Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 1988

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

438 6 September 1988 Papers

TUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 1988

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. L. W. Powell, Isis) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILL

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that on Friday, 2 September, the Acting Speaker, Mr Row, presented to the Govemor Appropriation Bill 1988-1989 (No. 1) for the royal assent and that the Governor was pleased, in his presence, to subscribe his assent thereto in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty.

ASSENT TO BILL Assent to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) reported by Mr Speaker.

PETITIONS The Deputy Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Kuranda Access Road From Mr Gilmore (421 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure the provision of two access roads into Kuranda instead of one.

Licensed Sporting Clubs From Mr Newton (881 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will review restrictions on trading hours, fund-raising and other activities in licensed sporting clubs.

Incidence of Cancer and Leukaemia in Burdekin District From Mr Stoneman (953 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that a complete investigation is carried out into the high incidence of cancer and leukaemia in the Burdekin district. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— State Service Superannuation Act 1972-1988 Police Act 1937-1987 Valuation of Land (Annual Adjustment) Act 1984-1985 Valuers Registration Act 1965-1985 Regulations under— Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936-1979 Valuation of Land Act 1944-1987 Valuers Registration Act 1965-1985. Ministerial Statement 6 September 1988 439

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Referendum to Alter Constitution Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: The Australian electors' resounding and unequivocal "No" to the 3 September referendum questions demands some comment. The most important aspect of the referendum result is that all questions in all States were lost. This bicentennial referendum was not a referendum based on any legitimate desire to amend our Constitution for the betterment of our Federation; it was a political referendum designed to hobble the Senate, override the States and entrench into the Constitution by the back door a Bill of Rights. More sinister, perhaps, was referendum question No. 2—so-called fair and democratic elections. This was a Labor attack on Queensland! It is called the "Sheraton Deal". It was cooked up to resolve factionalism in the Queensland Labor Party by the Prime Minister, Peter Beattie, Ian McLean and Errol Hodder. It was the sop to them to be "Good Boys". Of course, as is evidenced by the referendum on Saturday, the Labor Party rank- and-file members do not support the electoral system. Look at the figures from Capricomia, Leichhardt and Herbert. Even Mr Casey and Mr Bums do not support it; they have supported a two-zone system. Indeed, I understand Mr Casey was so brave as to have a Bill drawn up on a two-zonal system. No wonder Labor rank-and-file supporters deserted the Labor Party on Saturday! The sad aspect about last Saturday's referendum was that the once-great Queensland Liberal Party, which once had a conscience for the State of Queensland, fell for the Labor Party's two-card trick. The Liberal Party in Queensland now is blinkered; it sees no further than the metropolitan area, even though it does have a member in north­ west Queensland. It is significant that Mr Beard had nothing to do with this referendum. He did not support his leader; nor did he support the people of north and west Queensland, who would have lost eight seats had this foul referendum proposal succeeded. Over the next 12 months, I will be reminding the people of north and west Queensland that the Liberal/Labor coahtion parties sold them out in terms of parliamentary representation. It is fair to ask: what will the dynamic duo of Mr Innes and Mr Goss do now? We have had Mr Goss emerging from the dark tunnel, only to be sent back in there again— by the people. We have had Mr Innes, the Champagne Charlie of Queensland politics, whose cork popped prematurely, being told by the people to put the cork back in the champagne! The people of Queensland and Australia told the Hawke Labor Government and the Liberal/Labor coalition in no uncertain terms that they were not going to be trapped by specious questions. It is fair to say that Mr Goss has cooked his goose and Mr Innes' char-grilled fillet of Aberdeen Angus has not been done to a tum. The actions of the Liberal/Labor coalition since the resounding "No" show that they cannot take the umpire's verdict. They are still threatening to remove representation from north and west Queensland. The referendum on Saturday was the third occasion on which the people of Queensland have voted in some form or other on this issue. Each time the people of Queensland have said "No". When will the Liberal/Labor coalition leam? 440 6 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

