible cost of this dispute. The shadow Minister for Tourism will debate the cost and the practical measures that the Labor Party has advocated but which the Govemment has not taken up. The Premier referred to the continuance of the strike and the damage it is causing. By the same token, if the pilots are allowed to get away with a 30 per cent pay increase, will they strike to support the storemen and packers and the transport workers at the 360 5 September 1989 Airiine Pilots Dispute airport who will want a 30 per cent increase as well? We can all bet our bottom dollar that they will not. They are in it for themselves. The centralised wage-fixing system has been a great success. It is not perfect by any means but it is working. That is in stark contrast to the complete policy vacuum from the Federal and State Nationals and Liberals. If a 30 per cent increase were to be demanded and obtained by the powerful unions, such as the pilots union, the wages break-out would destroy the economy. Is that what the National Party and the Liberal Party seriously suggest? If they do, they will drive further from them any remaining respect for them in the business community. The people in the business community can see the benefit of the centralised wage-fixing system. They can see and they respect the restraint that the ordinary working people and the broad cross-section of the trade union movement have shown in this country for years. People have accepted, in the national interest, restraint in their standards of living and their pay increases. They include unions with the muscle and power to demand and get more. But they have exercised restraint. They have done their bit. They have played their part. The moves taken by the Federal Government to improve the lot of those workers by introducing tax cuts and improving family allowances, are to be applauded. The workers have eamed those improvements. Whatever faults it has, the centralised wage-fixing system is streets ahead of anything that has come from the Nationals and the Liberals, the would-be, if they could be, coalition in this place. The shadow Minister for industrial relations and employment, Mr Nev Warburton, has spoken widely to people in the business community and to industry groups about the Labor industrial relations policy, and they are prepared to work with and support the Labor Party. The Govemment commissioned yet another QC, Mr Hanger, to conduct an inquiry, which produced a report. The greatest industry in this State is the appointment of inquiries by Queen's Counsel, jobs for lawyers, the lawyer-led recovery. In any event, Mr Hanger produced a report and the Labor Party is prepared to work within its framework. So are the unions and the business community. The Labor Party has a rational framework for the management of the economy and industrial relations. The Labor Party has helped to establish it and has given a commitment to the business community, and the unions will accept it and work within it. That is more than can be said for either the Liberals or the Nationals. Labor members are on the record as proposing positive measures and expressing concem. We repeat our preparedness to support any practical and positive measures to reduce the harm caused by this strike by the pilots who are acting in their own selfish interests. We reject this token motion moved by the Premier and seconded by the Minister, both of whom walked away. Such is their lack of genuine concem and their hypocrisy that they read speeches word for word and then turned their backs and walked away in a cowardly fashion, the same as the Premier when he walked away from the members of the press gallery yesterday when he was asked questions. In walking away from this Chamber and the members of the press gallery they are walking away from the public and turning their backs on the public who will register their support for the Labor Party as a consequence. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.22 p.m.): The real test of a person is often how he reacts when he is under pressure. When he has been caught out, watch how he reacts. The Leader of the Opposition has shown his mettle. He completely misread the Standing Orders. He brought on the debate this morning about the competence of the Govemment. He did that under the Standing Orders. He wrote a letter to Mr Speaker. He was allowed to proceed with the matter of public importance. It did not involve the moving of a motion. Time expired and the debate expired. He is now trying to convert that Mr Hayward: You did not think it was urgent this morning. You said it was a waste of time. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 361

Mr INNES: No. We were quite happy about the debate. What I objected to was the possibility that other Liberal members and I would not be able to have our say in the debate. The Liberal Party would have voted against a curtailment of the debate. However, the Leader of the Opposition failed to put a motion to the House and the debate expired. Now he tries to distort and convert that into the fact that somehow he was not allowed to move a motion. What is more, he, in turn, opposed the Premier, who had the right under Standing Orders to move a motion without notice to bring on a debate about something that Mr Goss did not like. When caught out, because he shot himself in the foot, the Leader of the Opposition told untmths about the reality and limitations of the Standing Orders. He caught himself out. Mr Warburton: You are a political novice. Mr INNES: No. The novices are the people who do not know what Standing Orders to use or how to use them. The options of the Leader of the Opposition were simple: to attempt to move a motion without notice or to bring on the debate by a letter to the Speaker. He brought on the debate by a letter to the Speaker and the debate expired. It is as simple as that. Once again, in his desperation for the limelight, the Leader of the Opposition failed to look at the details necessary to prosecute his case, shot himself in the foot and told fibs about the resulting situation. He is embartassed. He promised a vote. However, he did not use a Standing Order which would have allowed him to get a vote. If he is not prepared to look at the details, he is not capable of goveming the State. The Labor Party talks about concrete and specific programs for the future, but there is nothing concrete and nothing specific; it is all flimflam. It talks about well-produced documents containing 10 points for the economic development of this State, but they contain nothing. It does not have significant proposals for the good Govemment of this State. Mr Hamill: What are your proposals? Mr INNES: The policies of the Liberal Party have been put to the community. If the honourable member cannot catch up with the rate of Liberal Party policies such as the abolition of land tax and the progressive reduction of rail freights to encourage coal­ mining in electorates such as Mr Hamill's Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There are too many multiple interjec­ tions in the Chamber. I also draw the attention of the honourable member for Sherwood to the fact that the motion before the Chair is of a specific nature. Mr R. J. Gibbs: He doesn't understand. What a yob! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wolston! The motion is of a specific nature. I fail to see much relevance in the comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party. Mr INNES: They are as relevant as the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke about all the matters to which I just referred. I am certainly coming to the question of the airline strike. The reason why the member for Wolston is excited about the subject is that he avails himself regularly of airline flights. In fact, he manages to get himself out of the country on private business at times of important debates in this House such as the debate on the Fitzgerald inquiry—unlike the member for Yeronga, who flew back specifically to be here 24 hours before the debate occurred. The Liberal Party was the only party that had all its members in the House for the debate on the Fitzgerald inquiry. It made sure that it mustered them. Mr Goss and the Labor Party are upset because the essence of the debate relates to industrial relations matters, and that is the Achilles heel, the underbelly, the pressure point which makes them squirm. 362 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

Mr Comben: How do you relate that to the Achilles heel? You are mixing your metaphors. Mr INNES: I certainly am. When I look at the honourable member, I see why I mix metaphors. The reaUty is that the Leader of the Opposition, as the motion states, has not proposed anything concrete or specific. He has been remarkably silent. He brays every day. He is called "Whinging, whining Wayne" throughout the State, yet he has not said anything significant on the most important economic factor to affect the economy of this State in the past year. This State is going backwards at an enormous rate of knots. The problem is not merely passengers being stranded and being unable to get to five-star hotels. Behind every five-star hotel is a constmction project and the providers of small-business services—the people who do the laundry, the people who provide the dining rooms, the people who work in the hotels and the people who look after the golf courses. There are many small-business people. The prospect is that the small-business people of this State will lose $8 billion of future tourist development. It would have provided tens of thousands of jobs for the brick-layers, the concreters, the people who provide the formwork, the carpenters, the tradesmen and the Jacky Howe brigade who have prospered through employment on those projects. It is fascinating that in areas such as the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, in which the great building projects are carried out, all the self-employed people who saw the shackles and limitations of the trade union movement decided to make money by getting outside the strictures of the trade union movement. In those two areas, the Labor Party cannot get votes. The electorate of South Coast is a small-business electorate and has hundreds of thousands of small-business people. At the election in that electorate 18 months ago, the Labor Party's vote was reduced by 9 per cent because it is full of people wanting to get on. It contains ordinary tradesmen and Jacky Howe people with utilities wanting to work. Unless the strike is settled, $8 billion worth of work will not come forward. Before the strike took place, $19 billion worth of new development was proposed. On indications, $ 11 billion worth of development will proceed. Therefore, $8 billion worth of development has been either cancelled or placed in limbo. If Mr Goss is getting round the board rooms, as he claimed, he would be receiving the same message that we have been receiving, and that the Government should receive, that is, the suspension of projects involving $50m and $100m, or more. I notice that Mr D'Arcy is in the Chamber. He is probably involved in some of those projects. That means a loss of jobs for small- business people, tradesmen and other people in the work-force in Queensland.

It is not just a question of people not being able to get to their holiday destinations, it is a question of an extensive network of employment. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Mount Isa, Mr Beard, points out another simple human consequence of this strike, that is, at the end of next week Mr Beard: This week.

Mr INNES: At the end of this week, rather, when the school holidays begin, all the kids who have to return to the west Mr Beard: And the cape and the gulf

Mr INNES: And the cape and the gulf—all the kids from those remote areas who come down to boarding-school not because they are flush with money but because they have to get an education, and they have parents who are prepared to make a sacrifice so that they can get an education, have to get back home. One cannot fly unaccompanied in a Hercules unless one is over the age of 16. On Friday the member for Mount Isa has got to act like the Pied Piper and actually become the honorary parent of those kids and escort them onto the Hercules to get them back home for the holidays. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 363

This catastrophic strike has all sorts of effects. I can recall—and I am sure all honourable members can recall—being stranded in places like Sydney, Melboume and Canberra with great regularity, year after year, because of strikes by aircraft-refuelers, baggage-handlers and other people who work on the ground at airports. There was never a bleat out of Mr Hawke and never a bleat out of the great trade union organisation when those people screwed the country, when they went on their strikes on the Thursday before Good Friday or on Christmas Eve. They strategically chose the times that they went on strike. They know when to put the pressure on. The reality is, of course, that Mr Hawke comes slam, bang into the pilots on this occasion because they are not part of the ACTU. He is showing all that experience that he gained as a union advocate. He has inflamed the situation by launching a vitriolic and intemperate attack on the pilots. The Liberal Party says that criticism of the pilots is totally justified. However, to say that one can leam how to fly in seven hours is a farce and is dishonest. It is widely understood that Mr Hawke's flying career came to an end after seven hours when he was told that he had to use a plane. The reality is that he was usually as high as a kite; he still has delusions of grandeur. What he said was an outrage. It was gratuitously insulting and it inflamed the situation. We have to get the pilots talking to the employers. I do not support the pilots strike. The consequences of their actions make it absolutely wrong. However, what I am saying is that, because of the consequences for the rest of the country and because of the consequences for Queensland, some answer has got to be found. Mr Hamill: Come on. Mr INNES: The answer is, first of all, to abolish centralised wage-fixing. That is the first step. There are airlines flying in Queensland today that employ contract pilots who have a personal obligation to get on with flying, pilots who have not got enough time to have a second job or to mn their own small business. There is an answer. There is no question that pilots are attracted to other jobs in other countries by better conditions. In the last six months I personally have spoken to two pilots, one who went to the Middle East and one who joined Cathay Pacific. They said, "Do you understand why we are going? We want you to understand what the situation is with regard to the taxation stmcture." They made other complaints about the general situation in Australia. Overseas pilots get the same wages as, or higher wages than, Australian pilots. They pay 15 per cent tax. They get paid schooling for their children in Australia. It is very attractive. As far as we can ascertain, all of Cathay Pacific's pilots are Australians. Hong Kong, the base of Cathay Pacific, has a taxation rate of 15 per cent. So there is a reason why the pilots are disgmntled, but there is another side to it. Pilots in Australia do not fly as much as pilots in other parts of the world. That is where the trade-off comes in, provided we get away from this obsession with centralised wage-fixing. The pilots could work more hours. In other words, they could become more productive, for which they could get more pay. There is a trade-off available. The employer and the pilots have got to start talking together. The pilots have got sucked into centralised wage-fixing. They have got sucked into these crazy awards, the rigidities of the system and the no-compromises, which are debilitating this country in general. The pilots are in no different situation with regard to that than anybody else. They might be outside the ACTU, but they are locked into the same rigidity of thinking. The question has to be asked: why does Australia have the highest domestic air fares in the world? Why are people departing this country and taking package tours overseas instead of taking holidays in their own country? It is because it is cheaper to fly to Singapore, Thailand or Fiji than it is to take a holiday and fly within Australia. A whole stack of problems are involved, but one does not get anywhere by pursuing the line that the Federal Govemment has taken. The two parties have to start talking together again. The Liberal Party believes that that is absolutely necessary, that that 364 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute must happen and that trade-offs can occur. They have to occur in the interests of this State as well as this country. The bad-mouthing that will occur in intemational tourism will reverberate for years. No tourist likes to get stranded in a foreign country, unable to see the things that he or she at great expense went to see and getting caught and having to pay the extra costs that are inevitably involved in breaking a holiday package. That is the sort of bad- mouthing that is devastating to the future tourism prospects of this country. There has already been a down-tum in the tourist industry in Australia. For other reasons, the Japanese tourist market has gone to Europe. This merely aggravates the situation. I believe that it did behove the Leader of the Opposition to make some purposeful statements about the necessity to resolve this crisis, not the flim flam little statements that were made last week somewhere in Caims about the State Govemment compensating people in the tourist industry. As the Leader of the Opposition's own Federal Minister said yesterday, the public purse simply cannot bear the cost of compensating the whole tourist industry. How long does it go on for? The employer and the pilots have to get back together and consider the trade-offs that are possible. We have to look at breaking free of the shackles and ridigities of the centralised wage-fixing system. The reason why the Opposition has stayed out of this is that it involves a dilemma with which it cannot cope, that is the dilemma of the union controls that are imposed upon its party and that totally rigid thinking, which is a recipe for disaster, that it presents to the people of Queensland. Members of the Labor Party do not represent going forward; they represent going backwards and the massive cormption of the economy of this State by the imposition of those high-bound trade union views on all the ways that we operate in Queensland. We are better and more attractive because private enterprise dominates in this State. We can clean up the defects of Govemment and maintain the progress that has been achieved over the last 30 years by staying private enterprise. The answer, of course, as always, is the Liberal Party. Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (4.39 p.m.): Earlier today, honourable members heard some of the worst contributions that have been made in the House. The statements made this afternoon by the Leader of the Liberal Party outranked his dreadful performance this moming. This afiemoon, he attacked the Leader of the Opposition by saying, "The Leader of the Opposition has taken no stance in relation to the airline dispute." However, the Opposition has made an unequivocal statement, not only in this Parliament today but from about the third day of the pilots dispute, that it is prepared to support any measure of conciliation and arbitration to get the pilots back into the air. The member for Sherwood, the Leader of the Liberal Party, entered this Chamber and attacked the Leader of the Opposition. There is one thing I must say that I admire about the National Party. In the 12 years I have been a member of Parliament, the members of the National Party have never adopted the attitude that they are born to rule. They play it dirty and pull every filthy rort in the book. They get down in the gutter, but they have never adopted the bom-to-mle syndrome. Even reduced to the disgusting 11 that one sees on the benches at present, that born-to-mle syndrome, that natural inbred hatred, that detestation of the trade union movement, has never, ever gone; it has always existed just below the surface. Of course, it bubbled up here this afternoon and was presented by the Leader of the Liberal Party, a man who walks into this Chamber with a pompous, bumptious, snobbish attitude. Frankly, the members of the Opposition love those attributes at the moment. We want more of that. Give us the lot! It is the very thing that will keep the Liberal Party from any chance of getting back into Govemment. It will give the Liberal Party its just reward after the next State election, that is, the greatest numbers in Opposition. This morning, the Leader of the Liberal Party walked into this Chamber like a shark; he fled out of the Chamber only minutes ago reduced to little more than a prawn. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 365

Let us compare the attitude of the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland with that of the Federal President of the Liberal Party, John Elliott, who yesterday addressed a major conference of Australian businesspeople and attacked the airline pilots for their greed and for their assumption that they were special people in the community who were entitled to go right out of the conciliation and arbitration system, the central wage- fixing system and the productivity system that were introduced by a Labor Govemment. Basically, John Elliott has agreed with the principles adopted in this instance by the Hawke Labor Government. Today, in the pathetic effort earlier by Mr Lester honourable members saw an example of the desperation of a Government failing and falling. He attacked Sir Peter Abeles for the fourth time. Who would ever have thought that we would see the National Party in this State stoop to that? Worse still, its great political ally of past years, Rupert Murdoch, was castigated for the fourth time today. That indicates to me that the National Party must be picking up the trend that at long last the media believes that there has to be a change of Govemment in Queensland. The election of a Labor Govemment in Queensland is something that Govemment members cannot digest and something with which they cannot come to grips. I advise Govemment members to prepare themselves for the election of a Labor Govemment in Queensland. Whenever they want to call an election, I tell them in two simple words, "It's on." They should understand that—it's on. Members of the Opposition have taken a very progressive stand on what has been proposed on the pilots dispute. On 1 September, we sat down and made some considered decisions about the present ailments of the airline industry. Whether the Government in office is conservative or Labor, it will not have the financial capacity to repair the damage that has been done by these greedy pilots to Australia's, or to Queensland's, tourist industry. That remains a fact, but a person looks at ways and means of alleviating some of the harm that has been done to the people in the industry. That has been a failing of the Government throughout the pilots dispute. I am glad that Mr Lester has re-entered the Chamber. As I said earlier, the Opposition has given an absolute commitment to the tourist industry to provide relief from State taxes, fees and charges to help the industry during the duration of the airline pilots dispute. The Opposition indicated that it would be prepared to sit down with every tourist operator in Queensland, big or small, and say, "Here is what we are prepared to do for you. For the duration of the dispute, as a Labor Government we will make sure that there will be no pay-roll tax paid by you." At the best of times, pay-roll tax is iniquitous. We have indicated to the tourist operators, "If you ensure that there is no dismissal of staff, these are the incentives we offer: no pay­ roll tax to be paid during that period and no electricity charges to be paid on your resorts, whether they be mainland resorts or island resorts." Every electricity charge incurred by businesses during that time will be waived. Land tax, vehicle registration fees and liquor licence fees also will be waived for that period. Those are positive incentives that the Labor Party in Govemment will implement following its election to office later this year. Many excellent co-operative measures are being taken between staff and employers within the tourist industry. Although they are not totally palatable personally, I am the first to accept that if, because of hard times, employees who look like being dismissed want to enter into negotiations with their employer, that is their business. Although some of those private arrangements between employees and employers may not fit the bill that I would like to see implemented, at least they are designed to keep people in employment and to ensure that jobs are protected. I commend the industry for that. Last night on television that gentleman who has been the head of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation for so many years. Sir Frank Moore, was back to his same dirty, shabby, grubby political tricks. Mr Lester: Don't you like him? 366 5 September 1989 Airiine Pilots Dispute

Mr R. J. GIBBS: No, I do not, and I will go on record as saying that I do not like him. I acknowledge Sir Frank Moore as a man of quite some competence. However, I believe that the Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation should be totally impartial and apolitical. The QTTC is not a base for the National Party. It is a sad fact of life that Sir Frank has used, manipulated, derogated, prostituted and abused his position. He has used the QTTC as an arm of Govemment for the National Party and to feather his own nest. I deplore that action, and so should every other thinking citizen in Queensland. Let me compare the proposals of the Opposition with the record of the Queensland Government. In the past couple of weeks since the dispute started, the Govemment has made a number of statements, the most significant of which was not to assist the tourist industry in Queensland. At a time when that industry is in trouble and when sinall business and major business are feeling the buckling financial effects of the airlines dispute, what has the Queensland Govemment done? It has looked after its intemational mates. For example, the Queensland Govemment has given a $10m guarantee to bankroll the Swan Premium motor cycle grand prix. The Premier has guaranteed $10m so that Bob Bamard, who is the promoter behind that whole affair, will continue to stage the Swan Premium motor cycle grand prix in Queensland. Mr Ahem said— "... it was worth it because of recurrent retum over the years." The fact is that Bamard has only a minimum three-year contract to stage the event, but he has been guaranteed $ 10m by the Queensland Govemment. There is no guarantee— and there can be no guarantee—that the $10m will come back into the coffers of Queensland tax-payers over that period. There is no guarantee that the world body that controls the motor cycle promotion will continue to license Australia to stage the race. That international body will not approve an as yet unfinished circuit for world cham­ pionship events. The very same situation applies to another guarantee of $25m that the Queensland Government has given to stage an Indianapolis-style race on the Gold Coast. The Queensland Government has guaranteed $35m for two bodgie, phantom events that will possibly never take place. That will be the greatest prostitution of Queensland tax-payers' funds that this State has ever seen. Neither of those ventures is financially viable and my information is that safety-conscious riders and drivers will not be prepared to support either of those events. I ask honourable members to inspect the road system around Surfers Paradise and the Gold Coast. The Govemment should obtain a report from experts as to how those areas will be transformed into a circuit of international class for grand prix car-drivers. My information is that the Gold Coast consortium that wants to stage an Indian­ apolis-style race at Surfers Paradise next year will endanger the licences for both the Adelaide Formula One Grand Prix and the motor cycle grand prix in Victoria. The Federation for Intemational Sport of Automobile, which is the world body, has never approved an Indianapolis-style race outside continental North America. A decision to go ahead with the ventures will endanger both bike and car events that that organisation is required to approve. I am not prepared at this stage to reveal my source, but I have been informed by an overseas source who is closely involved with both events that to postulate the likelihood of either of those events happening is absolutely false. Here we come into that wonderful involvement that always seems to surface whenever these types of so-called intemational events or the intemational shonk record of the National Party is examined. Who is involved in this Indy-style proposition? None other than that strength of the so-called special events corporation established in Queensland, none other than the doyen of the National Party—again his name pops up—Mr Fred Maybury. He is the chairman of the quango, the special events corporation, which has promoted both the Surfers Indy-style race and now the bike grand prix. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 367

I have been informed by very reliable sources that Maybury has already spent in excess of $200,000 of Queensland tax-payers' money trying to get the Indy event, in cahoots with a gentleman by the name of Waraerford and another—and I cannot use the word "gentleman"—by the name of Ron Dickson. Both of those people were shown the door by none other than the conservative Liberal Party Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, when both of them approached him with this proposition for New South Wales before they decided to take it to the Gold Coast. Both were also shown the door by the Premier of South Australia. Ron Dickson, who was involved in a major way in the Mount Panorama race, was implicated in a major rip-off in Bathurst. He walked off and left millions of dollars of bills owing. It was only after last year's Bathurst race that the Channel 7 network stepped in and was able to pick up the accounts that Dickson had left outstanding for this event. Dickson has absolutely no credibility, either in Australia or in the international racing circuit, but he was able to come into Queensland and, through Maybury, this stooge for the National Party, and through the special events corporation, he was able to convince Premier Ahern that the Government should be bankrolling both of these races in the Gold Coast area. Here is the interesting part about it. The Indy race on the Gold Coast would carry no points for the world championship, it would dismpt Surfers Paradise for three weeks and would attract only second-rate cars and drivers and probably a very small television audience. The simple fact is that, although the bikes have certainly received some recognition in this country over the last few years because of the performances of a very outstanding and excellent Australian champion, Wayne Gardner, bike-racing is not an event which is wholly popular in this country. In certain cities in the United States, the Indianapolis-style racing itself has proven to be an abysmal failure because it cannot compete or compare with Formula One racing. At this moment Queensland's tourist industry is in a crisis but people such as Mr Lester stand up in this House and mouth off cheap platitudes. This Govemment has done absolutely nothing except talk about the chartering of overseas aircraft with overseas pilots to fly the air routes of Queensland. I believe that raises a dreadful spectre and I hope sincerely that it does not happen. However, in relation to air safety control, I have a horrible doubt about the qualifications and the quality of some of these overseas charter companies that are coming into the country at present. I hope that during this strike nothing will happen that could in any way cause a fatality on any of the air routes in this country. The Government can find money to guarantee $3 5m for two shonky events to be held in the Gold Coast area but it cannot pull any money out of its till to assist an industry that is being crippled and that will ultimately be on its knees. One of the great plays that Mr Lester made during his abysmal performance earlier in this debate was to talk about the small tourist operator in Queensland. Let the people of Queensland be well aware that the assistance that this Govemment and the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation have given the small tourist operators in this State is damned disgraceful. The simple fact is that the QTTC hardly gives the small tourist operator a listing. Even less assistance is given by the QTTC if the operator is not prepared to agree with some of the QTTC's political philosophies and a number of people who are associated with it. When I have travelled around this State and spoken to people in the tourist industry, they have been delighted with, and totally receptive to, the attitude of the Labor Party. When the Labor Party comes to Government this year, it will restmcture the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The QTTC will not be allowed to operate in the market­ place proper, where it is competing against the people about whom the Minister has just expressed a concern. At present it is a giant semi-Government corporation going out into the market-place and creaming, screwing and killing off any incentive for small tourist operators. A Labor Party in Govemment will take the QTTC out of the market­ place. The Government has no role in that particular facet of the industry. The Labor 368 5 September 1989 Airiine Pilots Dispute

Party will restmcture the QTTC to ensure that it is representative not only of major tourist operators but also of small tourist operators, travel agents and the transport industry as well. The Government speaks about financial assistance. The only assistance the Govemment has ever given to the tourist industry has been the $85,000 that is currently paid to regional associations. The Labor Party's commitment to increasing that assistance has already been made public, but it beHeves that more than that should be done. It believes that, as a Govemment, it should be committed to providing assistance to the tourism industry based on incentives to employ more people on a full-time basis, taking into account the nature of the service they provide, to making a financial coiitribution on an annual basis to regional promotion in designated areas, and to organising and participating in both domestic and intemational familiarisation programs of people from trade organisations, Govemments and the media. These incentives are designed to encourage people to come to Queensland to see the excellent features that this State has to offer. What has occurred with the airline pilots really has not been unexpected. When the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs referred earlier to the poor, broken people who had not been pilots for very long, it brought to mind the very strong rumour that is widespread in the industry that the dispute had been planned for five months. The majority of pilots are involved in other small businesses and have other incomes. They are all quite financially secure and are not the poor people in the community or the concerned business people, all of whom are represented by the Labor Party. They are a greedy, selfish group and have made sure that they have set themselves up in a financially stable environment. It would not matter how long they remained on strike because, financially, they would be all right. Mr De Lacy: And Mr Lester has supported them. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Of course he has. What is needed is an approach that will bring them to heel as soon as possible. Recent events have highlighted the appalling lack of planning by this Govemment. Now that airline travel has gone bad, the Govemment has been shown to have performed abysmally in providing a proper and efficient rail service throughout this State. Queensland is, geographically, the largest State in this nation and should never have been placed in the position in which this Government and its previous Liberal Party coalition partners— including for 27 years Liberal Party members, some of whom were Ministers for Transport, who contributed to the abysmal planning—made the tourist industry in Queensland almost totally reliant on air travel. Queensland's transport system should never have been allowed to deteriorate to that extent. If the coalition Govemment had provided suitable rail travel and suitable conditions for commuters, presently throughout this State thousands of people could be using Queensland Railways to travel to north Queensland within a reasonable time. That is why the Labor Party has taken the initiative and displayed the initiative it will use in Government to involve tourist operators in its Sunshine Package. If people use Queensland Railways instead of aircraft to travel to parts of Queensland, they will be offered reduced rates, which will encourage families to take holidays in this State. The Labor Party would upgrade the standard of travel offered to rail commuters throughout this State. In co-operation with my colleague Mr Hamill, I can provide an absolute undertaking that one of the Labor Government's first priorities will be to examine the financial feasibility of the continuation of the VET line from Brisbane to Cairns. The extension of that service will enable commuters to board the train in Brisbane and arrive in Cairns five hours later. That is the type of innovation that this Government should be talking about and addressing instead of trying to score cheap, scabby points in this Parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition so eloquently and excellently said, members of this Government are behaving not only as a rabble but also as the group they are destined to become—a future Opposition that has absolutely nothing going for it. Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 369

During the 12 years I have been a member of this Parliament, I have met from all political parties many people I like. Although there have been some people whom I have not particularly warmed to, I have occasionally met people and thought, "My God, how did that thing ever get into this Pariiament?" I must say that, when Pariiament rises and members go to face the election, the one member who will not be back will be the honourable member for Stafford. Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (5.06 p.m.): I rise to join in this debate and condemn the appalling lack of purpose that I have noticed in speeches made by members of the Labor Party. I was particularly appalled to hear members of the Opposition say that they will support any measure designed to bring the parties involved in the airline dispute to conciliation and arbitration. Does it not indicate dismal failure on the part of Labor leaders when the silver-haired bodgie has taken absolutely no jolly notice of Labor in Queensland at all? All that Bob Hawke knows about "Labor" in Queensland is what occurs nine months after the wharfies' picnic! Bob Hawke holds in complete contempt Wayne Goss and his band of wandering nomads, some of whom do not even know when to come into the Parliament to vote. He has taken absolutely no notice of them. Mr Ardill: But you weren't here, either. Mr GATELY: No, but I was flying home after having conducted research into vehicle theft and dmg detection and surveillance in both Canada and the United States. I suggest that the honourable member should check his facts. As a matter of fact, I was here in this House. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Tell us about the pair. Mr GATELY: With all due respect, I suggest that I lived up to the pair. I came to the House, but walked out when the vote was cast. I lived up to my pair and I always will. I will always keep my word. Let me examine some of the comments made by the previous speaker in relation to what the Labor Party will do for every tourist operator. He said that Labor would make sure that there will be no pay-roll tax during the course of the dispute; but I point out that, because of Mr Hawke's inflammatory stand-over tactics and dogmatic approach, people will lose their jobs. When the airline pilots were flying between the hours of 9 and 5, people in this country were still being transported, albeit suffering some incon­ venience. Transport was available, and people were able to travel from point A to point B or C, or wherever they wanted to go. That is totally unlike the sorts of things that the people in this country have had to endure under the Labor Party's friends, the unionists, particularly the militant Left Wing unionists. There is a place in Australia for unionism, but it must be sensible unionism. There are plenty of sensible, fair dinkum unionists and I am not decrying them. The ALP has suggested that there be no electricity charges to the tourist industry but, because the lights will be tumed off, there will be no need for that. There will be no need for an exemption from land tax; the tourist operators will be unable to pay it because they will have no income. How the hell does the ALP expect to get the tax? How long will the exemption from vehicle registration last? How long will the dispute go on? Any attempt to work out any form of refund or credit note will be a debacle. Is this what the Labor Party is referring to? How many people will be entitled to it? Will this apply only to people mnning hotels, or will it apply to those who operate travel agencies and the like? When will the Labor Party get down to the real guts of the matter, that is, helping the people who are really being hurt in the community. The members of the Labor Party have never concerned themselves with the everyday workers or employees of these establishments that are affected by industrial disputes. If the members of the Labor Party think it will stop with the operators, they are wrong and a million miles off the mark; they ought to begin to look at the real ramifications of this dispute. This dispute will 370 5 September 1989 Airiine Pilots Dispute reach the point where employees will be put out of work and the littie grocery store on the corner and every major shopping centre will start to be affected. Whilst major shopping centres might contain stores owned by large multinational corporations, they are made up of a far greater number of small-business operators employing five or six people. If customers are not walking into those shops—as is happening today—those operators cannot afford to continue to pay their employees' wages. The silver-haired bodgie is attempting to assist his personal friend and confidante. Sir Peter Abeles. I would like an inquiry into how much money was paid in black- market fashion by TNT and Sir Peter Abeles whilst Hawke was the leader of the ACTU. This has occurred, and when the inquiry is conducted into unions in the near future, it will be discovered that there are plenty of examples of back-door payments such as the house built for Norm Gallagher. I wonder how many houses and other things Sir Peter Abeles has supplied to the silver-haired bodgie and a few of his Labor Party mates. The lost revenue that would result from this quickly thought-up scheme put forward by the shadow Minister for Tourism would have to be recouped. I wonder where he might get that lost revenue from? Perhaps he would then increase taxes substantially on a whole range of products or impose other levies on the ordinary worker. The revenue has to be replaced from somewhere, because the State cannot be mn without it. There is no doubt at all that under a Labor Government there will be increased taxation, as has occurred in every other State and under the Federal Government in Australia. It has been said that this strike was organised some five months ago by the Fabian members of the Labor Party. That might well be correct. Only a member of the Labor Party can be a member of the secret organisation called the Fabians. The honourable member for Cook, Mr Scott, who is not in this House today—perhaps he is having trouble catching a plane or he is perhaps coming here by outrigger canoe—made the comment that he was proud to be a republican. Perhaps this dispute is another ploy by the silver-haired bodgie and his team—who are hell-bent on turning Australia into a republic—to bring about total dismption and a total lack of direction to this nation. Is it another way of saying to the people of Australia, "You are dependent upon us, the Govemment. You must rely on us."? Because of high interest rates, he is doing a pretty good job of having people tossed out of their jobs and homes. What will happen next? Will it reach the stage when the people of Australia will rebel like the people of Fiji? He saw what Colonel Rabuka did in Fiji and perhaps he has leamt something from him. Is he trying to say to the nation, "Hey, this way we can work with Mr Abeles."? It is strange that Ansett has not made any comment about the dispute. Comments have been made on TV by the general manager of Australian Airlines, but nothing has been seen of Sir Peter Abeles of late. I wonder why this is so. Perhaps Bob said, "It's okay, Peter. I'll fix it up for you. We'll do this deal together." The Labor Party in this place talks about trying to solve the dispute, but Hawke wants to give the airlines money to keep them going. What a crazy situation! This will only prolong the dispute and make it more difficult for everyone in Australia. I suggest that that is what Mr Hawke is up to. I suggest also that the honourable member for Wolston sounded more like an overworked tractor with a worn-out big end—knock, knock, knock—when he referred to the sporting promotion. I do not know the background to the sporting promotion, but it would be great if, just for once, he, "Whinging Wayne" and other members of the Queensland Labor Party could think of something positive to do for this State and nation. Have they ever stopped to look at the good that has been done for this State by the National Party during the 32 years that the members of the Labor Party have been sitting on their bots in Opposition doing absolutely nothing except whinging, whining, ranting and raving and saying that the polls show that the National Party will be beaten at the next election? In 1986 they said that the Nationals were gone and finished. They should go back and look at the result. The media played a part in it as well but, judging by some of the nonsense being printed today, the media have become more biased and stupid than I ever thought was possible. These are the sorts of things Labor members should be thinking about. They should start to think positively about what has been achieved in this State. They should Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 371

remember the great things that have been done such as the constmction of dams and highways and the other developments that have taken place. They should realise the number of jobs created as a result of the decisions of this Government. They come into the Chamber and squawk like a flock of galahs that have been shot up the backside with a .410 shotgun. They have never said anything constmctive in this Chamber since I became a member. "Wobbly" Warburton, who is sitting there thunderstmck at the moment, was travelling round in a bus with busted wheels. It wobbled off the track. Isn't that terrible? The honourable member for Wolston referted to overseas charters. I do not blame the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Tourism for suggesting that as a possible solution. I do not personally support the suggestion because it would bring to Australia people whom we do not know and who need to be trained. That is not the way to go. Those involved in the dispute should be given the time and opportunity to talk out the problem and not be subjected to the threats, the union-bashing and the Prime Minister's stupidity that has caused the problem to be exacerbated. The honourable member for Wolston also said that the pilots were a greedy, selfish group with other jobs and businesses and that they should be got back to work quickly. What sheer hypocrisy! Union officials who call strikes in other arenas take their pay every day. On many occasions they do not bother to consult the employees in the industries concerned. Those union officials do not give a damn about the worker—the husband who toils hard to earn a living so that he can maintain his wife and children and pay the weekly rent. I suggest that some union officials put themselves and their interests before the well-being of the unionists and their families. The honourable member for Wolston said that he and his colleague Mr Hamill will do certain things. I attended a Queensland Transport Association annual general meeting not long ago. Mr Hamill was asked whether he would give an unequivocal undertaking to call upon Mr Hawke and the Federal Labor Govemment for additional funding for Queensland road construction and maintenance. Where and when has he ever made such a public demand? Did he make it under a thimble out in the scmb? He sure as hell has not made it in this Chamber. He sure as hell can produce no publicity to prove that he did it. I say that he has no credibility at all. I call on him to make that demand publicly on the Prime Minister. I also call upon him to make a similar demand on the Prime Minister to button up, shut up and get out of this dispute and let the pilots and the companies sit down sensibly and discuss this matter in a proper and dignified way. It is only in that way that the dispute will be resolved. Mr De Lacy: What would you know about it? Mr GATELY: What would I know about it? I will accept that interjection. I know enough to have been able to almost eliminate a problem in my electorate recently, which had 48 offences of breaking, entering and stealing each month and now has only four such offences. The honourable member can put that up against his duck-house. I suggest that he does not interfere again. The time has come for the people in Australia to understand clearly that each of us is dependent on the other. No sector can operate individually and no sector can operate in the manner suggested by the union movement. Before adopting heavy-handed tactics, it must think in terms of all of the people. I implore both the pilots and the companies to do that as from today. Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (5.21 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I intend to make a constmctive contribution. This aftemoon I have been concemed at and, frankly, somewhat frightened by the complete failure of many honourable members who have spoken so far to comprehend or understand what this devastating dispute is all about and its intricacies. When honourable members have been putting forward all of these fantastic solutions, not one mention have I heard of the fact that the pilots have resigned. Do honourable members understand what that means? They talk about getting them round the table and about getting Mr Kennedy to act as 372 5 September 1989 Airiine Pilots Dispute an independent negotiator. Quite frankly, the stupidity of some of the suggestions concems, worries and frightens me. Today I will confirm what the Opposition spokesman on Tourism, Mr R. J. Gibbs, said. It is now an established fact that this dispute was planned some months ago by the pilots federation. Unfortunately, the pilots have been led along by the nose by their federation's leaders who, incidentally, are supporters of the Liberal Party. That is common knowledge and they admit to its being so. It is a devastating, horrific dispute. There would not be a member of this House or a thinking person outside who would not be concerned about the consequences of this dispute as it goes on and on. Only today I was told by one of the ground staff at Eagle Farm airport that the aircraft have been basically placed in mothballs. They have taped over holes that wasps and similar insects can penetrate. The pilots are looking to a dispute that they feel will last for weeks and weeks. My colleagues and I—and, I accept, members of the Government and the Liberal Party—are concerned about the ramifications of events as they stand at the moment. However, as a person who understands what industrial relations is all about and has been very closely involved in it, one of my major concems is the knowledge that the longer a dispute of this nature lasts, the harder it is to resolve. Honourable members have witnessed that in previous disputes in this State. Every thinking person must be concerned about the dispute and the course that it is taking. Some of us with experience in the industrial relations field are perhaps more concemed than others. The Labor Party does not support deregulation of the labour market. If I can believe what Mr Ahern said today, the Liberals and the National Party now support deregulation. If honourable members are worried about the type of dispute that is before us, which is the baby of the pilots federation of this nation, and if they are concemed about the consequences of what has occurred. Heaven help us if we have total deregulation of the labour market and we have the law of the jungle, as the National Party and the Liberal Party leaders have put forward as the answer to our problems. It is frightening to hear those people speak. They have no understanding of what the wages system of this country has done for the national economy. They have no understanding that business and industry leaders across the nation acclaim the wages system. Those business and industry leaders understand that the wages system has resulted in wages and salary restraint. The workers have conformed with the system. In many cases they have not wanted to stay within the system, but for the sake of their country they have made the sacrifice of wage restraint. Yet today we have the amazing revelation that the National Party has now joined the Liberal Party in support of total deregulation of the market-place. If the National Party ever wanted the law of the jungle or disputes of this kind to become the norm—the type of system that has evolved in countries such as the United States over a number of years—it will get it if it destroys the wages system as we know it at this time. As I have indicated, the result would be catastrophic. I repeat that that point of view is supported by most business and industry organisations across this nation. Today the Premier has shown a truly abysmal lack of understanding about the dispute and the industrial system as a whole. As to Mr Lester—I repeat what I said in a media release today: his hot air will not get the planes aloft. That is the tmth. Mr Lester has put forward a proposition that the parties should get together and that Mr Kennedy should become a private mediator in the matter, yet he has only to read the newspapers to know full well that, firstly, the pilots have resigned and, secondly, the federation as late as this morning was saying, "To hell with the commission. To hell with arbitration. To hell with anybody except the people who employ us. They are the only people whom we will talk to. That is as far as we will go." Those of us who watched television last night heard the representative of the pilots federation saying that, yet the political solution put forward by the National Party today is to put Mr Kennedy into the position of private arbitrator, knowing full well that the pilots federation will say, "Mr Kennedy, go to hell. We don't want you. We don't want the arbitration commissioners. We don't want the Government. We don't want any interference. We Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 373 are prepared to stay out. We are prepared to devastate this nation, bring the economy of this country to its knees, put people out of work and kill the tourism industry until we get our 30 per cent, because we are prepared for this dispute." The pilots are holding the nation to ransom, which has unfortunately brought about the intervention of Govemment. I am a strong believer that Govemments are better out of most industrial disputes. However, in this case, although I might not personally agree with all the comments that have been made at a Federal Government level, I understand that, when the economy of a country is at risk, Govemments must take some action. The National Party Government's so-called solutions to the airline pilots dispute are, frankly, hypocritical nonsense. In regard to Mr Lester's calls for pilots to re-enter negotiations within the law or within the mle of law—I suggest that Mr Lester is absolutely correct. I agree with that. However, when the pilots are saying, "To hell with the law. To hell with the Industrial Commission. To hell with the arbitration system.", quite frankly, it is hot air for the Minister to pursue that type of argument. The Premier started this debate today. I welcome the debate. However, the moment the Premier says his piece—reads from his script—he leaves. That is the sort of interest that the Government is displaying this afternoon in the crisis—and I agree it is a real crisis— that this dispute is causing. I reiterate my fear that the pilots will dig in. I do not know what the answer is. I want to see the pilots get to the table. I want to see them accept either arbitration or someone acting in a conciliatory role. However, 1 do not know what the answer is, and it makes it more difficult when the pilots have resigned and when they are prepared to accept the leadership of people who are showing industrial relations naivety such as I have never seen before. It was the leader of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, frankly, who had walked out on the Industrial Commission. Those are the facts. Let us not make this issue a total political football here this afternoon. Let us really examine the difficulties. If any member of this Parliament can come up with a sensible solution, I am the one who wants to hear it first. I have had a lot of experience in the area of industrial relations, and I do not know what the answer is—not while we have the intransigence of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which has somehow managed to lead these pilots along by the nose. If they want to break out of the wages system, if they want to think that they are something apart, and if they are successful in their venture, mark my words, as somebody said earlier, the repercussions of such a thing happening will be horrendous for the nation's economy. On the one hand, the dispute is a disaster and, on the other hand, if the pilots win the dispute, the end result will be a disaster for the national economy. Mr De Lacy: It will destroy Australia. Mr WARBURTON: That is very close to the truth. The pilots dispute has the potential to destroy our nation. That is how serious it is. That is why I said at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to make some contribution and at least admit that I do not know what the answer is except to somehow get those pilots back into the system from which they now have divorced themselves. The Labor Party is fully committed to a system of arbitration and conciliation. 1 cannot say the same for the National Party or the Liberal Party, because in coalition, and now independently, no party has worked more to tear down the stmcture of arbitration and conciliation that has served us so very well in our own State of Queensland than the National Party. The National Party has done that. It has ripped the Industrial Commission apart. It has reduced the role of the Industrial Commission in this State in the area of arbitration and conciliation to a very, very large extent. 1 will return to the pilots. They are the ones who have refused to meet before the commission, despite calls not only from the Prime Minister of our country—a person who came in for extreme criticism here today—but also from the Opposition Deputy 374 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