I say this to the people of Queensland: my Government—the National Party Govemment—will continue to provide fair representation to all Queenslanders and good Govemment.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Study into Illegal Insider Trading Mr HAYWARD asked the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General— "With reference to a report in The Courier-Mail of 1 September which claims that Queensland authorities refused to co-operate with a study into illegal insider trading in Australia, a study which has identified rampant insider trading involving individual cases of up to $23m— (1) Did any State Govemment departments or statutory authorities refuse to co-operate with this important study and, if so, which ones and who authorised the non-co-operation? (2) Will he ascertain which financial authorities, if any, refused to co-operate with the investigation of these scams and seek explanations from them for their non-co-operation?" Mr CLAUSON: (1 and 2) Dr Tomasic and Mr Pentony of the Canberra College of Advanced Education first approached me in August 1987 advising that they were undertaking research into insider trading in Australia. They advised that their project had received strong support from the then Chairman of the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities, Mr Terry Sheahan, and that the National Companies and Securities Commission had expressed interest in their project. They sought permission to interview officers of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. However, in response it was pointed out that the National Companies and Securities Commission had recently issued a Green Paper on insider trading that was receiving attention and that contributions should be directed to the National Companies and Securities Commission. In response, Mr Pentony indicated their research was intended to support consider­ ation of the Green Paper and therefore he sought copies of ministerial statements for a two-year period on regulation of the securities industry. The request for interviews was not pressed. Queensland has always sought to support co-operative efforts by all Australian jurisdictions to regulate companies and the securities industry in Austraha. This co-operative effort is now under threat by the newly discredited Commonwealth Attomey- General, Lionel Bowen, who at the behest of his Commonwealth public servants and with the encouragement of certain big business elements and share-market speculators is seeking to replace the co-operative scheme with total Commonwealth control of companies and the securities industry. The Commonwealth Parliament should heed the voice of the Australian people last Saturday when they said, "No more power to Canberra!" They should now work with other Australian Governments to enable the co-operative scheme to effectively prevent insider trading, instead of trying to destroy the co-operative scheme by failing to implement appropriate reforms.

2. Queensland Industry Development Corporation Mr HAYWARD asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the Queensland Industry Development Corporation which was set up to 'play a pivotal role in the future development and expansion of Queensland's economic base' and since it has been reported {Daily Sun 14 Questions Without Notice 6 September 1988 441

November 1987) that a '25-page confidential report has recommended sweeping changes to the stmcture and operations of the QIDC— (1) Will he confirm that the QIDC staff have been foUowing normal defined borrowing procedures and that staff have not been pressured into lending moneys? (2) Has the QIDC lent considerable moneys that it will have difficulty in recovering? (3) Have finance companies and banks been able to 'on lend' their doubtful and mbbish loans to the QIDC? (4) In view of the significance of the QIDC to all Queenslanders, will the 'Confidential Report' be made available to this Parliament?" Mr AHERN: (1) The Queensland Industry Development Corporation operates in a fully commercial and professional manner and consequently staff do observe proper commercial lending procedures. (2) Despite stringent pmdential controls, all lending institutions have a certain proportion of loans which prove to be irrecoverable. Information in this regard is reported in the annual report of the corporation. (3) No. (4) I am unaware of the report to which the honourable member refers. However, the Government is continually reviewing the appropriateness of the organisation of its various statutory authorities and makes such changes as it considers necessary from time to time.