Leader, Senator Chancy, and even from the Industrial Relations Commission itself So to suggest that people at the Federal level are just sitting back and are not trying to convince these pilots to do the right thing, to make them understand what they are doing to our country, is wrong. There is a lot of work going on, and it does not do any of us any good, irrespective of the side of the political fence that we sit on, to be castigating people simply because someone here wants to score political points. That will not do anybody any good whatsoever. I have no time whatsoever for the pilots' leaders in this case because in their arrogance they have refused to talk to anybody but their employers. I have outlined a number of facts. Firstly, the pilots have resigned. Secondly, people have desperately tried to convince them to negotiate. That includes the Prime Minister, the Opposition and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. They have said, "For Heaven's sake, come back into the fold so that we can do something to try to resolve the problem." But that is not happening. Now the Australian Federation of Air Pilots is saying—and this is the other point that I make—that nothing but talking to the pilots' employers will resolve this issue. The pilots, through the federation, are saying, "We are not part of the overall system which all Australian workers are involved in. We want to be something apart. We want to be elitist. We want to get a 30 per cent wage increase and we don't give a damn how we get it or what we destroy on the way." I have no time for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. I want to make that point clear. I am a little different from the Leader of the Liberal Party, who I believe in his own little way was today speaking in defence of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. I suppose he would, understanding as he obviously does that they are very supportive of the Liberal Party. Mr Lester's history as a Minister, and his liberal policies on industrial relations frankly make a mockery—and I say it respectfully—of the honest-broker approach that he took today. Indeed, his statement is in fact a ringing endorsement of my party's policy, which favours conciliation and arbitration rather than the confrontationist tactics that are now adopted by the airline pilots and which, in the past, have been adopted by the Queensland Government. History will show that the Queensland Government has taken away certain responsibilities from the Arbitration Commission. Mr Lester and other Ministers have refused to accept the recommendation of a number of industrial commissioners in this State. During the SEQEB dispute, which was mentioned earlier today, his Government removed the jurisdiction of the Queensland Industrial Commission and took matters into its own hands. I will not argue the facts now, but that is what happened. It is hypocritical for the Minister to publicly criticise the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the role that it is playing. The facts are that the pilots strike provides just a hint of the type of industrial chaos that would follow if the conservative policies, particularly those outiined by Mr Innes, were implemented. Deregulation of the labour market would cause chaos such as we have never seen before. The pilots dispute is a prime example of what Australia would face in the future if the centralised wages system that is currentiy in place were destroyed by people who, I repeat, have a frightening lack of understanding of the urgency of maintaining in place for as long as possible a system that presentiy serves the nation well. Mr Lester has been a party to industrial chaos in the State of Queensland. He has overmled the State Industrial Commission, yet he now urges pilots to go before a parallel Federal body. It is just so hypocritical. As I indicated earlier, I would be remiss if, as the Labor Party's spokesman on Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, I did not make a plea to the pilots, as distinct from the federation, to have another look at the damage they are doing to this country. I believe that all members would make that plea if they had the opportunity to do so this evening. If we want to, we can single out the tourism industry, because that is the industry that is hurting most at present in Queensland. The pilots are doing Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 375 themselves and their nation a disservice by taking the intransigent attitude that is presently being displayed on their behalf by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. The difficulty that I have with this whole matter is that I know that the pilots federation's non-involvement in industrial disputation and the manner in which the federation has operated for a long period is such that it does not have a real understanding of what industrial relations are all about and the means by which it can resolve a dispute other than the way it is doing it at present. I aim my arrows at the pilots federation, not at the pilots. However, I am also very critical of the pilots for allowing themselves to be led along by the nose. I let them off the hook because I believe that they are completely naive on industrial relations and disputation matters. I will not let the federation leaders off the hook because they must be brought to task. If people want a solution or one avenue of light at the end of the tunnel, they must, along with me, direct their arrows at the federation officials. Somewhere along the line those people must be made to understand that they have to convince their membership to change course. I believe that they can do that. At the moment, the pilots are sticking rigidly to a resolution put forward by the federation officials. They are saying to the pilots, "You backed us. You voted for what we are doing at present and you have to stick with us." That is what is happening at present, and the federation leaders are to blame for that. They are the ones who must be brought to task. The quicker that is done, the quicker the problems will be resolved. I refer to the hypocrisy of Mr Ahern and, to a lesser extent, that of Mr Lester. It was a complete joke for them to stand in this Chamber today and to boast about the good industrial relations track record in Queensland. Does anybody remember the Hanger committee of inquiry? Does anybody remember that voluminous report that was presented, I think in November 1988? What has happened about the contents of that report? Mr Milliner: Do you think that Mr Lester even read the report? Mr WARBURTON: Perhaps he did, but he immediately put it in file 13, because no action has been taken on it whatsoever, except a few talks with some people. Action was not taken on the very intelligent recommendations that were made by the committee that was chaired by Mr Hanger, QC. Contained within that report, which was commissioned by this Govemment, are strong recommendations about the urgent need for a single piece of industrial legislation in this State. Amongst the recommendations was a call for a more flexible approach before the commission—an abolition of the constraints in the current legislation that holds back the commission. An admission was made by the people who formulated that report that the trade union movement in this State was an essential part of any future industrial system. I believe that that sort of comment has frightened this Govemment right off. In fact, if that legislation and the recommendations of the Hanger committee had been implemented, there would have been no need for voluntary employment agreements, which was a clear indication in the report of the Hanger committee of inquiry. At this stage the Govemment has taken no action on that expensive inquiry that was headed by a very prominent person, Mr Hanger, QC. That is just one small example of how hypocritical a Government can become when it tries to be constmctively critical of what is happening at the Federal level. The Minister, Mr Lester, made an amazing attack on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, to which I hope it will respond. Mr Lester made that criticism with no apparent understanding of the difficulties that the commission is facing at present and the work that it is doing in trying to get the pilots and their federation to see reason. I am pleased to have taken part in this debate but I am concemed that in many ways it has turned into a political football. This debate has not been used for the purpose of seeking a solution to a massive, horrendous problem that confronts not only Queensland but also Australia as a whole. It is a furphy that has been used by the Premier, Mr Ahern, to try and take some heat away from his own problems. 376 5 September 1989 Airline Pilots Dispute

Ms Warner: It is a filibuster as well. Mr WARBURTON: I suppose that in many ways it is a filibuster. In common with many things that have been done in this House, this debate will go down in history as a very sad affair. If a final resolution from this Pariiament were achieved as an indication of what this Pariiament thinks should be done about this massive problem—the pilots dispute—this debate would not be the joke that it is. Mr Ahem's approach to this matter is quite pathetic. He moved the motion, read from a script and then scampered out of the House. The only Minister who has supported his motion is Mr Lester. In this House this aftemoon the National Party Government has disgraced itself by the manner in which it proceeded with this motion and the way in which it has executed its judicial duties in this Parliament. Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (5.49 p.m.): This has been an extraordinary debate. Queens­ land's most important growth industry, namely tourism, is crippled; it is falling to its knees and is about to be destroyed. Not only has there been total silence from the Opposition on this dispute but there has also been an abrogation of any role in it whatsoever. The Opposition spokesman on industrial relations had the nerve to say, "This debate has been a load of mbbish. We should have been talking about what resolution this Parliament proposed." The honourable member seems to have forgotten his own words, because five minutes before that the tmth came out when he said, "I don't know what the answer is." Members of the Opposition want a debate about their answer, but they admit that they have not got one. Members of the Labor Party claim to be experts on industrial relations. They say, "Vote for us and there will be fewer problems because we understand how to solve them." The Opposition has said that it does not know what the answer is and that it does not have any solutions. Obviously, members of the Opposition, in common with their Federal colleagues, are going to sit on their hands and let the Queensland tourist industry go down the drain without saying a word, without making a single constmctive proposal and without attempting in any way to resolve the dispute that is, in large measure, of their own party's making. Right from the beginning of the dispute the only solution that has been offered by the Labor Party both federally and in this State has been to abuse the pilots. In fact, the Prime Minister's abuse took a leading role when he made the most asinine, idiotic and moronic statement about any group of workers that I have ever heard. Mr Hawke said, ".All pilots are glorified bus-drivers. I leamt to fly in seven hours." What a load of twaddle! Mr Davis: Can't you fly in seven hours? Mr GYGAR: I flew solo in seven hours, too, but I still believe that I was a danger to man and beast and even myself for at least another 500 hours. Mr Hawke equated highly skilled and highly trained pilots with bus-drivers. He claims that his Government is trying to find a solution, but all he is doing is abusing people. The other solution that the Federal Labor Government has offered is: "We will look after our mates. We will pay off Peter Abeles and the other boys who throw the big dollars to Bob Hawke and we will let the Queensland tourist industry sink." When the Federal Labor Government started talking about giving compensation to Peter Abeles and the rest of Bob's mates, did any member of the Queensland Labor Party say, "Hang on a minute. If anybody is being hurt or if anybody should get compensation it should be the Queensland tourist industry."? Of course, they did not!

Mr Davis: Tell the tmth. Mr GYGAR: Mr Davis did not say a word. Nothing was said by the Opposition Tourism spokesman or the industrial relations spokesman, who admitted that he had Airline Pilots Dispute 5 September 1989 377

absolutely nothing to offer in this debate other than to abuse the pilots a little bit more. There has been an extraordinary about-face in industrial relations in this State. The Labor Party in this place says that, in order to solve strikes, the boot has to be put into the unions. That has come from the very people who abused everybody in this State for daring to say that the members of the ETU were a bunch of irtesponsible vandals when they tried to bring this State to its knees. The Labor Party industrial relations spokesman said, "If the economy is held at risk, Govemments must find solutions." He did not say that when the ETU was on strike. In this State there is one mle for Labor's union mates, who bankroll the Labor Party's campaigns, provide funds and pull the strings on which way Labor Party members vote in this House; there is another mle for trade-unionists who do not snivel to the Labor Party by becoming affiliated with the Trades and Labor Council and paying their annual bribe money to the parliamentary Labor Party. It is not about unions, it is not about unionism, it is not about industrial relations. It is one mle for the Labor Party's mates and another mle for everyone else. Yet Opposition members have the nerve to stand up in this State and say that they are ready to govern. They are the people who stand up in this place and tell us that when the ETU holds this State to ransom and wants to destroy it, anybody who has the nerve to attack the ETU is a despicable vandal attacking the core of the trade union movement. But when members of another union are involved, they stand up and say that they are all a pack of so-and-so's and that the Govemment should crack down on them. What is the difference between the ETU trying to destroy this State and the pilots doing the same thing to the tourist industry? Ms Warner: Because the pilots are going for a 30 per cent increase. Mr GYGAR: I see. There is nothing sacred about trade-unionism. That is what we were told when the ETU strike was on. One could not possibly have anything to do with bagging a union and driving it out of business because it was involved in industrial disputes. No, that is not done if it involves the ETU. But if it is a non-affiliated union, which does not pay the Labor Party its annual bribe money and which acts irresponsibly, then it should be hung, drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered and driven out of the country. What a bunch of hypocrites! It has nothing to do with trade-unionism. It has nothing to do with industrial relations. It is only to do with what the mle always is for the Labor Party: if it involves the Labor Party's mates, they can get away with murder, and if the Labor Party does not like them, they are nailed to the wall. To hell with the principles. To hell with the right solutions. The Labor Party just looks after its mates and kills the rest. If it involves a trade union that is affiliated with the Labor Party, it can do no wrong. Mr Austin: You put them on the Qantas board. Mr GYGAR: That is right. In Australia, if one wants to destroy things, one is put on the Qantas board. That happens if a person is a trade-unionist affiliated with the Labor Party. But if he is not affiliated with the Labor Party, he is a nasty, despicable, destmctive person who should be totally destroyed. What is the difference? Mr De Lacy: Is this the new coalition? Mr GYGAR: No. I am talking about this pack of pious frauds who make out that they are prepared to govem this State. Let me quote to the honourable member Mr Warburton's words. He said that if people will not negotiate and they hold the nation to ransom—these are his words, I have them all down here—and if the economy is held at risk. Governments must take action to stop them. They are the words of the very same Mr Warburton who played a very, very different tune when the ETU was destroying this State, holding it at risk and not negotiating. What hypocrisy! Yet Opposition members try to stand up here and say that they want integrity in Govemment. For 378 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas

God's sake, what a State we would be if those clowns were in charge of it. What a nation we are now that they are in charge of it. Opposition members stood in this House and offered no solution. They did not even disguise it with rhetoric. They stood up and said straight, "We don't know what the answers are." May the Lord save Queensland from a party that would stand up in the middle of a dispute that is destroying one of our most important industries, wash its hands Pontius Pilate style and say, "We don't know what the solution is so we will just abuse the people who are on strike." That is what this debate is about. It is about the total failure of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland to be fit in any way for office, because its loyalty lies not with Queensland, not with the workers of this State, not with good govemment; its loyalty lies first, last and always with its mates in the trades hall who can do no wrong and not with the rest of the community who, if they come into conflict with the trade union movement, will receive no support whatsoever from this sad, ramshackle bunch of nobodies who masquerade as an Opposition in this House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lester, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m.

REVOCATION OF STATE FOREST AREAS Hon. G. H. MUNTZ (Whitsunday—Minister for Environment, Conservation and Forestry) (7.30 p.m.): I move— "(1) That this House agrees that the Proposal by the Governor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act of those areas specified in the documents previously tabled on April 18, 1989, be carried out. (2) That Mr Speaker convey a copy of this Resolution to the Minister for submission to His excellency the Govemor in Council." These proposals make provision for the excision of land from State forests near Bundaberg, Caloundra and Cardwell. The proposals have been carefully considered by the Conservator of Forests and have his endorsement. The first involves the excision of 0.3692 of a hectare from State forest 898 in the Maryborough forest district. The revocation of this small area has been sought by Queensland Railways for the locating of a railway track sectioning cabin site in connection with the electrification of the North Coast Railway Line between Brisbane and Rock­ hampton. The area carries no merchantable timber and the excision will have no adverse effect on the management of the balance of the reserve. On completion of this action, it is proposed that this land be held under special lease tenure by Queensland Railways. Management of the area will not pass from Crown control. The next proposal seeks the excision of 0.2447 of a hectare from Beerwah State forest 561 for freeholding purposes. The major portion of the land proposed for excision has for many years been utilised under special lease tenure as a site for the Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms, and is located adjacent to the Glass House Mountains Road south of the Caloundra turn-off. The small balance area lies between the abovementioned road dedication and the special lease. At present such lease is not served by any dedicated road and the inclusion of this small severance in the proposed freehold will overcome this problem. The Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms complex was first established in the locality in 1935, relocated to its present site in 1958 and has operated continuously since then as cafe/ refreshment rooms. It is now a well-established landmark. The area of the lease is small and heavily commercialised and, in servicing the travelling public, also services the adjacent Jowarra Main Roads rest area. The value of Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 379

timber on the area has been assessed as nil, and the lessee is to be responsible for all costs in the matter, including survey. The final proposal provides for the revocation from Cardwell State forest 461 of about 1 425 hectares, of which 681 hectares is intended to be utiUsed for aquaculture purposes, with the balance to be set apart as a wetlands reserve under the control of the Department of Primary Industries. After numerous representations, a detailed investi­ gation was undertaken by the departments of Forestry, Primary Industries and Lands to determine the suitability of a section of the Cardwell State forest for aquaculture purposes. It was determined that the subject area, between Damper Creek in the south. Five Mile Creek in the north and bounded on the west by the North Coast Railway Line was suitable for this purpose, while the mangrove and wetland area to the east, adjacent to the Hinchinbrook Channel, should be set apart as a wetlands reserve. The Land Administration Commission has invited public proposals for aquaculture projects on the 681 hectares. After excision from the State forest, it is proposed that the land be made available under special lease tenure to the successful applicants. It is also proposed that the balance area to be excised be set apart as a wetlands reserve under the control of the Department of Primary Industries. The Department of Forestry has been compensated for the loss of the small exotic pine plantation established on the area, as well as for funds previously expended on a road providing access to the excision area. I am of the opinion that considerable benefit will accme to the general public by the provision of this type of development and by the protection of the mangrove and wetland areas. I strongly support all of these proposals and commend them for approval by the House. Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (7.35 p.m.): In rising to speak to these revocations, I wiU probably reiterate some of the old cries made by members of the Opposition. The Opposition has no objection to the first two revocations. It supports the intent behind the third revocation, but I express the view that the area is perhaps a little large. I think that the Govemment should perhaps have crawled before it walked in relation to that land. However, I have inspected the area and must say that for once the Government has done the right thing. At least the mangroves have been excluded from the revocation. The area lies adjacent to the Hinchinbrook Channel and is important not only for its biological significance but also because it is a very attractive tourist feature. In the future I believe that it will play a great part in bringing tourists to north Queensland. There are tourist facilities presently available in the area, such as houseboats that will enable tourists to frequent the fishing areas and many beautiful attractions of the region. 1 am pleased to note that the Government has retained the mangroves area and exempted it from the revocation order. The Opposition will support the first revocation because it is intended to provide for public use. This proposal is unlike many previous revocations that seemed merely to be intended to make overnight millionaires out of fast-buck merchants and entrepre­ neurs. Crown land and State forests are assets that belong to the people of Queensland. The Opposition has been concemed in the past about the extent of the land area that has been revoked from either State forests or national parks for the benefit of private companies or private individuals. The Govemment is dealing with assets that belong to the people of Queensland and it should act responsibly by giving great care and attention to any decisions that it makes in respect of them. In spite of the fact that I will be accused of again mentioning the Opposition's bugbear, it is worth while pointing out that in relation to the second revocation the Government intends to convert the land to freehold. There is nothing wrong with a secure long-term lease because in financial dealings it offers the same collateral as freehold land. All that banks and financial institutions ask is that a secure tenure be held over the land. I cannot understand the reason for the Govemment's actions. Not one Government member has been able to satisfactorily explain to me the reason that this 380 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas

Government gives away Crown land—which is an asset belonging the people—as freehold title to private individuals. As soon as it becomes freehold, the Govemment can place no restrictions whatsoever on the buyer. I accept that the Minister will say that the Govemment is always able to resume private freehold land for public use such as roads and power transmission access. Although the Opposition agrees with that proposition, why could not the company or individual be given a secure long-term lease instead? Leasehold agreements have been handed down from generation to generation. Literally thousands of residences, building sites and areas of land are secured under leasehold agreements. Mr Muntz: Do you own a freehold block or a leasehold block yourself? Mr EATON: No, I do not. Mr Muntz: Do you own a freehold block? Mr EATON: No, I do not own a freehold block. I do not own any land. People believe that there is greater security in having freehold land, but it merely provides companies and individuals with a chance to manipulate certain industries. Companies and individuals are being given the opportunity through freehold tenure to gain advantages at somebody else's expense. With the exception of a couple of towns that have implemented special town Acts in the past, every town in Queensland has thousands of residential blocks under long- term leasehold. In some cases people have been living on these blocks for hundreds of years, and those leasehold blocks of land have been handed down to the third generation. On his death a person can leave his leasehold land and house to his son or grandson and the land remains in the family. Mr Muntz: It is 0.2 of a hectare. Mr EATON: I know, but the same principle applies to Government users, whether it be point something of a hectare or thousands of hectares such as in the sheep-grazing and beef cattle areas or on agricultural land. In these areas people have been able to manipulate this Govemment. The Opposition agrees with the excision of the first two areas. I agree with the third area and have inspected it myself The total area to be excised might be questionable, but the Forestry Department has carried out a reforestation and planting program. Some new blocks of land will become available south of the proposed excision. The Forestry Department is trying to do a good job, but the country is nothing special. There are hundreds of thousands of hectares of land in Queensland that are similar to this area, which happens to include the boundaries of a State forest. I have no objection to the proposed use of the land for aquaculture. North Queensland has a tropical climate and there is an opening for new industries. The sea's resources must be preserved. These resources have been pillaged by people from overseas such as the foreign long-liners, and altematives must be found to replenish these resources and provide continuity for the market. There are a few problems to be overcome by anyone wishing to start a prawn farm, but the Department of Primary Industries is working with private enterprise in an attempt to overcome some of these minor problems. These farms provide continuity of supply. The prawn trawlermen will find it hard in the future, because one of the problems is that they want the other fishermen to leave an area so that they can stay in it. Consequently, the Government does not like to put certain fishermen out or reduce the numbers. This causes a certain amount of flak. The IRDC, that is the Innisfail Regional Development Corporation, is exporting prawns from north Queensland to New Zealand and has sent trial shipments to Europe. This is a great opportunity. This Govemment talks about the enterprise zone in north Queensland, and I agree with some of its intentions. However, so far the Govemment has not put any money into the enterprise zone, other than to set up an office. No money has been made available to those people wishing to take advantage of the projects Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 381 that the Govemment has advertised it will implement in north Queensland. North Queensland has been neglected for a long time because it is a long way from the big smoke down in the south-east. There is the problem of distance and the additional transport costs to be borne by anyone wishing to start an enterprise in north Queensland. However, there has been an emergence of international markets and the development in particular of the Asian markets. North Queensland is closer to those markets than it is to the markets in south-east Queensland. The producers do not have to transport the products down here to be processed and transport them back to north Queensland. The tip of Cape York is a couple of thousand miles—not kilometres—from Brisbane and it costs a lot of money to transport any product over that distance. Transporting the product back again also costs a lot of money. Therefore, north Queenslanders are trying to bring industry to that area. There is a ready market in Asia and north Queenslanders must be competitive with other countries, particularly the Third World countries. This land will be mainly used for aquaculture. A lot of aquaculture is being developed in north Queensland, although some operations have mn into problems. However, with continual support from the Government and the DPI, and through the research work that is currently being carried out, in the long term those minor problems will be overcome. The Opposition supports this revocation. I have received many telephone calls and letters and have spoken to many people who are concemed about the total area of I 425 hectares which is to be excised from State forest 461. It is a large area. I have been approached by people who wish to take up grazing rights or buy land in the area for a special project, because geographically it is Mr Muntz: It's part of the wetland reserve. Mr EATON: Yes, that is right. The Govemment must be complimented because it is preserving the ecological and biological attributes of various places throughout Queensland. The Opposition would like to see more of it, instead of land being given to developers with their fast talk and fast money, who are not concemed about preservation. In conclusion, one matter of concern that has been raised on several occasions concerns a development on the edge of the township of Cardwell. A company—I do not know if it was a $2 company or not—that had grandiose plans for a beautiful resort and marine in the area was given money. That company is now in financial trouble because it has argued with some of its contractors and does not have the money to pay them. Today the site is very unsightly and there are continuous appeals from conser­ vationists to prevent further damage. Had the Government been more astute and imposed more conditions on this company, this problem would not have occurred. Companies of this kind should be sussed out in order to find out how much capital they have and whether they can honour their obligations once the Govemment gives them the land. A very good example of where a company has fallen down on its obligations to the department is this resort just south of Cardwell. It is north of the area covered by this revocation. The Govemment must get its act together and look more closely at such companies. The plans of the Cardwell site provide for a beautiful resort, a marina and everything that the rich tourist wants. Although the company came in with a lot of gusto, today the site is an unsightly mess with heaps of dirt, all because the company had a row with its contractors and cannot pay them. I am led to believe that the company does not have the money that it was alleged to have. Perhaps the Govemment can investigate that. Mr Muntz: Your mate Hawke's interest rates beat them. Instead of paying 15 per cent, they are now paying 22 per cent. Mr EATON: This is the responsibility of this Govemment. Mr Muntz: No. 382 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas

Mr EATON: It is so. When the Govemment lets a contract, it gives the land away freehold. If I paid $25 to join the National Party and went along to the Govemment with plans of a beautiful resort and had only $2 to bless myself with, the Goverriment would probably let me go ahead with the project. The Govemment has a responsibility to the people of Queensland when it gives land to these big companies. Mr Muntz: That fellow belongs to the Labor Party. Mr EATON: It does not matter what his politics are. The Govemment has a responsibility when it gives land to people who want to build resorts and bring development to an area. Most of the time all they bring to the area is a mess and they cause a great deal of controversy and disenchantment among the local people. Mr Muntz: Interest rates beat them, though. Mr EATON: Yes, but he should have had the money available. As a member of the Govemment, the Minister should have ensured that the applicant had a letter from the bank pointing out that he had access to $250m. If he does not have access, the Govemment should not give him the land. The Govemment should apply conditions. Mr Muntz: That was freehold land, not leasehold land. It has nothing to do with the Govemment. Mr EATON: He got some land from the Govemment. He bought some freehold land, I agree, but he also got some Govemment land. This has been the argument all the time. Many people approach members of the Opposition after trying to speak to the Government. The Government will let in any Tom, Dick or Harry if he belongs to the right social clan. He can form a $2 company. I can name dozens of places in which that has happened. In fact I am gathering some names together to give to the Minister for Land Management. I am trying to gather some facts to give him. As the Minister, he should know what is going on with the land in Queensland. Mr Glasson: We don't make up stories as you do. Mr EATON: I do not make up stories. The Minister should not worry about that. It will all come out in the wash. The Opposition can support this proposal. I wam the Minister that he should keep his finger on the pulse of all of these projects. It will be all right if this is carried out in the way that is intended and the Govemment acts responsibly by putting pressure on these people and not letting them in on Kathleen Mavourneen terms. They should lodge some sort of security. I was disappointed to see the area being freeholded. Any freehold allowed should be down the track and only on small areas because land is the asset of the people of Queensland and it is the responsibility of the Government to look after it properly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the House that, as this is the maiden speech of the honourable member for Merthyr, honourable members should extend to him the courtesy of the House. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (7.48 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I am proud to stand before you and other honourable members to deliver my maiden speech on behalf of the constituents of Merthyr. In these politically volatile and trying times, we should not forget the roots of our great democratic traditions and institutions. I readily and gladly declare my loyalty and that of the residents of Merthyr to Her Gracious Majesty the Queen. From the outset, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the relatives, friends and supporters who have made it possible for me to be in this place today. I owe an unpayable debt to my parents, Alfio and Sebastiana Santoro. Many years ago, they forsook the comforts and certainties of their homeland in order to give their children a better future in a distant country which was then, and still is today, so rich in opportunities. Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 383

I will strive to make them proud, through my behaviour in public and private life, of the upbringing and the support they have provided for their four sons. My wife Letitia is in the public gallery and, since meeting me almost eight years ago, has shared my political dreams and helped carry the burdens which come with such aspirations. To her I say a loving thank-you, and extend this to the other members of both of our families who have been unstintingly supportive of our objective. I have been blessed by the support of many friends, both within the Liberal Party and outside it—too many to mention here—but each and every one of them has been special and essential to the efforts leading up to my arrival in this place. Of course, I wish and need to thank two other groups—the hundreds of people within and outside the Liberal Party branches in the electorate of Merthyr who, since the traumatic events of 1983, have maintained their faith. Their loyalty and dedication to the Liberal ideal have been an enormous inspiration to me during the very hard times that I have often experienced. Finally, I wish to record my appreciation to the electors of Merthyr, who have put me in this place. I intend to represent the interests and aspirations of all my constituents and, in doing so, I will be guided by the ethos of liberalism which respects the rights of individuals, the role of strong families, the legitimacy of private enterprise and honest profit, and the enduring value of the legal, parliamentary and Christian traditions which have served our nation and this State so well. The electorate of Merthyr is a delightful mix of people who are, in their professions, life-styles and origins, representative of the broad Queensland community. Most are highly educated people who work hard, tirelessly and honestly for themselves, their families and their country. Many are long-standing members of the Merthyr community who have a strong sense of its history and place. Many of the leaders of this State's industry, its legal system, the public service and the mral sector live in Merthyr, as do a large number of elderly citizens, many of whom, having made a magnificent contribution to our society, have chosen residences within my electorate to enjoy their retirement. Often described as a cosmopolitan electorate, Merthyr boasts a vibrant ethnic mix. From the well-established and highly respected Italian community to the more recent arrivals from other far-off places, I always sense within the migrant element of Merthyr a great pride in Australia and a fierce determination to do well. Merthyr also contains many organisations and institutions which, for many years, have served the local community in an exemplary fashion. The State and private schools in my electorate are proud to boast of a reputation second to no other in Queensland, and the work of Merthyr's churches, charitable institutions, committees and sporting clubs is enormously appreciated by the many individuals who have been touched and enriched by their good deeds. I am proud to be able to represent in this Parliament such a fine group of people and organisations whose expectations of Govemment are high and just. The electorate of Merthyr takes its name from the Welsh iron town of Merthyr Tydfil, the birthplace of Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, one of Australia's greatest consti­ tutional lawyers, a great Queensland Premier, the chief architect of Australia's Constitution and a founding father of Australian liberalism. It is, I believe, appropriate at this stage to pause and reflect on Sir Samuel's commitment to the process of federation and to the Australian federal system of government. In the great constitutional debates. Sir Samuel's vision of federation was dominated by a belief that all parliamentarians at both a Federal and State level should strive for the decentralisation of political and economic power. He enshrined within the Australian Constitution the concept of States' rights and sought to safeguard those rights against erosion by future power-grabbing Federal Govemments. 384 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas

Unfortunately for the well-being of the economic and political fabric of this nation. Sir Samuel's vision has often been attacked by Labor Govemments and their union allies; but, through the rejection of power-grabbing referendum proposals, Australians have since 1901 continually supported Sir Samuel's vision of a strong federation. They have recognised that, where centralisation of power has been achieved, it has only served to hurt our nation. Our centralised and rigid wage-fixing and industrial relations system is a constant and dramatic illustration of this fact. For instance, our waterfronts are crippled by exorbitant labour costs and inefficient work practices. In common with the waterfront, many other sectors of the Australian economy are afflicted with the centralised union-dominated industrial relations system, which serves to make international competitors only a flight of fantasy. As a result, we are slowly but surely going down a path which, unless reversed, will see Australia become the poor relation of our region. Unlike the other major political parties, the Liberal Party is committed to Sir Samuel Griffith's ideal of a federation within which States' rights and the decentralisation of power enjoy respect rather than derision. Within this Parliament, and outside it, I will do all I can to encourage continuing support for the vision of one of our greatest founding fathers. Sir Samuel, who later bestowed "Merthyr" as the name to his principal place of residence in the suburb of New Farm, would undoubtedly have, if he were around today, advocated the urgent need for parliamentary reform which we in the Liberal Party see as essential for the return of good govemment in this State. 1 was elected in the Merthyr by-election by people who have a very strong desire to see their Parliament and the processes of govemment reflect and practise the principles of accountability. The Fitzgerald report has clearly vindicated and supported the long- held view of the Liberal Party that Queensland needs accountability mechanisms within its Parliament and its public administration. The Liberal commitment to the ideal of accountability was clearly demonstrated during the political watershed that the events of 1983 represented. In 1983, when my party was faced with a choice between hanging onto political power, with its accompanying benefits, or standing up for the politically sublime principle of accountability, it decisively supported principle, and walked away from political power—the only party in Queensland and Australian political history to do so. Today, the wisdom and courage of Terry White and the Liberal Party of 1983 are clearly and gratefully acknowledged by an electorate which is again looking to the Liberal Party for the answers. The answers are obvious: permanent reforms so that the so-called vision of excellence becomes a reality and does not remain a mere mirage. There is still enough time, even if little opportunity, to prove to a tired and cynical electorate that we in this place are capable of delivering such reform. There are four main areas in which reform is needed. The first and most obvious relates to the consequences of the Fitzgerald inquiry and the commissioner's recommendations. The initial "lock, stock and barrel" commitment by the Govemment, although in my view not technically sound given the responsibilities of inquiry, review and debate entmsted to members of this Parliament, at least gave Queenslanders some hope that sensible and long-overdue reform was on the way. In this context, the consultative imperative recommended by Fitzgerald provided a realistic chance for worthwhile reform to survive the onslau^t of partisanship and self-interest. However, as a new member, I have been saddened to witness the extent to which the initial commitment to consultation and bipartisanship has been overwhelmed by the bmtal application of the power of the numbers in this place. It is a grim indictment of the style and the way of doing things in this House that fewer than half of the members of this Parliament have had an opportunity to express their views on the Fitzgerald report— a report regarded as one of the most important documents ever placed before members for their consideration. This, of course, does not augur well for the implementation of Fitzgerald's sensible recommendations, as the acrimony surrounding the debate well demonstrates. Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 385

A second and, in my mind, equally fundamental area for reform is the reintroduction of an Upper House of review in the Parliament of Queensland. In one of the saddest episodes of Queensland's political history, the Labor Party in 1922 abolished the Upper House and thus deprived us of the most essential check-and-balance mechanism provided by the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Labor members would do weU to reflect on the consequences of that mistake. In fact, it is the contention of many that the abhorrent deeds uncovered by Fitzgerald were able to be perpetuated and hidden from the public gaze for so long only because proper review mechanisms such as an Upper House had not been in operation in Queensland for such a long time. Quite clearly, I share that view and add my support to those who call for the reintroduction of an Upper House in which there are no Ministers, which will not have the ability to reject Supply and which is democratically elected by all the people able to vote in the election of members to this House. That reform should occur with a concurrent reduction in the number of members in this place. I hasten to remind honourable members that the Liberal Party was the only party to oppose an increase in the size of this House in 1985. All other parties supported it. The third major area for reform is in the operation of the committees of this Parliament, particularly, the Public Accounts Committee. Having had our 1983 position vindicated by the establishment of that committee, my Liberal colleagues in this place and I are today extremely concemed by the undermining of its legitimate role and, indeed, its future. I again take this opportunity to restate my personal commitment, and that of my party, to the existence of a Public Accounts Committee whose operations are unfettered by the tyranny of numbers, ministerial discretion and partisan concems. All of this prompts me to state the obvious, which is that Queensland has never enjoyed the benefits of a tme Westminster system of Govemment. Commissioner Fitzgerald clearly acknowledged and recognised this as a major reason for the parliamentary and administrative failures detailed in his report. However, the one major point that concems me most about the Fitzgerald report is that, rather than recommending the overhaul and upgrading of the Westminster system as practised here in Queensland, he offers solutions which seem to derive their force and authority outside the Parliament rather than from within it. I believe that the recent warnings by the Clerk of the Parliament about surrendering the rights of the Parliament and its individual members are timely and should not be taken lightly. Many of the administrative reforms recommended by Commissioner Fitzgerald are long overdue and should enjoy the support of all honourable members; but they should be implemented without abrogating our responsibility to support, enhance and protect the Westminster model and traditions in this place. Let us not give up on ourselves and others who are to follow us in this place. The fourth area of reform has already been much debated and there can be no doubt about my party's attitude to it. I am speaking, of course, of electoral reform and I feel that it is worth while to again place on the record in this place our commitment to an electoral system which tolerates variances in the size of electorates of no more than 10 per cent. Such a system enjoys the support of all parties at a Federal level, and rarely have I heard constituents from very large Federal electorates complain about the quality of representation which they enjoy. The Liberal Party stands for tme electoral reform and will not allow itself to be compromised on this fundamental principle. We look forward to rectifying another of Labor's more doubtful contributions to Queensland's political system. I cannot stress too much my commitment to these four areas of reform, namely, the implementation of the sensible recommendations of the Fitzgerald inquiry; the introduction of an Upper House of review; the unfettered operation of the parhamentary committees; and, of course, electoral reform. The challenge is before us all, and it is obvious to my colleagues and I that the people of Queensland will entmst this challenge to the Liberals. Our commitment to the major reforms that I have outlined is matched by the commitment that we gave to the

101362—13 386 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas voters in the Merthyr by-election about delivering the basic services of govemment which they deserve. Good govemment is all about good management, sensible priorities and the commonsense qualities in Govemment for which all Queenslanders are craving. The residents in the electorate of Merthyr want to feel safe in their streets and in their neighbourhoods. Their sense of security disappeared with the almost total disappearance of police walking the beat. In the area of education, parents and teachers are crying out for desperately needed funds so that the children in our schools can receive the quality of education to which they are entitled. And, of course, I can take honourable members to meet elderly citizens in my electorate whose quality of life is being severely impaired by the long waiting-lists for simple elective surgery in our public hospitals. So much for the vision of excellence and the quality of life that comes with good government. The people of Merthyr, indeed all Queenslanders, are wanting and will vote for an enlightened approach to govemment. They saw the application of good Liberal common sense in the successful daylight-saving cmsade mounted by Brisbane's Lord Mayor, Sallyanne Atkinson, and the Liberal Party. It is this sort of practical and efficient approach to govemment that the Liberals, under Angus Innes, will bring into Govemment. The people of Merthyr demonstrated their desire for such an approach in the recent by- election. This trend will continue across Queensland in a few short weeks. In conclusion, as should be obvious to all honourable members, I am proud to stand in this place today as a Liberal. I have come into this Parliament believing that the goal of people engaged in political endeavour should not be that of position or office, for as the author Walter Lippman states— "There is no surer test of reason in politics than to be able to remember that politics and Government are secondary and subsidiary—not goods and ends in themselves." We in the Liberal Party appreciate this essential tmth of good politics. I am proud to sit with my colleagues in this Parliament who, together with other Liberals in this State, have always worked for something bigger than themselves. Political adversity, in the fire of conflict and sometimes disappointment, has brought about in us a rebirth of spirit which has made us tougher, experienced, battle-hardened and ready to govern. I look forward to the continuing honour of serving with my colleagues in this place in the best interests of the electors of Merthyr and of all Queenslanders. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (8.04 p.m.): I think it must be unique for a maiden speech to be made during a debate on a forest revocation. It is also the only time that Mr Santoro will be heard in silence in this place. He will often be judged over the coming months by his maiden speech. I have to say that it was in fact not a bad maiden speech, even though there was littie of it with which I agreed. Mr Muntz: Be nice to him. He has voted with you 18 times out of 20. Mr COMBEN: His maiden speech was a littie late and a littie conservative, but it was a reasonable speech, considering where he comes from. I want to respond to a couple of matters that Mr Santoro raised. One concems the Upper House and what fiends members of the Labor Party were on 22 March 1922. However, in New Zealand it was in actual fact the conservative Govemments, to which Mr Santoro would belong, which abolished the Upper House in that country. Mr Santoro also referted to the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, and said what a wonderful man he was and what Christian appeal he had. He should remember that the man who opposed the introduction of prayers at the beginning of sessions in this House was Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, who said— "I shall make my judgment where and how I shall pray to my Lord." So he was not an upstanding example of Christianity. Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 387

I also acknowledge the presence of many of Mr Santoro's friends in the gallery, some of whom are constituents of the electorate of Windsor. I do not think I will get many votes from them. However, Mr Santoro has some good friends in the gallery and he is well supported. That will not stop me from doing everything I can to ensure that Mr Santoro's maiden speech is the only speech that he makes in this place. I turn to the subject of the revocation, which is what honourable members should be discussing. Mr Santoro gave a fascinating dissertation on forestry matters here this evening! Honourable members are considering three revocations, two of them being very minor. One involves 0.3 of a hectare, another 0.2 of a hectare and the third 1 425 hectares in the parishes of Ellerbeck, Glenbora, Meunga and Pitt, described as area "A" on plan FTY 1549 prepared by the Department of Geographic Information and deposited in the office of the Conservator of Forests. It is proposed that they should be revoked. As always, I make my general comments about the handling of revocations in this place. Honourable members never seem to have sufficient information. We again rely on the good offices of the Conservator of Forests, but I understand that on this occasion Mr Eaton has in actual fact inspected this very large revocation. As the Minister says, it is to be a large wetland reserve adjacent to the Hinchinbrook Channel. Some 900 hectares is actually to be given over to aquaculture and 600 hectares to wetland reserves. The problems of aquaculture are becoming well-known, as are pollution problems and even the future of the industry. We are not sure whether or not the aquaculture industry will be viable in the future. It is always of some concem to me that areas that are so essential to fish-breeding and fish habitat are used for anything other than fish habit reserves. There is a question mark hanging over the industry. Without a lack of proper assessment, the Opposition relies again on the Minister's good departmental officers. Mr Eaton has indicated that Opposition members will not be opposing the revocation. However, I always encounter some problems when the present Minister for Environment says, "It is a wonderful idea." I think that everyone is fairly familiar with the differences between the Minister and me. Certainly on this occasion the Opposition will not be opposing the revocation. Mr NEWTON (Glass House) (8.09 p.m.): The revocation involves my electorate. Mr Prest: Come on! Mr NEWTON: Mr Prest might say that the revocation involves his electorate. He can refer to his electorate and I shall refer to my electorate of Glass House. Today I heard that it had been suggested in the press that the seat of Glass House would be a push-over for the Labor Party in the next State election. We will see what happens when the election is held. I take a great deal of interest when land is taken from national parks and forestry areas. I have said previously in the House that sometimes there is a need for land to be revoked from such areas. Very good reasons have been put forward for the revocation of the three areas referred to by the Minister. Mr Prest: Take it as read. Mr NEWTON: I am aware of the Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms. I point out to the member for Port Curtis that I knew the establishment very well before it was shifted to its present site. It was the only place on the Bmce Highway at which one could have a cup of tea on the way to Caloundra. In the good old days, the highway passed the Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms. It was a well-known place at which travellers could call in and enjoy a cup of tea. It had been located on its previous site since 1935. Mr R. J. Gibbs: They reckon the elderly ladies in the caravan park knew you exceptionally well. 388 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas

Mr NEWTON: I would have a cup of tea there. There was no caravan park there; it was just a nice littie meeting place on the road to Caloundra. Its location was well known. The tea rooms have been shifted to the present site off the main highway. There is no timber around the present site. The only plants are in the gardens that have been planted by the owners. Recently my car broke down late one night. I pulled into the Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms. It was an excellent place for the tow-tmck driver to pick up my vehicle. I was able to make a telephone call for assistance from the tea rooms. On my arrival there I was treated with hospitality. Mr Mackenroth: Isn't that nice? Mr NEWTON: It was very nice, too. That is one of the nice things in life—to be able to call into a place where a person is greeted with hospitality. The Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms are located in a forest area in my electorate. I have no objection to the Minister's proposal. I have heard the Opposition say that it does not have any objection to the revocation of land in other areas to extend the electrification of the railway line between Brisbane and Rockhampton. One of the great initiatives by the National Party Govemment was the electrification of that railway line. It is pleasing that a service is being provided for members of the public by the upgrading of the railway line. Mr Eaton, the member for Mourilyan, referred to land being used for aquaculture. Although I am not personally familiar with the area, I know that wetlands will be left as mangrove areas. I am pleased about that, because I do not want to see another mangrove knocked down. Regardless of what has happened on Bribie Island and what Opposition members might say, I point out that that all happened before I became a parliamentarian. I said that I would not see another mangrove knocked down. Mr Mackenroth: What did you do? Close your eyes? Mr NEWTON: No. It is all very well for the honourable member to make such comments. I have my views on the conservation of the area. I want to see the preservation of the fish habitat. Mr Eaton has acknowledged that that area must be examined. The Govemment acknowledges that, too. Another area of land will be used for aquaculture. A great deal has been said about the freeholding of aquaculture areas. Freeholding provides an opportunity for a person to obtain secure tenure. It is necessary for persons developing such projects to bortow money. Because of the high interest rates presently obtaining under the Federal Labor Government, I doubt that anyone would want to develop the area at the moment. Tonight it was suggested that Australia's export income needs to be increased. Governments of all political persuasions should be helping companies to eam export income so that Australia cams the export dollars that it should be earning. A great deal of export income can be derived from the aquaculture industry. I know that other countries have beaten Australia to the gun, but I would like to see the industry helped in as many ways as possible. Today, technology is helping the aquaculture industry. I believe that freehold title should be given to parcels of land so that the owners can obtain the finance necessary to develop them. The Conservator of Forests has given the go-ahead to the proposal. The Conservator of Forests does a great job. It has been stated that the areas involved have no special purpose and that they could be freeholded and used for aquaculture purposes. As I said, the wetlands, which encompass the mangrove areas, have been put aside for a fish- breeding habitat. I appreciate that. I have no hesitation in saying that the area has been utilised for a purpose. I appreciate the work that has been done by the Conservator of Forests. Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 389

Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (8.14 p.m.): The motion being considered by honourable members poses three quite separate revocations. Two of them appear to be quite unexceptionable, although I have some questions that I would direct to the Minister and request him to answer when he responds to the debate. The first of the revocations proposed contains an area of one acre. It is a tiny part of a State forest north of Bundaberg, adjacent to a railway line. As the Minister said, it is intended to be used as a facility for the railways in its operations. Having examined the maps of the zone, I do not think that there could be any reasonable objection to the proposition. It is one of those mere administrative readjustments that will always be necessary to be made in the Parliament by the Govemment as the State progresses and as new facilities are required. Land boundaries will need to be adjusted to accommodate those facilities. The second revocation relates to the Rustic Cabin area near the Caloundra turn- off, which involves only three-quarters of an acre. I would Uke to ask the Minister a few questions about the necessity for the conversion of a lease on forestry land to a freehold holding. Most honourable members who have some familiarity with the north coast will recall the Rustic Cabin, which was euphemistically known as a teahouse. Mr Austin: They made lovely Devonshire teas. Mr GYGAR: I agree with the honourable member. Lovely Devonshire teas were made there. The cabin was set in a magnificent area of jungle and palm trees. However, about 15 years ago the road was widened and some of the jungle and those magnificent palms were demolished. Regrettably, that cabin is now in a backwater because the new highway bypasses it and people do not tum into that area as much as they did in the past. The Rustic Cabin has been there for donkey's years. I cannot remember a time when I have driven to the north coast—and I have had a driver's licence—and it was not there. Mr Borbidge: What about when you used to drive without a driver's licence? Mr GYGAR: I remind the Honourable the Minister that I am a law-abiding citizen and I have never driven without a driver's licence. The Rustic Cabin has been in existence for a long time. Mr Newton: 1935. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member tells me that it was established in 1935. The cabin is situated on a forestry lease. Why does that land suddenly need to be freeholded? Even though my mathematics are not very good, I estimate that the cabin has been in existence for at least half a century. Mr Muntz interjected. Mr GYGAR: I am not trying to be difficult; I am just asking why. The Minister claims that a revocation is necessary. I ask: why is it necessary? If a forestry lease over that land has existed for 50 years, why is a change necessary? If there is a legitimate reason, who is going to fight about it? But this Pariiament deserves an explanation of why a business that has operated successfully for 50 years in one method of land-holding suddenly needs a new one. The third revocation needs significant explanation not only in terms of the revocation but also as to what is occurring on that land at present. A revocation of 1 425 hectares is proposed just south of Cardwell facing the Hinchinbrook Channel, which is one of the most delicate environmental areas in this State. The area that is being revoked from State forest is to the seaward side of the railway line between Five Mile Creek and Damper Creek. It is a very significant area not only in size but also in terms of its 390 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas impact on the Hinchinbrook Channel environment and the Hinchinbrook seascape and tourist development. It is one of the most significant tourist and environmental areas in this State and must not be revoked from State forest without the fullest scrutiny of this Parliament. I am a little unfamiliar with hectares, but to me 1 425 hectares works out at about 3 500 acres. Mr Newton: They are leaving half of that. Mr GYGAR: I will come to that in a moment. As the honourable member said, half of that area is to be preserved as a mangrove wetland reserve, which is as it should be. Mr Muntz: All the waterfront. Mr GYGAR: I am glad that that is happening. The Minister is well aware that, after what happened last time when a certain individual decided that he was going to demolish all the mangroves without a permit, he would hear the noise from Brisbane if anybody wanted to start bulldozing any more mangroves in the Hinchinbrook Channel. I tum now to the issue of permits. The land in question is out of the wetland area and is situated between the coast—which is a Uttle difficult to define in that area—and the railway line. It is proposed that the land be split into four blocks for aquaculture. Each block is to be 200 hectares, which is roughly equivalent to 500 acres. That is a lot of land. The Government is asking Parliament to revoke that State forest land so that it can be leased out. The fact of the matter is that it is already leased out. Once again. Parliament is being regarded as a mbber stamp. I am advised reliably that public tenders for that land went out months ago. In fact, there were 10 applicants and the successful ones have already been decided. They are Sea Farm Pty Ltd, a Mr Robertson, a Mr Gardine and a Mr Sciacca, each of whom will receive 200 hectares. Some of those individuals have been trotting around the Cardwell area saying that they have got it in the bag. In fact, they received the leases six to eight weeks ago. This Parliament has not yet revoked the State forestry reserve. Mr Menzel: They haven't got the leases. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member for Mulgrave tells me that the leases have not been issued. If that is the case, why has Mr Robertson already cleared the area that will be the subject of his lease? Mr Schuntner: He is a man with remarkable foresight. Mr GYGAR: As the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha says, he is a man with remarkable foresight. He must be employing one of the star-gazers from the Courier- Mail. After looking into his crystal ball he is so confident that he is going to get the lease that he has not yet been given—as the honourable member for Mulgrave tells us— and which the Parliament has not yet approved—as the Honourable the Minister tells us—that he is already clearing his patch of prospective lease. Mr Innes: Do you mean to say he is a trespasser destroying Crown property already, in Queensland? Unbelievable! Mr Muntz: You are discouraging business in Queensland. Mr GYGAR: The Honourable the Minister is starting to get his back up about this and is claiming that my leader is discouraging business because he has a strange insistence that people should not be able to bulldoze State forests before they have a legal tenure and a legal right to do so. That is amazing. I am not making accusations; I merely ask the Minister: has Mr Robertson got a lease? Have the successful applicants been determined? Who gave Mr Robertson per­ mission to bulldoze a State forest? That area is still a State forest. This Parliament has Revocation of State Forest Areas 5 September 1989 391

not revoked the forestry area. Did Mr Robertson obtain the necessary permits? If so, who gave them to him? What is the legal process when a non-lessee moves into a prospective lease that he has not yet been granted and starts to knock things down? Mr Menzel: People can be given permission. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member for Mulgrave says that people can be given permission. I suggest to the honourable member that the Government pushes its luck perhaps a little too far. Mr Innes: This is one of those George Quaid deals where he bulldozed first and got permission afterwards. Mr GYGAR: I am less a cynic than my leader is. I merely ask: what is going on in the Hinchinbrook Channel? Can the Minister tell the Parliament what would happen if tonight the Parliament determined, as it is capable of doing, it being the sovereign organisation in this State, to refuse to revoke the State forest? For openers, a very large question mark must hang over any proposals of this size fronting such a delicate and important area as the Hinchinbrook Channel. The area in question comprises approximately 1 425 hectares, which is a massive area. According to law, this Parliament must excise that area from the State forest before it can be otherwise dealt with in other tenures by the Govemment. Yet it is found that everybody in Cardwell and elsewhere knows exactly what has happened: that Sea Farm, Mr Robertson, Mr Gardine and Mr Sciacca have been granted the leases. 1 ask: what leases? They do not exist yet. It is a State forest. Parliament has not revoked it. Or has it? Perhaps I am mistaken. Can the Minister explain to us the tenurial position that has occurred there and why it has happened? I do not stand before this House and say that I oppose, or my party opposes, the idea of four significant aquacultural developments in this area. It could well be, and it appears to be, a suitable project. It could well be, and it appears to be, that no deleterious impact will be made on the environment, though that would have to be very, very carefully considered when dealing with an area such as the Hinchinbrook Channel. Mr Menzel: The Labor Party understands. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member for Mulgrave is a little bit twitchy about this one, and well he might be. All the Liberal Party asks is that things be done legally, properly and appropriately. I suggest to the Minister that it is singularly inappropriate for any person—any Minister of the Crown—to come before this Parliament purporting to ask for a revocation of a State forest when already the whole of the State forest has effectively, if not in law, been revoked; when leases over that area have effectively, if perhaps not in law, been granted; and when the bulldozers have already moved in. I suggest to the Minister that that is not a proper way in which to do business in this State. I do not argue with the Minister that maybe these four aquacultural developments ought to go ahead. I am merely speaking about the process. I remind the Minister of the problems that have arisen in this State because of accusations of rorts and racketeering and of people doing things first and asking questions later. I advise the Minister, lest he goes off on a tangent, that I have checked carefuUy what happened in the process of granting these leases. I have been assured—and I accept it without reservation—that there were no dirty deals or money under the carpet or any of that sort of thing in the granting of the leases; that there were 10 applicants; that they were judged on their merits, on their backgrounds and on their appropriateness, and that the four persons who were granted, or who will be granted the leases, depending on how one looks at this whole matter, are the right people to receive them. I do suggest to the Minister that the forest reserve not having been revoked, things have gone a littie bit too far a littie bit too fast. I ask for his assurances on two things: firstly, why the Rustic Cabin needs a freehold tenure after 50 years when to all intents 392 5 September 1989 Revocation of State Forest Areas and purposes it has operated quite satisfactorily on a leasehold arrangement till now. Secondly, what is happening in the Hinchinbrook Channel? Have the bulldozers moved in? On whose authority? Have the leases been granted? If so, how Mr Prest: Put it on notice for tomortow. Mr GYGAR: Yet again the honourable gentlemen is displaying the complete vacuous nature of the grey matter between his two ears, and he is supposed to be acting as the Opposition Leader of the House. I would have thought that members of a responsible Opposition, well briefed and well informed, would have raised all of these points with the Government, not in a belligerent way and not in a way that would cause confrontation, but merely to carry out their duties and responsibilities as members of this House. The honourable gentieman, who purports to act as Leader of the House for the Opposition, really ought to be aware that revocations come before Pariiament for a very specific reason. Pariiament, as the supreme authority, has the right to make revocations. Mr Prest interjected. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member should not try to dig his way out of it now. He is just a half-witted galoot who does not know what he is doing. He is typical of the rest of the bunch on his front bench. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the comment. Mr GYGAR: I withdraw. I was sorely provoked. In the spirit of what is supposed to be occurring here, I merely ask the Minister for explanations of the matters that have been raised. I do that not in a way that is belligerent or in a way that causes confrontation but merely to fulfil the appropriate and proper role of this Parliament, which is acknowledged by the way in which the Minister has brought these matters before the House. Hon. G. H. MUNTZ (Whitsunday—Minister for Environment, Conservation and Forestry) (8.29 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. Obviously none of them objects to the revocations. That in itself is a step in the right direction, because the first two revocations involve only small parcels of land and have little effect on land use. I think all honourable members agree that the revocation of State forest 898 near Maryborough for railway purposes is a logical step. The second site, which involves the Rustic Cabin Tea Rooms, has been the subject of a special lease for the past 30 years. Neither I nor this Govemment makes any excuse for supporting small-business enterprise and private enterprise in all directions. In this case, the small operator who is being assisted has been very successful. He has an excellent reputation. I am sure that the member for Glass House supports my remarks. The operator is highly recommended and has a tremendous reputation for serving the travelling public. That reputation wiU stand him in good stead. Even though he is off the main stream of traffic flow now, I am sure that the travelling public will still give him the support that they have in the past. The owner has capitalised the site to a great extent. In my opinion, he is entitled to the benefit of freehold title. It may be the case that if we lived in Russia, East Germany or China, we, as members of the Govemment, might adopt a different attitude. In this State and in this nation, it is generally accepted that if for 30 years someone has been prepared to put his money where his mouth is and, together with his family, develop a business on a site that has no value other than for commercial purposes, he is entitled to freehold title. That is my opinion and it might answer the question asked by Mr Gygar. The member for Mourilyan has a long-standing objection to freehold title in cases of the type to which I have referted. Although I can understand the honourable member's attitude, it is not my attitude. Of course, I represent a type of Govemment that is Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 393 different from the one that the honourable member might represent, which will always be the case. For example, I would not be worried if the whole nation was the subject of freehold title because, as the honourable member admitted earlier, if Govemments of the day want to resume land for public purposes, it would not really matter whether the land was secured under perpetual lease tenure, freehold tenure or special lease tenure. The Govemment of the day can resume and compensate for the resumption on just terms. The third site proposed for the Cardwell aquaculture site has the advantage of being immediately downstream from State forest areas and has no chemical or fertiliser loadings. The land is particularly useful for aquaculture purposes but is of no use for agricultural purposes. In this instance, the Government has set aside 1 425 hectares and will proclaim the greater part of that area—particularly water frontage and mangrove areas—as a wetlands reserve. I think that this House should commend the Government for taking that step. The area of 681 hectares has been set aside for aquaculture purposes. In the first place, this is a pioneering industry. In the second place, it is an industry that should receive support from all members of this Parliament. It is an industry that is absolutely essential if the habitats of fish, crabs and prawns are to be protected and preserved. The Government must encourage this type of industry. First and foremost, it is a pioneering industry. In terms of whether or not the granting of special leases is justified and in view of the comments made by the member for Stafford, Mr Gygar, I point out that in relation to any State forest, the Govemment of the day can issue special leases. The areas do not have to be revoked from State forests except in cases in which they have been made freehold, which is proposed in this instance. There is nothing wrong with the Govemment's issue of special lease tenures over State forests for aquaculture or for any other purposes. Similar action has been taken in relation to grazing and in other instances. I believe that this outline should provide the answer sought by the honourable member. At this time I am not aware whether approvals for clearing were given by my departmental head, but they certainly have not been extensive. The approvals were given for work that was necessary to be carried out for preparation of the site for aquaculture. Unfortunately, these revocations were to come before the Parliament months ago but were delayed because other Govemment business took precedence. I accept that, but the department and the Govemment did not want to withhold approval for the developments and jeopardise the interests of the people who had taken on special leases. The only reason that approvals were granted in this case was because the area comprised State forest reserves. It is quite appropriate for me as Minister and for the department to issue those special leases. I commend the motion to the House. Motion agreed to.

VAGRANTS, GAMING, AND OTHER OFFENCES ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 April (see p. 4549, vol. 312). Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (8.35 p.m.): The Opposition agrees in principle with the idea of reviewing legislation. I note from the Minister's second-reading speech and from the legislation that the Parliament is reviewing this particular piece of legislation after a period of 135 years. Perhaps one could be cmel and say that it is long overdue. Members of this Parliament are dealing with a very serious matter that concerns trespassing goats. I can understand why the review has taken so long when I recall the particular events that were part of the presentation of this legislation. Of course, the Minister in charge of the preparation of this legislation is not the Minister presentiy in the Chamber. All honourable members would realise that the former Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services mentioned that the legislation was 394 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill necessary because the former Minister for Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze, Mr Wharton, the former Minister for Industry and Technology, the former Minister for Welfare Services and the member for Condamine were all concemed about trespassing goats. He pointed out that something needed to be done and that there was a need to repeal legislation that was 135 years old in order to view it from a different perspective. The Opposition has no objection to the repeal of the two Acts mentioned in the second-reading speech. I have been told that the Liberal Party intends to divide the House on this legislation, but I will wait and see. It is surprising that members of the Liberal Party would be concemed about the reverse onus of proof when deahng with goats. Governments are never concemed about the reverse onus of proof and I am certain that if one were to consult the Hansard records, one would see that on the many occasions when the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act was amended to ensure that people who entered properties without lawful excuse were required to show proof of their intent, never once did the Liberal Party in coalition express concem. However, tonight the Liberal Party will attempt to score political points in relation to this matter. I would not be surprised if members of the Liberal Party changed their minds, because this morning they supported the Premier and in the past they have supported this legislation. However, they will not support the legislation tonight and one wonders whether in fact they will or will not support it when they wake up in the moming. In principle, the Opposition supports this amendment to the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act and the repeal of the two particular Acts. Mr CASEY (Mackay) (8.39 p.m.): I rise to speak in this debate on the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill in accordance with the Standing Order that allows honourable members to review parts of an Act when it comes before this House for debate. As Mr Mackenroth, the honourable member for Chatsworth, has explained, much of this debate is about goats, which reminds the Opposition very much of the National Party in Queensland. However, I wish to talk about the Brisbane Broncos football team more than anything else. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I would rather the honourable member spoke about the Bill. Mr CASEY: Yes. My speech relates more to the gaming side of the legislation. It has become obvious to all Queenslanders that the New South Wales Rugby League does not want a Queensland team to win the premiership in New South Wales. Wally, Wayne and the boys cannot complain about the referees, but I can. One only has to watch the television every Saturday or Sunday night—if one is fortunate enough to get a replay of the Broncos game—and one sees the roughest deal of all time being given to Queenslanders. One only has to look at what happened to Queensland's champion front rower who appeared before the New South Wales judicial committee to find out the deal that is being given to Queenslanders. Wally, Wayne and the boys cannot complain about the New South Wales judicial committee, but I can, because they have been given a very rough and raw deal. The connection between football and the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act comes about because the gaming side of the Act prevents the operation of poker machines in Queensland. In recent days the Govemment has announced that a number of additional casinos will be established in this State. I believe that five casinos will be a surplus of casinos in Queensland. It was mentioned in this Parliament earlier today that the Townsville casino is not doing very well at all. Its $ 1 shares are selling at only 29c. Queensland does not need more casinos; it needs poker machines in licensed clubs so that football clubs, bowling clubs, RSL clubs, golf clubs and other sporting groups can survive and turn things on in the sporting arena in the same way as has occurred in New South Wales. That will assist the greatest game of all; Rugby League. Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5Seplem^ber 1989 395

The Brisbane Broncos have more players in the Australian Rugby League team than any other Australian football team. I know Mr Davis does not support the Broncos and I am very disappointed. As the member for Brisbane Central, he should be their number one supporter. I know that he is the number one supporter of the Queensland State of Origin side and a great supporter of the game itself. He is an old Brothers man Uke myself I am a big supporter of Rugby League in Queensland, and the sport stands to benefit enormously from the introduction of poker machines in Queensland. There will be a development of the sport through the introduction of poker machines and Queensland's footballers can be brought back from New South Wales. The only reason why clubs such as Norths and Penrith have Queensland players in their sides is that in New South Wales the players receive some sort of remuneration for the effort that they put into the sport. If poker machines were introduced into Queensland instead of extra casinos being established, the Queensland footballers will be brought back not only to Brisbane, but also to the country areas of Queensland where most of them emanated from. If an origin match were held in Queensland between country and city players, the country players would stitch the city players every time. They would belt pick and axe handles out of them. Mr Deputy Speaker, people such as Sam Backo have come from your own illustrious area of Herbert River and have starred in Australian Rugby League. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Mackay that patronage will not benefit his cause, and I ask him to retum to debate the Bill. Mr CASEY: Certainly. Mr Deputy Speaker, if, under this Act, the Herbert River Rugby League club was able to have poker machines in its clubhouse in your home town of Ingham, it would stand a chance of getting people such as Sam Backo to play for Herbert River in the old Foley Shield competition. Also, cities like Mackay would have people such as Bella and Shearer playing for their own home sides because the clubs could afford to pay them. As a result, the game of Rugby League would be better off in north Queensland, which is the real breedinghouse for Rugby League in this State. This Act should be amended so that poker machines can be introduced into Queensland and Queensland can bring its footballers back into this State. Queensland will continue to belt New South Wales in the State of Origin football matches because the majority of the good players come from this State. With the introduction of poker machines in Queensland, we could stimulate our own intrastate competition rather than stimulate supporters to go along and see New South Wales Rugby League and Queensland players playing in the New South Wales competition. The legislation should be amended so that we can bring our footballers back to Queensland and stimulate the greatest sporting contest in Australia. Mr Davis: Would you say that, if there were poker machines in clubs, we would not need private clubs? Mr CASEY: If clubs had poker machines we would not have ownership of footballers as at present, not only in Rugby League but also in Australian Rules. And that has not worked properiy, either. With poker machines in Queensland, this State would be the top State in the greatest game of all, and Queensland Country would dominate it. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (8.46 p.m.): Over the years I have raised questions about the quality of legal drafting. In particular, I have raised broader issues of justice in relation to the poUce legislation. The legislation being discussed proposes a fundamental confusion. I know that in the mral areas of AustraUa there is a movement towards beefing up the laws against trespass. We have moved from a more closely settled country in which people move out from urban areas, some carrying guns, some with negligent or deliberate intent, and cause trouble to property-owners. The taking of reasonable steps to stop that sort of action I totally support. Thirty years ago, in the Northem Territory, there was legislation against high- powered firearms, which really came out of the devastation of stock and tank-stands 396 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill caused by irresponsible or malicious people in country areas. That was in the Northern Territory, which is more sparsely settled and more frontier than Queensland, which does not have any restrictions on high-powered firearms. Obviously, as the urban part of the State increases, the dangers or problems with youngsters or other people going bush and taking guns into the bush increase. Not only do I have no objection but I think it is reasonable and I support reasonable legislation to beef up the laws against trespass and to stop the damage caused by irresponsible people. We are moving from a problem that relates to changes in one particular type of livestock, namely, the goat, to merging concepts of negligence with concepts of the criminal law that do not hang together sensibly. Special-purpose trespass legislation is a better way to go, and I support it. If we want to revamp the Inclosed Land Act, let us go to special trespass legislation, having very much in mind the problems of the mral dweller and looking at the sorts of intmsions that can take place when people go onto mral property, and set up a sensible set of laws in favour of the land-owner to act against the irresponsible and the negligent. There is no doubt that, by negligence, people can cause damage. That is so in the urban areas. If a person, without criminal negligence, drove onto the wrong side of the road and forced a bus or tmck to career off the road, causing $400,000 worth of damage, the person could end up with massive civil damages against him, but no criminal conviction. Here, we seem to have gone too far. I accept that the modern goat industry in Queensland and Australia is very valuable. The devastation caused by wild goats is probably not well known by people who live along the coastal strip although, interestingly on Moreton Island, there is a goat problem that is causing erosion around the cape. Anybody who has lived in the outback knows that goats are a problem. I have shot goats in the remote ares of the Northern Territory. I understand the problem with the feral goat. I also have seen the modem mohair and cashmere livestock which are clearly and totally different and there should not be any law that aUows the shooting of that sort of valuable stock. I persistently come back to the question of legislation, because that is our product. If the Minister for Transport were asked to produce a bad goat, he would not do so because he takes great pride in his goat herd. Our product in Parliament is not livestock; it is legislation. So we have an obligation to try to get the legislation right, to make it sensible and effective, and tou target the particular evil or wrong that we see. It should not be broad bmsh or misdirected, because every piece of law is a restriction on somebody's freedom of action or, worse, it could become itself an action of oppression by the Government. I warned the Leader of the House on the last day of the last sitting that I thought this legislation was misconceived. It is not well directed. It is transposing to broad acres legislation that applies to enclosed buildings. Consequently, the impact is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. I shall outline the argument I will raise at the Committee stage. Mr Davis interjected. Mr INNES: I am personally aware of the honourable member's attitude towards the legislative process. He does not understand and he does not care. It is because there are so many people such as him around the place that the quality of our laws is low. He opens his mouth, yaps and makes snide or humorous remarks. That is his sole interest in the game. He has given up. He is retiring. Some of us have to live with the consequences of the laws that we make. Some of us will have to deal with constituents or other people who come and ask, "Why did my young fellow get arrested and slotted into gaol?" Let me point out the legislation from which this comes and the effect that it will have. Section 4A, which the Bill amends, is completely sensible. The honourable member for Chatsworth does not know what I am talking about so he cannot make any prediction about what I will be saying. I have no objection to the reversal of the onus of proof in Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 397 the present section 4A, because it is a sensible balance. At the moment, section 4A (1) states— "Any person who, without lawful excuse (the proof of which shall be on him), together with others enters or remains in or upon any part of a building or stmcture, whether public or private, or any land occupied or used in connexion therewith, is guilty of an offence. Penalty: $200 or imprisonment for six months." Subsection (2) states— "Any person who remains in or upon any part of a building or stmcture, or any land occupied or used in connexion therewith"— that is in connection with a building or stmcture— "which part or land is not a public place, and has no lawful excuse for so doing (proof of such lawful excuse being upon him) shall, if he there ... does any act or uses any language ... be guilty of an offence." Those two matters relate to "stmcture" and "building". The reason is simple. People who are without lawful excuse in or around buildings or stmctures are up to no good, in the same way that the law has a special and serious offence for breaking into or entering a house without lawful excuse. From history, the law knows that anybody in that position, if caught or comered, is likely to cause some terrible damage. It is a very serious offence to enter somebody's living space, sleeping space or place in which a person might be in a confined area. The law is sensible. History teaches us a few lessons. Entering stmctures and buildings or being in or about buildings or in the yard of a building—it is often called historically the curtilage of a building—brings with it special dangers and therefore special obligations on the person found there. The person cannot be there by accident. He cannot get over somebody's fence or enter a building by accident. It is sensible to reverse the onus and put the onus on the person to show why he is where he should not be, trespassing in somebody's building or yard. An honourable member: You'll find a difference out on the farm. Mr INNES: It is different. Mr Newton: It's no different. Mr INNES: Darn right it is different! There are things such as stock routes, closed routes and unclosed routes. In the west there are massive spaces and people can enter a property merely to seek assistance. They could take a wrong tum. On occasions, I have visited somebody in the country and have been directed by a mud map to turn left 10 kilometres out of town and have taken the wrong tum. Unfortunately, people do not understand the laws when they read them. This law states that anybody who did that without lawful excuse—and negligence is not a lawful excuse Mr Newton: Oh, now! Mr INNES: The honourable member says "Oh, now". That is a typical statement from him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I ask the honourable member for Glass House to lower his microphone. His interjections are coming through the amplifying system. Mr INNES: That is the typically idiotic statement that comes from people who have abused power and taken the letter of the law to the limits. The legislation is setting up somebody who negligently leaves a gate open on a property—for six months' gaol. I do not believe that is right. It is perfectly right to put six months' gaol or a serious fine on somebody who enters somebody's yard, shed or house. It is not right to have the same standard in a broad-acre situation. I am not saying that there should not be a penalty; I am saying that it should not be attached to a gaol sentence. I foreshadow moving an amendment to the Bill suggesting that four penalty points, which is about $240, should become 15 penalty points. I do not mind if the fine is 398 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill

$1,000. The judge can make some distinction. However, a person cannot be put in gaol because he negligently leaves a gate open. By leaving gates open, people can cause a lot of damage. A stud cow or bull could escape and incur interference, which would cause a fair amount of damage. Negligence can occur outside a property or on a property and cause damage, but the remedy is through civil action. A balance must be established. It is crazy in the broad-acre situation to reach a position in which a person could be imprisoned for six months. That is an appropriate penalty for somebody who enters into such close physical proximity to a person that it causes physical danger and for law-breaking occurrences which occur when someone enters people's houses, buildings or properties in a closed sense. But it is a crazy concept to extend to the broad acres of Queensland. Some properties are hundreds of square miles in dimension. Every day, people are innocently lost or go off a stock route onto people's land not knowing that they are off a declared road, and so on. I do not want to see people being gaoled by two JPs in the bush because they have committed some minor and paltry infringement. Let us find that correct balance. The Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act should not be used for trespass to land in the broad-acre sense. Special trespass legislation should be set up for those events in the country. It is a confusion of two different concepts to bring trespass, unauthorised entry or the leaving of gates open in the broad-acre situation into a piece of legislation that is framed and directed at the house, the home, the office building, the property or its immediate curtilage. We have not found a sensible balance. This is a silly overlay of legislation which does not marry two pieces of legislation properly. I foreshadow that I will be proposing amendments in Committee. The legislation can beef up the fine. I do not mind strong flexibility in the imposition of a fine when looking at the reality of the damage that has occurred. However, let us not get ourselves down the track of having gaoling offences for what might be negligent intmsion or movement onto broad-acre properties. Mr NEWTON (Glass House) (8.59 p.m.): I was quite amused by the contribution to the debate of the member for Mackay, Mr Casey. This Act is 150 years old. Its name is the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act. "Gaming" referred to birds of the feathered variety and to animals of the furred variety. The Act refers to swine, which we all know today as wild pigs. When the Act was introduced, Queensland was part of the colony of New South Wales. Mr Warburton: Knowing the National Party, I can believe that the legislation is 150 years old. Mr NEWTON: I will not take that interjection. The legislation was introduced at a time when a problem existed with goats. Today, in my area, goats are plentiful. Mr D'Arcy: Goats! Mr NEWTON: I would hate to hear what members of the Opposition say about goats, because what one throws one must accept back, and I do not wish to say anything adverse about them. If members of the Opposition want to throw it, I can throw it back. However, today there is quite a large goat population in Queensland. These days the farming of goats is a profitable industry. There are now better varieties of goats, such as angora and those used for dairy purposes. They yield quite a substantial sum of money. However, in the old days, goats and pigs were scavengers. An Act was passed to keep them under control. The member for Sherwood, Mr Innes, said that this legislation should not be used to cover broad-acre areas; that it is all about buildings in city areas and does not relate to farms. I have a farm, and the area around it is becoming closely settled. My farm comprises quite a large area of land. I hope that I can still shoot any dingo that is Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 399 causing my cattle harm or any wild pig that is rooting around in the banana patch, which has happened before. The last part of the Bill refers to the leaving open of gates and shooting on properties. I have quite a lot of kangaroo-shooters in my area. They take their holidays in winter and go out to properties in the west to shoot pigs and so on. They know the areas on which they are going to shoot. They are allowed to go onto properties. They know what they are doing. They know that the cattle are in certain areas. I was concemed to hear the comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party, because I consider a farm to be an enclosed area just as much as a property in the city. Many of the properties in the outer areas of this State are mnning quite valuable beef cattle and sheep. The owners of those properties want to know who is shooting on their properties and whether they are causing damage. It is an unwritten law out west that gates that give entry to any property should be shut as people pass through. There can be indiscriminate use of these areas, with people leaving gates open and letting the cattle out. They could even be out mstling cattle and say, "I've got my load. I won't bother shutting the gate." That results in the property-owner losing his livestock. It is a criminal offence. I do think that unlawful trespassing should be prevented. It is all right to say that legislation can be amended to suit the broad-acre areas as well as the city areas. I have a small farm, and I hope that if somebody is shooting indiscriminately on my property I can call the police and say, "Someone is shooting indiscriminately on my property. I want you to see if you can deal with him." Under this legislation, I hope that anyone who causes damage on my property will be brought before the courts. I have just bought a prize bull, and I would not like to see him shot on my property. That could happen if people start shooting indiscriminately in the area. The same thing happens in broad-acre areas. I cannot see any difference. If a person is unlawfully trespassing, he should be brought to justice and should suffer the penalty of a fine or whatever else the penalty may be. I support the repeal of the legislation, which is quite ancient. The cattle-mstUng that goes on today might not have gone on years ago. Leaving gates open is an offence. If an animal gets out on the road today, it can tum into quite a legal battle. The Leader of the Liberal Party ought to know that, if a car hits an animal that is loose on the road today and it results in a death, it can take quite a long time to fight it through the courts if it can be proved that a property-owner unlawfully left one of his gates open. If it was unlawfully left open, somebody has got to own up to that. It does not matter whether it is broad-acre or close farming; it is still the same. Today things are quite different from years ago. Legislation needs to be brought up to date. I whole-heartedly support the repeal of old legislation and the updating of legislation. The police must have laws with some teeth so that they can say to a trespasser, "This is the law. You know you should not be here without proper authority." I have much pleasure in supporting the repeal of the Inclosed Lands Act. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.06 p.m.): I have pleasure in supporting the repeal of a piece of legislation that has been in place for quite some time. It is a pity that more of these old Acts that have seen better days and are past their prime are not repealed. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I do not take much notice of the member for Brisbane Central, who does not know one end of a goat from the other. This legislation can be interpreted as the goat Act. In fact, it could even be interpreted as the member for Brisbane goat Act, if somebody were to be so broad-minded Mr Milliner: Brisbane Central. Mr STEPHAN: I should have said the member for Brisbane Central goat Act. 400 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill

The member for Brisbane Central would be competing with Mr McKechnie. Perhaps there could also be a McKechnie goat Act. Mr McKechnie certainly has a lot more interest in goats than does the member for Brisbane Central. It is interesting to examine the reasons behind the decision to repeal a couple of these old Acts. Sometimes we wonder why more penalties have not been imposed when we consider, for example, the reasons for the repeal of the Inclosed Lands Act. It provided penalties for the unlawful entry of a person into enclosed lands. It also made an offence the leaving open of a gate or slip panel in a fence. Further, the Act makes it lawful for a proprietor or occupier of the enclosed land to destroy a goat found trespassing thereon. One must realise the value of some of the goats that can be trespassing from time to time. Nevertheless, it could be very difficult indeed to keep goats out of a neighbour's property. An irate neighbour could shoot a goat doing damage rather than tie it up and notify the neighbour that the animal should be retrieved. The original legislation was based on the view that goats represented a significant threat to the horticultural and agricultural activities of the early settiers. Obviously, that threat does not now exist to that extent. Goats were left to range feed and scavenge whatever they could find. If the need arose, they would climb through fences to satisfy their inner needs. Mr Warburton interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The member for Sandgate would possibly know a bit about foot- and-mouth disease. In recent years, dramatic growth has taken place in the size and value of the domestic goat and cashmere industries. That matter was mentioned earlier this evening. This growth has led to increasing concem about the effects of the Inclosed Lands Act, which permits the destmction of trespassing goats. The domestic goat industry now exceeds $lm in value. As I said earlier, it would be interesting to examine some of the statistics and the value of some goats. People are paying up to $10,000 for a reasonably good quaUty goat. The value of the industry is growing; it is not decreasing. It must be remembered that some goats are being kept for milk production. Goats' milk may be required for health reasons. The owner of a goat may require the milk for himself or his children. From time to time goats are herded and milked for that reason. Some children require goats' milk because there is no substitute that they can use. The hygiene of goats and the conditions under which they are kept, as weU as the milk that they produce, are very important. High standards and reasonable conditions must be observed. The statistics show that in 1978 there were 7 800 domestic goats in Queensland, whereas in 1985 there were 53 000. Of those 53 000 goats, 8 000 were cashmere, 37 000 were angora and 2 000 were dairy goats. The figures were compiled from growers who have an income of $2,000 or more per annum from goats. The average herd size was 130. The goat fibre—mohair and cashmere—industry produces a clip valued at approx­ imately $lm annually in Queensland, although that figure includes production from northern New South Wales sold through Brisbane. In addition, goat meat sales of approximately 1 000 tonnes worth $2m occur each year. This is largely obtained by harvesting feral animals. Although the feral animal is possibly eating a different quality food, it is producing a reasonable type of meat. The development of the industry cannot be underestimated and certainly, to reach the standard required, needs reasonable breeding stock. The growth of the domestic goat industry in recent years has led to increasing concern about the Inclosed Lands Act. Action has been taken because of demand and because of a requirement by the community that is developing the domestic goat industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I call the member for Curtumbin. Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 401

An Opposition member interjected. Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (9.13 p.m.): There is only one in this place, and he is down there on my right. Mr Prest: You're a stinker. Mr GATELY: That would be more like the pig that is sitting at the other end. I wish to raise some issues in this debate. It would seem that the member for Mackay does not know the meaning of the word "gaming" in the Act. When the member for Mackay made nasty remarks about goats and made certain implications in his dismal attempt to attack the National Party, he fell down a great, big, black hole and, the way that he was snouting about, displayed the traits of a goose or a swine. Unfortunately, he got right away from the Act and what it relates to—goats; Labor goats, I suppose. The real reason why the honourable member wanted to talk about Rugby League was his attempt to show the age-old tactic of drawing a red herring across the track. The real track I am talking about is the Labor Party's ineptitude in understanding the real meaning of mral industry and its value to Australia's export-eaming capacity. As I am talking about goats in Queensland, I should say that, excluding the Labor ones, in 1983 there were 53 000. Of those, 8 000 were cashmere goats, 37 000 were angora, 2 000 were dairy goats and the remaining were unclassified. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! My responsibility in the chair is to insist on some relevance in these debates. For the last half-hour or so there has been very little relevance to the Bill. I remind honourable members to return to the terms of the Bill. Mr GATELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quoting from figures about goats. I thought that was what the Bill was about. I was referring to the value of this industry to Australia and its capacity to earn dollars for farmers and other mral producers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a dairy industry Bill. Mr GATELY: When one talks in terms of what the Labor Party was trying to talk about, namely, poker machines, I cannot for the life of me see any relevance between that and the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If I am to maintain proper order in this Chamber, 1 must insist on relevance to the subject-matter of the debate. I take it that this Bill deals mainly with trespass and remaining on property or in buildings. I do not see what that has got to do with the quality of the dairy industry. Mr GATELY: I am talking about goats, not the dairy industry. I accept your mling. Mr Davis: Are you talking about goats, or are you talking about the other sort of goat? Mr GATELY: I am talking about breeding goats for the purpose of producing cashmere and garments that may keep the honourable member warm on a cold and windy night, particularly in some of those areas that he toured with me near the Rockies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The remarks of the honourable member for Currumbin are totally irrelevant to the Bill. I do not intend to continue saying that. He will debate the Bill or he will resume his seat. I have no choice other than to say that. I have been very tolerant until now. Mr GATELY: The main purpose of this Act is to ensure that people remain outside the confines of enclosed farms and that those who enter other people's property pay due regard to the stock and goods on that property. If they do not pay due heed, they can be heavily fined. As to the suggested penalties—it is reprehensible that the Leader of the Liberal Party has shown absolute contempt for the mral dwellers. The honourable member spoke about changing the fines from four penalty points to 15. He said that he did not 402 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill mind how high the fines went. I wonder whether that is an example of the Liberal Party's laissez-faire attitude towards imposing severe and restrictive penalties upon people who may digress on occasions. Has the Leader of the Liberal Party considered the real implications of his statements on the mral sector? A person can make a mistake when he enters a person's property and can fail to close a gate. I wonder what the Liberal Party's attitude would be to penalties that are imposed in other instances. Would they be just as severe and just as restrictive? People in mral areas who might digress when they enter other people's property could find themselves facing fines of 15 penalty points instead of four penalty points. That leaves me rather cold. I believe that people who live in the mral areas of the State will see the Liberal Party for what it is, namely, a high-taxing group of people who wish to control the situation and who would impose increased penalties at unreal levels. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (9.20 p.m.): I support the legislation. The two Acts that are being repealed are antiquated and serve no useful purpose in this day and age. This Bill will remove many of the problems that some land-holders face. I do not intend to speak at length about the goat industry. I am sure that all honourable members realise its significance. It is a growth industry that was not heard of 20 years ago. The goat industry, which is now thriving, produces not only mohair and cashmere but also skins. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I must apologise to the Chamber. I have just been handed a copy of the Minister's second-reading speech and I notice that it contains extensive reference to goats. I withdraw my previous remark about irrelevance. Mr PERRETT: The goat industry provides a lot of fibre and skins to the fashion industry. I am sure that all honourable members recognise the significance of kid, which is a hi^ly sought-after fabric that fetches high prices. A smaller section of the goat industry involves the processing of goat meat. The South Burnett meatworks in Murgon in my electorate slaughters many feral goats that are caught in westem Queensland and exports them to south-east Asian countries. I understand that each year the goat-meat industry cams approximately $2m in revenue for Queensland. I tum now to the Inclosed Lands Act. Significant problems exist in mral areas in relation to trespass on properties, particularly when people leave gates open. I took exception to some of Mr Innes' remarks. I have seen at first hand a careless act—when it would have taken only half a minute to close a gate—that cost graziers thousands of dollars in separating the stock that became mixed together. Mr Burns: That's the way to get careless, isn't it—leave the gate open. Mr PERRETT: Certainly. It is a bit harder to sort out the numbers. One of the problems facing the Queensland grazing industry is the extensiveness of the mining industry. Personnel from the various mining companies roam over grazing properties throughout vast areas of Queensland and they find it very difficult to close gates. Graziers have told me that they have pleaded with those people to close the gates. They have put locks and chains on gates, but people cut them with bolt-cutters. If they do not have bolt-cutters, they cut the fence next to the gate and leave it open, anyway. Mr Davis: A lot of those yuppy four wheel drivers. Mr PERRETT: Exactly. The four wheel drivers and the trail bike riders are often responsible. It seems that they cannot leave a gate in the state that they found it. It is an unwritten law in the bush that if a person finds a gate open, he leaves it open. But if he finds it closed and he goes through it, he should close it behind him. It is not a difficult thing to do. If that is not done, many problems are created for land­ holders, particularly when stock are mating. One land-holder in the Charters Towers area related to me an incident about gates on his property being left open. His young Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 403

heifers, which were too young to be mated, were exposed to the bull and the following year he experienced problems because those young heifers were too young to be calving. As a result, he suffered a significant loss of many thousands of dollars. Although the law should not be too harsh on matters relating to negligence, if the message is to be brought home to people to teach them that they have to close gates, the penalties should be harsh enough to encourage them to do so. Mr Davis referred to yuppies. They wander all over properties in four-wheel-drives and shoot at everything that moves. Some five or six years ago, during Easter, four head of cattle and one stock mare were shot on our property. That was done by people who were on the property illegally. Nobody should be subjected to that sort of loss. Mr Innes: Those are different serious offences. It is a crime to wilfully destroy property. Mr PERRETT: That is tme. But there is always a problem catching the people responsible. The evidence is always found after they have gone. At the time I am speaking about, the gates were left open also because it helped those responsible to make a quick get-away. Mr Davis: If Bjelke-Petersen doesn't pay Nev Warburton, do you know that you will be his local member? Mr PERRETT: I will be glad to have him as one of my constituents. I will see if 1 can convert him. It would be a bit hard for him to live up in that area because at the by-election the Labor Party received only 15 per cent of the vote. I will not go into that matter any further. I commend this Bill to the House and I hope that it receives the full support of all honourable members. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (9.26 p.m.): This Bill has generated a little bit of humour, which I guess any Act that was passed in 1854 and which is stiU alive in 1989 should do, even to the extent that some people did not realise that it spoke about goats. I cast no aspersions about that because many people did not know that that was the case. Many other honourable members would have lived in the bush when they were kids, and they would recall, as I do, that goats were the most common feature of life in any westem town. Every little westem town had its own goat herd. Mr Gately interjected. Mr BEARD: Because of the stink from the goats, people headed them out to the edge of town, which is a good place to keep Mr Gately, if one happens to live anywhere near him. I can remember that as kids we had billygoat-cart races, which was a big feature in our lives. I also remember that when I was a young schoolteacher the principal, one Eric Lane, who was very famous, once had his cheque eaten by a goat. While he was talking to us young teachers, he put his cheque on the table in the playground and we did not say a word as we saw the goat slowly disposing of the cheque. Nowadays one sees very few of those wild goat herds because, as Mr Pertett cortectiy pointed out a moment ago, the harvesting of feral goats is now a major industry. Recently when I was doing some missionary work in his benighted part of the country, trying to convert the unbelievers into sensible Liberal voters, I had the pleasure of visiting the Murgon meatworks and I saw some of the feral goat carcasses. I made inquiries about how they were obtained. I was told that they were caught by professional goat-catchers and one of the employees made the comment that some of the catchers are more feral than the goats. I can imagine the sorts of tough men who would be catching those goats. 404 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill

It is now a pleasure to drive through westem Queensland and see the good goat studs and the good goat farms. I am not joking about this because it has become a very valuable industry in Queensland and one which we should certainly do everything in our power to support and ensure that nothing inhibits its success. As a matter of fact, getting rid of feral goats reminds me that I would love to see this Parliament tackle the problem of feral cats at some stage in the not-too-distant future. Personally, I regard feral cats as the greatest threat to the fauna of Australia. No-one seems to be doing anything about them. I have to support the country members in this place because I think many city people cannot appreciate the seriousness of leaving a gate open or, indeed, of cutting through a fence and the impact that has on people who live in the west, whether they run cattie, sheep or goats. Quite apart from the possibility of stray stock getting in and interbreeding with the pure stock inside the fence, or of wild stock getting in and mixing with the domestic stock, the domestic stock get out and it is very difficult to collect them. Mr Newton talked about gates being left open and fences being cut. Because I come from the north west, I could not help thinking what a luxury it must be to have fences to be cut and gates to be left open. In large parts of this great State of ours, the highways and roads are completely unfenced. The people who have properties in the north and west have to get used to their stock being killed by tmcks, buses and careless motorists. The other side of the equation, of course, is the number of motorists who are killed through either mnning into a live beast on the side of the road at night or mnning over the carcass of a dead beast that they have not seen. I do not think people realise fully just how bad it is to lose two beasts a week throughout a year, each beast being valued at about $500. That equates to a loss of $50,000 a year. For a long time now I have made it a part of my campaign to say that "highway" means a fenced road. If a road is not fenced, it is not a highway. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that highways are fenced. One cattle-owner, who lives near Mary Kathleen, has been losing two beasts a week this year. He found that it would cost him $500,000 to fence his property, and it is not a very big property. It costs approximately $1,000 a kilometre because both sides of the highway have to be fenced. It is also necessary to duplicate watering points. Because the cattle were there before the roads came through, I really think it is incumbent on the Government to look seriously at this matter. People who live in westem regions battie droughts, floods, fires and isolation. A loss of up to $50,000 a year because the highway is not fenced is a bit too much. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to raise this topic. It would be nice to have gates to close. I join with other country representatives to talk about the devastating impact that trespassers have on properties. I cite the examples of boons shooting holes in tanks, shooting stock, cutting the throats of stock—which occurred recently when two pet horses near Mount Isa were left to die in agony ovemight—dynamiting waterholes to get fish, littering properties by leaving cans and garbage everywhere and poisoning waterholes. The effects of trespassing cannot be overstated. Everything that can be done should be done to stop it. Having said that, I must support the eminent sense in the comments made by my leader about custodial sentences. The possibility of a custodial sentence for leaving a gate open when carelessness rather than malice aforethought was an element of the offence is too draconian for words. How would honourable members feel if someone said to them, "Your son is in gaol. You can go and see him if you like because he will probably be locked up for six months."? How would they feel if they were told that the reason their son was in gaol was that he had left a gate open? The possibility of such an occurtence exists and, under those circumstances, the law cannot be a good one. I agree with the members for Barambah and Glass House, who said that the most severe penalties should be enjoined upon people who maliciously and, to some extent, carelessly leave gates open. As for the people who deliberately leave gates open—many Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 405 of whom belong to drilling and exploration teams—and deliberately cut open locks and fences with bolt-cutters to get inside compounds, no punishment is too severe. Obviously they have no sense of the damage that they are causing. They display the same type of mentality as revealed by the painting of names on scenic rocks and hills around the countryside, destroying the beauty and appearance of country areas. This legislation is sound. Any Bill that seeks to remove obsolete legislation has to be good in its intent. I believe this legislation will go a long way towards recognising the modem goat industry and the value that it will have in the future for this State and the nation. I commend this legislation to the House, but I urge the Minister to think seriously about the implication of custodial sentences that will apply to offences of leaving gates open. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.33 p.m.): I support the repeal of the Inclosed Lands Act and the termination of the application of the Inclosed Lands Act of 1894.1 was always taught that people should leave gates as they find them, that is, if the gate was open, it should remain open and, if it was shut, it should be closed after they have gone through the entrance. I approve of the trend towards the use of cattle-grids and the more extensive use of fencing along westem roads. I am concemed about the penalties contained in this legislation. I would prefer community service orders to be imposed instead of custodial sentences. Each Sunday a person who has been given a community service order is allocated to me. I direct him to clean up the Wynnum foreshores. I sign documentation when he starts and when he finishes. I do not think by any means that he performs hard labour. He has a fairly enjoyable time and the community derives some benefit from the scheme. In contrast to that, it is a very costly exercise to put people in gaol for six months. That represents a major expense that has to be home by the community. I wish to raise briefly the matter of interpretation and application of a number of other Acts that should be considered in relation to legislation of this type. I refer specifically to legislation that requires people to obtain a permit when they wish to transport a horse or a cow from one property to another. Mr Mackenroth: Or a goat. Mr BURNS: Yes. People who transport a horse to a pony club function and have clear title to a horse that has a freeze brand on its neck and a brand on its shoulder can be guilty of an offence if they do not have a permit to transport the horse, in spite of the fact that in the car they have documentation relating to its ownership. On Saturday nights the poUce have been going to the trotting races at Albion Park and they have been known to attend Eagle Farm on a Saturday aftemoon. They are booking the owners of horses for not having a permit, in spite of the fact that the horses are transported in trailers. The point I make is that the original intention of the legislation was to prevent cattle-duffing and the stealing of horses. The permit was intended to prove that people who were transporting stock in fact owned the stock and had a right to transport it. The adaptation of freeze branding of standard-bred horses has put identification beyond doubt. Previously it was very difficult to read a brand and many of the old brands were very hard to read. Freeze brands are easier to read; it would be necessary only to spend a couple of minutes shaving the horse or laying his hair flat to be able to identify the horse without any difficulty whatsoever. In spite of that, people have been apprehended and booked, even though they carried written certification proving that they own the animal. Anyone who has certification of ownership of a trotting horse would know that it contains a drawing of the horse and a list of every mark that is to be found on the horse, including every brand. One would need only to look at the horse and refer to the document to mle out any possibility of being misled as to its identity. Mr Prest: But they could not pick up the brand on Fine Cotton. 406 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill

Mr BURNS: That is tme, but freeze branding is a little different. Of course, some people will get away with false claims of ownership, but it would have been possible to have obtained a permit to transport Fine Cotton and that would not have stopped him from being a ring-in in a race. The point I make is that the inspection of permits is an unnecessary burden on police officers. There are many other jobs that policemen could be doing. I do not believe that their hanging around at Albion Park on Wednesday nights and Saturday nights to book trotting owners and drivers for transporting horses from the local stable to the racecourse is what the Act was all about. I believe that, along with the Inclosed Lands Act, that provision should also be repealed. Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (9.37 p.m.): I join in this debate mainly because I believe some of the matters mentioned are of great concem to property-owners throughout Queensland. It is well known in this Parliament that my family and my family company own a property at Roma that contains, much to the benefit of this State, an oil well and a gas well. I have personally experienced great difficulty caused by gates being left open by oil exploration company employees. Although I agree that something must be done, I do not agree that people should be put in gaol for leaving a gate open. I say that simply because an employer could say to an employee, "Listen, you go out to this property. I don't give a damn if the gate is locked or not; take the bolt-cutters with you and snip the gate open. Go through the gate and open it." He is under a direct order from his boss to do so and, if he does not, he will get the sack. Under this legislation he will be forced into the position where he opens the gate and could then be put in gaol. That is not good enou^. I agree that the fines should be substantially increased because the property-owner or stock-owner could lose a large fortune. As far as I am concemed, $300 is a stupid fine. It is nothing. For example, two or three generations of one family could have built up a stud herd and, if someone leaves a gate open, certain cattle could be mixed with others and the quality of the breeding stock of that stud is reduced considerably. As a result, years and years of careful stud management have ^one down the drain. That could be worth $300,000, not merely $300. Putting people in gaol is not the answer. I fail to see why employees should be put in gaol because their boss or the owners of the oil wells have told them to cut the fence or have not told them to shut the gate. One of my aeighbours has an answer that is not a bad one. As soon as he hears these fellows come on to his property, he sits back on his homestead, gets out his .303 rifle and whistles a few bullets over their heads. It is not very long before they have ncrt only shut the gate but also gone from the property. I have seen tiiat happen on several occasions and I do not blame him for that because it is effective. Mr Borbidge: It's aU right to shoot them, but not to send tliem to gaol. Mr LEE: Nobody would send him to gaol because they know damned well that he is quite right. He is only protecting his stock and interest, because these people will cause the cattle to get mixed up. There could be maiden heifers in the paddodk that are too young to join and that could become mixed up with the bulls. As a result, 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the new breeding herd is lost. Something must be done to stop that occurring. It has happened to me personally on my own property. In spite of what has happened to me, I do not accept that the poor, innocent fellow who is under instmctions from the boss to open the gate, and who has been told, "Here's a pair of bolt-cutters. You cut it and go in", should go to gaol. That is not good enough and it is wrong. I agree with the honourable member for Lytton, who said that it is stupid to have to have a permit to shift a horse. My manager at Roma is a very keen camp drafter. It is one of his only recreations and one that he is not able to indulge in very often. He has to travel 25 miles into Roma to get a permit in order to shift a horse to his camp draft. The country people do not have many opportunities for enjoyment and those sorts of conditions placed upon them are irtelevant, wrong and should be repealed. Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 407

Because stock can be stolen, it is very important to closely monitor their movement. 1 am one of the few people in the west to have had an employee sent to gaol for poddy- dodging. Mr Booth: What about ticks, though? Mr LEE: I agree, there are ticks, but it is good country at Roma and there are no ticks. I would like some of that country up around Warwick. Mr Booth: We have no ticks, either. Mr LEE: Yes, there are certainly no ticks on the honourable member for Warwick. I have great respect for the member for Warwick. If the National Party were made up of types like him, it would be a great party. It would be as good as the Liberal Party. Mr Beard: No, no, that's going too far. Mr LEE: No, it is not. I accept that there are problems with ticks, as stated by the honourable member for Warwick. However, ticks are not seen too often on horses. Mr Booth: It is possible. Mr LEE: I agree, there is a possibility. On my property we seldom do anything other than take stock into clean country. Sometimes my manager might travel only 50 miles to a camp draft and yet he has to travel 25 miles into Roma and 25 miles back in order to get a permit. That is the same distance that he would travel to the camp draft. This is a hardship placed upon country people. I strongly object to the fact that in these circumstances imprisonment can be imposed on people. I believe that the fine should not be $300, but that the minimum should be $3,000. I do not think that the fine can be large enough, but, for God's sake, do not gaol innocent people who are instmcted to go onto properties by their employers. If the instmction can be proved to have come from the boss, that is okay, but it is difficult to prove. This is only a fallacious provision, but a large penalty should be imposed because this is a very serious matter for country people. I strongly support the imposition of a very large fine. Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Tourism) (9.45 p.m.), in reply: I wish to thank all honourable members who have made a contribution to this debate tonight. It has been pleasing and somewhat surprising to hear the amount of interest expressed in the Chamber tonight about goats and the other matters that have been raised. Ms Warner: There are a fair few goats here. Why shouldn't there be? Mr BORBIDGE: This legislation is quite important to many people throughout the State of Queensland. If the honourable member wishes to come in after the debate is over, it is good to have her with us. What did show through the debate is that the people who know the problems of the inland and something of the industries that we are trying to assist appreciate and strongly support the legislation that is before the Parliament. I add that this legislation has been in train for some time and it has the strong support of the industry. I thank the honourable member for Chatsworth for his support in principle. I believe it is fair to say that honourable members from all three parties at least support what the Government is trying to do, even if there are some variations and some different ideas on what emphasis should be taken. I will answer some of those matters specifically a little later. The honourable member for Mackay decided to renew his long association with the poker machine lobby, which was a curious contribution to the debate. 408 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill

The honourable member for Sherwood raised some very pertinent points and I should like to comment on a couple of the matters that he raised. I advise him that special trespass legislation will possibly be looked at in the review of legislation affecting privacy. These amendments are directed specifically at land used for the purpose of farming or grazing. For instance, section 4A covers buildings or stmctures—for example, the Mount Isa Mines building—and the lawful-excuse provision applies in the present section 4A and that is intended to be the same in these amendments. I ask the honourable member the difference between a person entering land to seek directions and his entering a building to seek the same directions. If, to enter the land, a person opens a gate, he should close the gate and leave it as he found it. The land must be enclosed; it must be fenced. Obviously this does not cover places where roads mn through far-western properties, which was the subject of some discussion during the debate. The debate has been fairly wide ranging and many of my colleagues who have a very close association with and knowledge of the industry have made valuable contributions. The honourable member for Lytton raised the question of penalties. The legislation provides maximum penalties. The penalty could be a fine, a fine and one day in gaol, or a fine and six months in gaol. There are options for community service orders and probation. The honourable member referred also to stock permits. My advice is that they can be obtained for a 12-month period. The honourable member for Yeronga raised the same issue. He said that, every time a permit is needed, some distance had to be travelled to the police station. I point out to him also that stock permits can be obtained for a 12-month period. The honourable member for Yeronga is respected on both sides of the House for his experience in these matters. I was touched by his novel approach when he said he was concemed about the gaoling of people. He said that he had the perfect solution—shoot at them. That seemed to me to be a little on the rich side. Mr Beard: He has a friend who shoots people. Mr BORBIDGE: I was not casting aspersions on the honourable member. I was expressing some interest and fascination in respect of his logic that gaol is abhorrent, but it is all right to sit on the veranda with a .303 and fire a few shots over a person's head. Mr Mackenroth: An overcrowded gaol. Mr BORBIDGE: An overcrowded gaol, as the honourable member said. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. E. Borbidge (Surfers Paradise—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Tourism) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr INNES (9.51 p.m.): I am grateful for the Minister's response to my more generalised comments. Because they are pertinent to this clause, I pick up a couple of arguments raised in other debates. The honourable member for Glass House raised argurnents that I understand. He referred to the problem of people unlawfully on land shooting at stock or, as the honourable member for Mount Isa said, shooting at tank- stands. That is totally objectionable and must be subject to penalties by law, and is subject to penalties by law. There is a general law of trespass but, obviously, dealing with the civil law is a more difficult matter. Certain specific types of legislation, including Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 409 the Land Act, deal with trespass generally. In the case of shooting there is specific provision in the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act that a person who shoots on property or shoots at things without permission of the owner is guilty of an offence under that Act. The penalty for that offence is the confiscation of the gun, and a penalty of imprisonment can be imposed under the Firearms Act. Similarly, to damage anything by gun or otherwise wilfully is to involve the commission of a crime, which can be penalised severely and be dealt with by a jury in the District Court. It is wrong to use generalised arguments and say that the laws do not have remedies. Severe remedies are provided for many of the offences that have been raised tonight by members. Catching people is another matter. We will never find the complete answer to catching everybody who does the wrong thing. However, in the enthusiasm for getting rid of the goat clauses we may dismiss some of the wisdom of the Inclosed Lands Act. Much of our old legislation incorporates sensible balances between differing community attitudes as to levels of danger and rights and wrongs. Whereas we all welcome, in changed circumstances where goats have become valuable and not purely feral, the removal of those clauses, the actual unlawful entry and the leaving open of gates and slip-rails were two clauses that were found in the old Inclosed Lands Act. The interesting point on which I rely in my argument is that the penalty section of the old Inclosed Lands Act included a penalty for unlawful entry onto enclosed land, which is similar to the provision with which we are dealing today. The penalty for that was a fine of a sum not exceeding £5. In the case of a penalty for leaving open gates and slip panels, the penalty was £10, with no provision altematively for gaol. That is the point that I make. I agree totally with the honourable member for Yeronga. My amendment, which is to the two operative clauses which impose penalty, is that we boost the penalty under (4) substantially. I do not believe that $200 is enough for the serious offences of trespass onto land or serious cases of leaving gates open. We have heard the amount of real damage that can take place by the leaving open of gates. The court will have a discretion. Obviously, for a slight intmsion, a small fine will be levied, but for a serious intmsion, either because it is a deliberate act of wilfulness in the entry or the leaving open of a gate or because the consequences have been significant in terms of the damage that resulted, a high penalty can be imposed. We should keep the logic of the Inclosed Lands Act. A problem exists in providing a possible gaol sentence for an offence which is not in the most serious nature of human misbehaviour. I propose that the word "four" be deleted from clause 5 and the word "fifteen" be inserted, which would provide a penalty of about $900, which is much more realistic when one considers that at present the value of one head of stock is $500. It could be much more—but so could the car that is involved in an accident. That could be worth tens of thousands of dollars, but that can be still dealt with by civil action. Civil remedies will still be available for people whose actions cause those problems. The reason why we resort to the criminal law is, hopefully, to provide a summary way of acting quickly to stop a wrong. The term "or imprisonment for six months" should be taken out of the clause. The Inclosed Lands Act, insofar as it dealt with a penalty for an offence for entry onto land or for leaving gates open, found a reasonable balance. But obviously £5 in 1854, or £10 in 1904, which was the second amendment, today would be worth more than $200. Clearly, the fine should be boosted and the offence should be of a similar order. However, once again, we should not resort to gaol, because that is used for the far more serious occasions of human behaviour involving deliberateness such as the wilful damage occasioned by the shooting of a head of stock, which would be a crime, anyhow, and attract a heavy penalty, including imprisonment, or where somebody is trespassing in relation to human habitation or stmctures with the possibility of anything from assaults and robberies to arson occurring. I am not trying in any way to diminish responsibility in the case in which a person sets fire to a paddock of grass. I am not saying that that would not cause a great amount of damage. Likewise, if a person negligently caused 410 5 September 1989 Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill injury to stock, I am not saying that that would not cause damage. However, the law sets up a careful pattem of degrees of behaviour according to the likelihood of the dangers which will result. As one gets closer to the home base, the penalties increase. For instance, the law makes burglary a special offence for breaking into a house between particular hours, that is, late at night and early in the moming. Disturbing people who are sleeping in the dark can lead to serious results. In those instances, the penalty almost doubles compared with the breaking and entry of a house in the day-time. Honourable members might think that similar things can occur—and they do—but it is gradations of likely danger for which the law traditionally has a hierarchy of penalties. The two provisions of the Inclosed Lands Act which set up the offences which are repeated in the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act found a sensible balance. In this case, let us modemise the financial penalty but not impose a gaol sentence. As the member for Mount Isa rightly said, if somebody was told that a young person was in gaol for leaving a gate open on a property, people would think that the law had gone slightly off the rails. I do not say that it is not bad misbehaviour; I agree totally with that contention. I have lived and worked in the outback. However, I think there are other ways of handling the more serious consequences, and in this case the potential of a heavy fine would be sufficient. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister is considering a special piece of trespass legislation. I know that in mral circles there has been strong lobbying for special trespass legislation. I think the problem would be far better dealt with by a Special Trespass Act, leaving the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act for the areas that it has traditionally covered. I move the following amendments— "At page 2, line 29, delete— 'Four' and insert— 'Fifteen'."; "At page 2, line 29, delete— 'or imprisonment for six months'." I foreshadow that I wish to move precisely the same amendments to line 35 but that I will abide by the decision on the first amendments. Mr LEE: I agree with the comments made by my leader. I accept the fact that Mr Innes: It's too low for you; I know that. Mr LEE: Yes, I agree with that, but I do not want to sound as though I am being petty about the whole thing. If the fine is being increased, I am quite happy with that. Nevertheless, I think that $900 may not be enough. Perhaps it could have been rounded off to $1,000. That sounds better. Honourable members have spoken about trespass. The Roma district has a special problem that has nothing to do with trespass. Property-owners in Roma happen to have oil and gas under their land over which they have no rights and no say in its exploitation. I was one of those who said that the oil companies could have an easement through a property. However, an easement can go for miles through a property. It may go through 10 fences. The property-owner cannot say, "You get out, Mr Oilman." He has got an easement over that property, and he can leave open every damned gate along the whole easement. The easement goes through one's land and if gate's are left open all one's cattle can get mixed. A whole week's work can go down the drain. This is a different problem to the one that the Minister is talking about. The boss of the oil company, sitting in a building in Queen Street, could instmct some poor unfortunate to go out and inspect Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act Amendment Bill 5 September 1989 411 the wells. Because there is a right of entry and an easement over one's property, one has no right whatsoever to stop him. If a gate is shut, these people just open it and do not bother to shut it again. I believe that this is a tragic situation, and 99 times out of 100 a decent fellow Mr Borbidge: This fixes that. Mr LEE: I do not think that it does. Mr Borbidge: If they leave the gate open deliberately, they can be prosecuted. Mr LEE: Yes, the poor fellow who was instmcted to check the wells goes to gaol. How would the Minister like it if the Premier told him to do something and he had to go to gaol because of it? The Minister would not appreciate being sent to gaol because he carried out an instmction by his superiors to do something. I believe that that is wrong. If the Government wants to increase the fine, as far as I am concemed it can make it as high as it likes. It wiU not upset me, because it comes back to the boss in Queen Street. The fellow who is on wages or a salary who carelessly leaves open a gate on a property can be traced back to the boss of the oil company and the money for the fine can be got from him. The Govemment cannot put in gaol the fellow from Queen Street who says, "Go and open that gate.", because he in fact did not do it. It was done by the poor unfortunate fellow who was instmcted to do it. The situation in Roma is different from that in any other part of this State. I do not believe that the Minister or his officers took that into consideration when this decision was made. These are easements granted to the oil companies, and the property- owners have no right to say, "Keep out.", whether the land is freehold, leasehold or any other holding. The property-owner has no right to keep them out. If I wanted to be pedantic about the whole thing, I would say, "Increase it to 12 months' gaol." However, I am considering the result when a property-owner is asked whether his property can be inspected by somebody who is acting under instmctions. That person could go to gaol and have his character smeared for the rest of his life as the result of a gaol sentence. I believe that that is totally wrong. By all means fine these people, and if they cannot pay the fine, send it down the line to the bosses. That is the situation in Roma. I ask the Minister to take on board what I have said because it is a very serious situation. As I have said, the land-owners in Roma have no right to say to the oilmen, "Keep off my land.", and I think that they should have that right. Mr BORBIDGE: I will reply first of all to the comments by the member for Yeronga. With respect, I think we are arguing over nothing. My advice is that if representatives of mining companies go through properties and deUberately leave the gates open, they face a penalty. If the boss of the company concerned back in Brisbane has directed someone to cut a fence, then he, too, can be charged. I suggest to the honourable member that his primary concems in this regard have been addressed by the Government in this legislation. I have noted the comments made by the honourable member for Sherwood. Some consideration has been given to the matters that he has raised and the concems that he has expressed. However, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment proposed is not reasonable having regard to other penalties provided in this section. I refer to the rest of the section in which the entering of buildings carries with it a fine of only $200. What is proposed in the amendment by the honourable member for Sherwood is that the Government increase the fine from four penalty units, which is $240, up to 15 penalty units, which is $900. 412 5 September 1989 Adjoumment

I again make the point, as I did before in reply to the member for Lytton, that six months' imprisonment is the maximum that a magistrate can impose. It can be from one day up to six months, or it can simply be a monetary fine not exceeding $240. I suggest, from my knowledge and my advice, that sending someone to gaol under these circumstances would only be a last resort by a magistrate. Of course, in any case, there is a right of appeal to a higher court, which would most likely overtum a first offence gaol term. The Government does not accept the amendment. Mr LEE: I overiooked one matter. The Minister said that I had a tendency to spray .303 bullets over people who go in to an oil well. I want to correct that here and now. I am not that type of person, even though the Minister may be one of them. Mr Innes: The .22 Homet? Mr LEE: I do not even take the .22 Homet. But, boy, look out! Don't get in front of me; I am not a bad shot. Seriously, I want to correct what the Minister said. I was not the person involved. I have a neighbour who has that tendency. Mr Beard: You said it was Des Booth. Mr LEE: No. I would not say that about Des. If the Minister accuses me of doing that, it must be one of his traits. The Minister knows me better than that. Over the years that I have been a member of ParUament, I have been an honest, law-abiding citizen. I would not do such a thing. I might hit them over the head with the .303, but not with a bullet. Amendments negatived. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

ADJOURNMENT Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Minister for PoUce, Emergency Services and Tourism) (10.11 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Watchhouse Accommodation Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (10.11 p.m.): Some time ago, with the permission of the Minister for Police, I visited the Brisbane watchhouse. At that time a large number of women were incarcerated in that watchhouse. They were kept in the conditions prevailing in the watchhouse at the time with no toothbmsh, no comb, no access to daylight, no proper exercise, sometimes no clean clothes for days, and no fresh fmit. I met a woman who had been locked in there for weeks on end. This was not the fault of the police who were in charge of the watchhouse, it was just the fault of the Minister who had not provided altemative accommodation for these people. Watchhouses are suitable places for the short-term incarceration of people who are awaiting trial; they are not suitable for the long-term incarceration of people who represent an overflow from a prison. One week-end subsequent to my visit I received a phone call from a woman who was ringing on behalf of her daughter who was in the watchhouse. She said to me, "My daughter's no angel, but she does not deserve 35 days in that dungeon." The Labor Party does not condone drink-driving, which is what the young woman was in gaol for, but nobody, in particular no woman, deserves to be treated like that. This woman was Adjournment 5 September 1989 413

anxious to do something for her daughter and was prepared to put her name to the complaint. Twenty minutes after I raised the matter in the public arena, her daughter was taken out of the watchhouse and transferred to Boggo Road. A few hours later, she was out of there as well. A couple of days later, accommodation miraculously became available at Boggo Road for all the women in the watchhouses of south-east Queensland, and those watchhouses were cleared of women. I understand that it is still the case that women are no longer being kept for long periods in watchhouses in south-east Queensland. South-east Queensland watchhouses are not the only black holes, nor are women the only victims. I received the following letter from a prisoner who had been detained on a charge of possessing 3 grams of marijuana. Labor does not condone the offence, but let him speak for himself about the circumstances in which he was incarcerated. He said— "Sir, I am writing this letter to make you aware of the disgustingly filthy unhygienic conditions that prisoners are forced to contend with whilst detained in the cells at the Cairns Watchouse. My own personal experience was Thursday 6/7/89. What I saw and smelt in the particular cell I was in is enough to tum the strongest mans stomach. Dirt— blood—vomit—urine and faeces contributing to a sickening odour in a space approximately 4m x 2.5m. All of these ingredients were present on, in and around the toilet bowl and floor and wall area adjacent. Blood—vomit and dirt were also present on three mattress's and three blankets as well as a liberal amount on the floor and walls around the mattress's. I might also mention there were in the cell four prisoners to share an inadequate supply of bedding in this revolting state.

It has since come to my attention that people serving small sentences and those who are unable to pay fines are subjected to these putrid and unacceptable conditions for up to a month at a time. Male and female alike. Then why the new Lotus Glen Prison at Mareeba if it is not to be utilized. Excuse me for thinking conditions would've been upgraded since the days of transportation." He is not the only complainant who has written to me about the Caims watchhouse. Another, who was also in the Caims watchhouse for possessing a small amount of marijuana—he says that it was enough to cover his thumb-nail—said— "The ventilation is dangerously bad, during the day, the men would line up along the walls to press their faces in the slits of the wall to breathe. Because there are no windows, some poor blokes felt they were suffocating, the air was thick with humidity and stink. The whole place is a cesspool of filth. If someone went in there with a contagious disease it would spread like fire." Watchhouses are not suitable for the long-term accommodation of prisoners but, because of the incompetent policies of this Govemment, they have been so used. Whereas Labor does not condone the commission of offences, it does not believe that those who commit offences should be subjected to cmel, degrading or unusual punishments. If the cmelty or degradation is inadvertent because the Govemment has failed to provide adequate accommodation, that does not lessen the responsibility of the Govemment that has subjected its own citizens to conditions to which I would not like to see a dog subjected. Indeed, if my dog were subjected to the conditions that obtain in some of Queensland's watchhouses, I would go to the High Court to get him out. 414 5 September 1989 Adjoumment

Airline Pilots Dispute Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.16 p.m.): Tonight I wish to raise a subject that I am sure all honourable members have heard a lot about, namely, the pilots dispute. It is interesting to note what the Federal Labor Govemment is doing about solving the dispute. One asks oneself precisely what Bob Hawke has done about it. Certainly he has made a lot of cheap remarks and has threatened a lot of people. He even suggested that a person could learn to fly an aeroplane in seven hours, which I thought was a fairly unhelpful remark in the circumstances. Perhaps Mr Hawke would fly better on the end of a parachute with a hole in the middle of it; but that might be a bit uncharitable. It has taken such a long time for the Federal Govemment to charter some aircraft from overseas. Initially, the Federal Govemment had to mn the proposal past the unions to determine whether they would allow it to do that, which is nothing new. Similar instances have occurred on many occasions in the past. I do not know how bad things have to get before the Federal Govemment is prepared to make a decision to stand up and be counted and to follow it through without having to seek the permission of the unions. During the past few weeks I have watched Clyde Holding, as I am sure many other honourable members have done. There is an incredible difference between that man and a former Labor Minister for Tourism, namely, John Brown, who made himself famous for his remarks about koalas and their toilet habits on certain individuals. Mr Littleproud: What about his work desk? Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, Mr Brown may have made himself popular in that respect, too. However, that is a different subject altogether and I am not talking about that tonight. For a long period I worked with John Brown. He got things done. If he was still the Minister for Tourism and it was possible to charter some planes from overseas, honourable members would have seen some action. The Queensland Minister for Tourism is trying to do that. I understand that one charter aircraft is in use in the Northem Territory and that Western Australia is trying to obtain one, too. It is quite incredible that Clyde Holding is still bumbUng around. He and Bob Hawke are going to the unions with cap in hand and asking them if it is okay to charter aircraft or whether the unions will black-ball them. One wonders what has to happen in this nation before people will really come to grips with a dispute such as this one. One did not have to be too smart to reaUse what the most recent trade deficit figures meant. Australia was headed well and tmly down the gurgler and towards the banana republic that the "world's greatest Treasurer" spoke about. This dispute has the potential to do far more damage than all of those people who, for some unknown reason, are not prepared to stand up and be counted and do something constmctive for Australia's imports. Mr De Lacy: Hawke did the right thing standing up to them, and you should recognise it as such. Mr ELLIOTT: I would not say too much if I were the honourable member. He may think that it is only symbolic to charter a few aircraft. However, the tourist industry wants to see some action. It wants to see someone standing up on his hind legs, not just talking about the issue. The tourist industry wants to see people doing something about the dispute. The delay, procrastination, filibustering and mucking around that has occurred is quite disgraceful. I know John Brown well. If a similar dispute had occurred when he was the Federal Minister for Tourism, he would have kicked a few heads and told the pilots that they were going to cause irteparable damage to this nation and to the tourism industry if they did not support his ideas. Clyde Holding should be sent back to his old job. Adjoumment 5 September 1989 415

Time expired.

Leivesley Report on Fire Services Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (10.22 p.m.): One must be concemed about what is going on within the State's fire services. Although vast sums of money were spent on the Leivesley report, it was ignored. At present another firm of consultants, namely. Corporate Consultative Services, is carrying out another survey into fire services in this State. It is doing the very same things and asking the very same fire board members the very same questions that Dr Sally Leivesley asked. In common with the Leivesley survey and report, the present survey was ordered by Mr Cooper when he was the Minister in charge of fire services. I ask: why is another survey necessary? On 19 April 1989 Mr Bums asked Mr Cooper— "(1) What is the total cost of Dr Leivesley's report on fire services including salary, wages, travel costs, board members meeting fees and committee fees or payments for all persons involved in compiling the report?" The then Minister answered— "An amount of $250,000 was provided in the current Estimates to fund the review of fire services. As some accounts are still outstanding, total costs of the review are not yet available. I am advised, however, that payments made to 31 March 1989 amounted to $179,189. The foregoing does not include the salaries of certain departmental officers who were involved in the review mostly on a part-time basis and whose salaries were met by their own departments. Likewise, the travelling costs and so on of certain fire brigade personnel were met by the respective boards. Wherever possible, travel costs were minimised by holding meetings in conjunction with training sessions." In effect, approximately a quarter of a million dollars had been spent on the Leivesley report, which has been ignored. Part (4) of Mr Burns' question was: "Is Dr Leivesley's report to be ignored?" The answer to that was— "No. As the honourable member is aware, the report has been issued as a Green Paper. The responses to the Green Paper are currently being evaluated and I hope to be in a position in the near future to make a submission to Cabinet on the matter." It must be remembered that that occurred on 19 April 1989. The Leivesley report was printed on 1 March 1989, approximately six months ago. The sum of $250,000 has been wasted on the report because it was completely ignored by the former Minister responsible for fire services, Mr Cooper. Although Mr Cooper said that the report would not be ignored, it is now found that he engaged a further firm of consultants to undertake a further survey and make a report in the same way as occurred previously. At present the consultants are visiting the 81 fire brigade boards throughout the State and conducting a survey into their administration. After this survey is completed, they hope to undertake a further survey into operations. The Leivesley report is being duplicated. An awful lot of money has been wasted on the Leivesley report, and now another firm of consultants is doing exactly the same work as that undertaken by Dr Leivesley. That is not in the best interests of fire services. It is not in the best interests of the public who have to pay the fire levy. This new survey is a complete waste of money. It must also be of concem to fire services personnel to see that amount of money being wasted. They know that the Leivesley report contained recommendations that would upgrade the provision of services within this State. After all, it was known that, when Mr Martin Tenni was the Minister responsible for fire services, he allowed the services to be mn down. Mr De Lacy: He was a disgraceful Minister. Mr PREST: In every portfolio for which he has been responsible, he has been not only a disgraceful Minister but also a disgrace. 416 5 September 1989 Adjournment

What has happened to fire services in this State and acknowledged by Dr Sally Leivesley was brought about by Mr Martin Tenni while he was the Minister responsible for fire services.

Effect of Right Meat Campaign on Country Butchers Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (10.27 p.m.): I rise tonight to discuss the Right Meat campaign that is now being conducted in Queensland and also to make a plea on behalf of country butchers. Some of the implications of this campaign will detrimentally affect country butchers. Naturally, I am not opposed to the promotion of meat. I would like to see it promoted to the utmost. However, because of the Right Meat campaign, butchers must have their meat killed in an accredited abattoir. Much of Queensland's meat—I cannot find out what percentage, but I would not be surprised if it was about 33 per cent or higher—is killed in what are normally referred to as first-class slaughterhouses. The people conducting the Right Meat campaign will not accept these slaughter­ houses, which may also have some other benefits, even though they meet all the conditions set out by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. The Right Meat campaign seems to aim to promote and upgrade the presentation of meat and dress standards in butcher shops. I am not opposed to that. I am not sure that the campaign is going in the right direction by promoting beef fattened on grain only. I am not opposed to grain- fattened beef It became popular in Australia because of its popularity on the Japanese market. If people in Australia want to eat such beef, that is okay with me. Nevertheless, I am not quite sure that it will be acceptable to the Australian public to the extent that the promoters of the campaign think. We in Australia have usually eaten beef that is fattened on the range. Naturally, it is a much leaner meat. It probably will suit those people who are diet conscious and perhaps want to maintain their previous meat-eating habits. For instance, some beasts have been grain fattened for up to 150 days, which produces a very fat beast with marbling right through the steak. Even a beast that has been grain fattened for 90 days has some marbling and certainly is much fatter than a normal beast. It has been argued that that type of beef is for people who want to be able to cut their meat with a butter knife. I suppose that the grain-fattened meat provides that advantage. What I am saying tonight is simply this: it is not the butcher's fault that he cannot get accredited meat. He does not want to cart meat all the way from Brisbane. If he does, it becomes much more expensive to the person who is going to eat it. Some way has to be devised of overcoming the notion that only meat killed in accredited abattoirs is fit to carry the logo of the Right Meat campaign. The meat that is killed in my area, much of which is killed in first-class slaughter yards, is of the very finest standard. I have never heard anyone criticise the meat killed in that area. I do not believe that the Right Meat campaign is completely correct in its attitudes. The people who are killing in first-class slaughter yards should be told that the State Government can provide a brand that allows their meat to be sold without any of the implications that may be placed on it by the Right Meat campaign because it has not been killed in an accredited works. I have watched the people who have developed country slaughter yards. I know that the meat that they kill is not bruised and battered and it is not stressed in the same way as meat that is first sent to Brisbane on tmcks or by rail. I know that the people who rail stock look after them to the best of their ability; but, if cattle travel long distances, they are stressed to some extent and are sometimes bmised very badly. One would only have to inspect a meatworks and see the amount of bmising that occurs to realise the amount of waste that results. Waste must increase the price of meat. I believe that kills carried out in first-class slaughter yards should be regarded as top quality. I know that the Department of Primary Industries is endeavouring to devise Adjoumment 5 September 1989 417

a means of branding meat and I hope that they will be able to make this brand available as quickly as possible. In Warwick, the town I come from, one butcher holds most of the trade. He kills at the slaughter yards and does not bring in meat from anywhere else. I do not see any reason why he should be penalised by implication or by any other means. If it is merely implied that the meat that is killed in first-class slaughter yards is not as good as meat killed in abattoirs, the producer will strike trouble from competitors. I believe that the Right Meat campaign will not do much for the beef industry. I would prefer to see the Government provide a brand that will assist producers who kill in first- class slaughter yards.

Rail Services Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (10.32 p.m.): 1 support the Opposition's shadow Minister for Tourism, Mr Bob Gibbs, in his trenchant criticism of the National Party Govemment for its failure to provide and promote adequate rail services for tourists in Queensland. His comments reflect proposals that I have advocated consistently in this House, together with the shadow Minister for Transport, David Hamill. It is a sad reflection on the standard of rail transport in Queensland that tourism operators begin to go broke as soon as airlines fail to deliver tourists. In point of fact, a golden opportunity awaits the Railway Department to double its patronage. Provided that a sleeping berth is available, the Sunlander trip should be promoted as an integral part of a holiday package from the temperate zone to the wonders of the tropics. In four weeks' time, however, the number of Sunlander services to Cairns will be reduced. Instead of reducing services, now is the time for the Government to increase them by turning the train round in Caims within a few hours and sending it back to Brisbane. The department has decided to increase services to Rockhampton and should be commended for that. However, Rockhampton is not the centre of Queensland's tourism industry. More Sunlander services and more promotion are needed. Specifically, I wish to refer to the Brisbane Limited. I support the efforts of Professor Colin Taylor of the University of Queensland, who is attempting to prevent the calamitous elimination of transport services presently being promoted by the New South Wales Government. Colin Taylor has criticised this disastrous proposal which will impose a very poor standard of rail service on Queenslanders from next Febmary. The New South Wales Government uses advertising hype and peddles it in the Brisbane media. It is extolling the virtues of the XPT that will replace the Brisbane Limited, and the hype is totally dishonest. The Brisbane Limited, which is heavily booked, is a daily service provided in two directions. It is an overnight service that facilitates travel for both business people and tourists. The XPT will not supply the same level of service as the Brisbane Limited. It is difficult to book a sleeping berth on the Brisbane Limited, and that must be an indication of its popularity as well as the need for its continuance and expansion. The train has a capacity for 500 passengers, so it is quite evident that many people will be disadvantaged by its proposed demise. The media hype promoting the XPT disguises the fact that no sleeping-cars or dining-cars will be provided and that no motorail wagon will be provided. An unsatisfactory early moming departure from Brisbane and a late night arrival in Sydney will be imposed on Queenslanders who wish to travel south. It will no longer be possible to travel ovemight to a conference in Sydney and retum to Brisbane the next night, which is becoming a normal procedure. It is even becoming popular for visitors to tourist attractions such as the Longreach Stockman's Hall of Fame to undertake an overnight joumey on the train, leaving them free to spend a day at a tourist attraction and return by train. The journey from Sydney to Brisbane will be even worse because it involves an overnight journey without the provision of sleeping berths and dining-car. It will be no better than travelling by bus.

101362—14 418 5 September 1989 Adjoumment

At a time when rail joumeys are retuming to popularity in the USA and Europe, New South Wales has decided to opt out of the excellent interstate services that are provided throughout Australia by all mainland State Govemments and the Common­ wealth Govemment. It is ironic that after many years of failing to link the services and two years after the Brisbane Limited terminus was extended from South Brisbane to Roma Street, on 3 July this year Queensland Railways delayed the departure of the Sunlander to await the arrival of the Brisbane Limited in order to provide a connection through to Caims. Two days later, the New South Wales Govemment pronounced the death sentence on the Brisbane Limited. What the New South Wales Govemment does with its intrastate services is entirely its business, but surely interstate services should be the subject of joint consideration by the two States involved. It is now up to the Queensland Govemment and the Minister for Transport to tell the New South Wales Govemment that its proposals are not acceptable and that, in the interests of all citizens—particularly tourists in Queensland and people involved in business—that the hare-brained scheme to abolish the Brisbane Limited must be stopped. I call on the Brisbane media to ignore the hype circulated by the New South Wales Govemment and tell the people of Brisbane what is proposed, so that they can demand that action be taken by the Minister, Mr McKechnie, and the New South Wales Govemment.

Federal Government Road-funding Cuts Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.37 p.m.): I join in this debate to examine the Labor Government's record on road-funding cuts and the amounts allocated by the Federal Government for this particularly important segment of Australian living conditions. For example, in 1981-82, the Federal Govemment spent $685m. In 1983-84, when the Labor Party won office, $ 1,203m was allocated for road-funding. However, the amount has declined in terms of doUar values by remaining at the same level in 1989 as it was in 1983-84. In 1984-85, $ 1,245m was allocated. In 1985-86, the amount was $ 1,250m. In 1986- 87, the sum of $ 1,246m was set aside for roads. In 1987-88, $ 1,248m was provided and in 1988-89, $1,217m was allocated, which is actually less than the level provided in 1983-84. That is an atrocious record when one bears in mind the extra vehicles that are travelling on the roads every day. Mr Prest: Hasn't the highway been completed? Mr STEPHAN: The highways are taking a long time to be completed in the present environment. I travel regularly between Gympie and Brisbane and I have noted that the time that is being taken to complete some of these highways is considerable. If the honourable member for Port Curtis were to travel along some of these roads he would realise that this is a fact. The Federal Govemment is trying very hard to push the blame onto the State Government by accusing it of altering its priorities and not improving the roads to the required standard. In my own electorate some roads that have been on the drawing-board since 1982-83 have not even been started. Mr Prest: You're living in the wrong area. Mr STEPHAN: I am living in the wrong area if I want support from the Federal Govemment. Is the honourable member trying to say that I should live near Sydney or Melbourne in order to get adequate road-funding? That is ridiculous. This must be looked at realistically. People do travel on the highways. Mr Prest: You've just got this give-me attitude. Mr STEPHAN: It is not a give-me attitude; it is a very real belief that some of the money raised through fuel taxes should be spent on roads. In a moment I will point out to the honourable member for Port Curtis the amount of money that road-users pay to the Federal Government in the form of fuel tax. Adjoumment 5 September 1989 419

In real terms. Federal road-funding has fallen by 30 per cent since Labor came to Government. Despite these cuts in road-funding, the Federal Govemment has massively increased its revenue from fuel excise. Since the 1983 Budget, Labor has indexed excise charges, including fuel excise, which has meant automatic increases twice a year in line with inflation. As a result, the amount of diesel and petrol excise paid to the Federal Government has increased to the present level of 22c per litre, and diesel and petrol prices have increased very substantially. There has been an increase in revenue from petroleum, cmde oil and LP gas excise from $3,486m in 1982-83 to $6,889m at the present time. That is an increase of approximately 100 per cent. That increased amount of money is coming out of our pockets and going into the Federal Govemment's coffers. This money is not being retumed to the States. I am surprised that the Queensland Labor Party supports its Federal colleagues in this way. Whilst it has been increasing its revenue from fuel taxes, the Federal Govemment has decreased the amount of money that it is spending on roads. It must be realised that the number of road-users is increasing. One only has to travel along the highways to discover the additional number of heavy vehicles and cars that are using the roads. The effect that this is having on the travelling public is enormous, because it is taking people longer to travel between destinations. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.