3. Pumicestone National Park Mr NEWTON asked the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism— "With reference to his heeding my representations to have Stage 1 of the national park on Bribie Island declared and with regard to addressing the need for balanced conservation and development on Bribie Island— What action has been taken or is contemplated in the interests of the people living on or near or visiting the island?" Mr MUNTZ: I wish to acknowledge the sterling efforts of the honourable member for Glass House in assisting the Govemment to achieve the Stage 1 gazettal of Pumicestone national park. He did a tremendous job. He convinced me and all the people associated with the matter in the department that this national park would be of benefit to not only that area but also the whole of south-east Queensland. My department had budgeted for the constmction of recreation facilities on Bribie Island adjacent to the northem part of Pumicestone Passage. These will be available for use by local residents and visitors. Further facilities, including those providing a camping experience, are being considered for the island adjacent to the southern part of the passage, but their extent will depend upon any further stages of park gazettal. Obviously, the aim will be to provide facilities which allow on the one hand the integrity of the park to be maintained and on the other the recreation needs of the public to be satisfied. I am confident this will be achieved.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Dismissal of Sir Terence Lewis Mr GOSS: In directing a question without notice to the Premier, I refer to repeated calls by me on behalf of the Labor Party for the suspended Police Commissioner, Sir Terence Lewis, to be sacked on the grounds of maladministration, and to the Premier's repeated assertions in response to these calls that he would not dismiss Sir Terence Lewis, because he was innocent of any wrong-doing until proven guilty. I refer also to 442 6 September 1988 Questions Without Notice the Premier's statements last Thursday that the Govemment was now moving to dismiss or move against Sir Terence as a result of evidence of cormption given in the Fitzgerald inquiry the previous day by Jack Herbert, and also to the Premier's comments last night on the Four Corners program that the reason for finally moving to dismiss Sir Terence was that of maladministration. I ask: can the Premier now inform the House on which grounds the Government is acting to dismiss Sir Terence and, if it is now correct that Sir Terence can and should be dismissed on the grounds of maladministration, why has it taken the Premier so long to act? Mr AHERN: The Leader of the Opposition carefully tailors his own evidence in relation to this matter. The other day I sat in the House and listened to his miserable dissertation on the Address in Reply to the Govemor's Speech. In his contribution I clearly heard the Leader of the Opposition use the words "relating to the power to sack Sir Terence Lewis and/or to dismiss him without pay". Today the honourable member says carefully that he has been calling for his dismissal, and on a number of occasions he has gone on record as saying "and/or to dismiss him without pay". After his speech in the House the other day, having himself publicly called for action, and the Govemment having taken the action, he says, "The Govemment has taken the wrong action." What a hypocrite! In the first instance I make it very clear that, no matter what action this Government takes in respect of this matter, the Leader of the Opposition will call it wrong, whether or not he has called for it. That is tme. In faimess to all of the parties, what the Govemment has done on this issue is move forward with careful legal advice from the senior counsel assisting the commission of inquiry and the Solicitor-General and has dealt with all of the parties individually. On every occasion and in respect of all parties, that has been done comprehensively. I am advised that the issue came to a head last week when direct evidence was given against the Police Commissioner by a party who indicated directly that he Mr Goss: That's cormption. Mr AHERN: Is the Leader of the Opposition going to allow me to answer this issue or not? Mr Goss: I will keep interjecting unless you answer the question. Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker, I think it is reasonable that I be given an opportunity to answer this issue. What then ensued was the serving of a show-cause notice on the Police Commissioner in respect of that particular evidence. That evidence has been tendered to him and he has to respond to the show-cause notice within seven days. Given the progress of evidence so far, advice has also been received that at this stage there is an appropriate question to ask the Police Commissioner in respect of the general issue of maladministration. Mr Goss: The evidence of cormption was last Wednesday. Mr AHERN: Whilst the Leader of the Opposition is backed up by a lot of lightweight Labor lawyers, the Government is getting very serious advice and is taking a great deal of care to proceed fairly and with the best legal advice in the country. That is what the Govemment is doing. At this stage no decision has been made by the Cabinet. There are, however, two grounds at this stage of the evidence upon which the issue could be considered. The first is the direct evidence that was given by the witness Herbert and the second, at this stage in the presentation of this general body of evidence, is the issue of maladministration. That is now a reasonable question to ask. The whole issue has been handled carefully. A great deal of consideration has always been given to the issue and, as yet, no decision has been made. A decision will be taken at the appropriate Questions Without Notice 6 September 1988 443 time. Because of the importance of the whole issue, the Govemment will not be mshed into taking inappropriate or premature action. The Govemment is absolutely determined to get to the bottom of the matters and not to take precipitate action based on lightweight legal advice. Mr GOSS: He has to be pushed on every decision. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Briefing of Premier by Mr Hinze on Corruption Mr GOSS: In asking another question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer him to the latest syndicated column by political writer Andrew Stewart conceming a period in the early 1980s when Mr Hinze was Minister for Police. I now ask: during that period did Mr Hinze brief the Premier, who was then a Cabinet Minister, on information relating to allegations of cormption involving illegal gambling, prostitution and police? In particular, was the Premier briefed by Mr Hinze on the veracity of specific allegations raised by the late Kev Hooper? What action did the Premier, as a Minister, initiate or support in Cabinet to tackle cormption almost eight years ago? Mr AHERN: I have not seen the syndicated article by Andrew Stewart and I have not spoken with him on the matter. I would have thought that, if he was making extraordinary propositions like that, it might have been professional for him to approach me. Mr Goss: You would know if Hinze briefed you or not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr AHERN: The honourable member's anxiety over the results on Saturday are starting to tell upon him. Mr Goss: Hinze told you, didn't he? Mr AHERN: I will answer the honourable member's question directly. However, I am entitled to give a background to the article, which I have not seen. If the joumalist has written an article raising against me allegations that I had information that I have not had investigated, I would have thought that the professional thing to do would be to approach me or one of my staff about it. No such approach has been made. In the first instance, that raises a question about the veracity of the particular allegations that the honourable member makes. Mr Goss: I just asked you if Hinze briefed you. Mr AHERN: I have no knowledge of any briefing by Mr Hinze on those issues described by the honourable member. I reject his allegation completely in terms of a briefing that was given to me in which there was any substance at all upon which I could act. I have no knowledge of the proposition put forward by the honourable member. I reject it completely, totaUy and absolutely.

Queensland's Electoral System; Referendum to Alter Constitution Mr FITZGERALD: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the continuing criticism of the Queensland electoral system by the opposition parties—the Liberal Party and the Labor Party—about a Govemment being formed after receiving 39.64 per cent of the vote in Queensland. I ask: is he aware that the ALP last gained over 50 per cent of the support of the Queensland people in 1956, when it obtained 50.69 per cent of the electoral support, and in that year it obtained almost two-thirds of the seats in this Chamber? Is he aware that the Liberal Party would have gained three seats only if the last election had been based on the first-past-the-post system? What lessons should the opposition parties learn as a result of the verdict handed down by the people of Queensland and Australia last Saturday? 444 6 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Mr AHERN: Australia has a system of representative government, under which the nation and the States are divided into a number of constituencies in which the citizens and the political parties are entitled to nominate candidates for election. Within those constituencies everybody has an equal chance of standing, presenting a policy and being elected to the Parliament. That is the system that applies. So the percentage argument really is a nonsense. The Liberal and Labor Parties have failed to understand that under the system that has operated for generations in this country they must nominate candidates in every electorate. They have an opportunity to nominate a candidate in every electorate. They then have a responsibility to deliver policies in every electorate. If they are prepared to do that, they have an equal chance with anybody else who nominates. That is what the National Party has done. In recent times, throughout Queensland, the National Party has stood a candidate in every constituency. It has offered policies for all people and has received a majority of members in the Parliament. They are the ground mles. The opposition parties cannot make a percentage argument with any serious validity. The message of last Saturday is that the Liberal and Labor Parties have got to get out of the capital city and their few provincial enclaves into the broad expanse of Queensland and to offer policies to everybody. In the past that has been something that they have not been prepared to do comprehensively. The National Party has done it, and it has a full entitlement to Government in this State. I expect that in the future the National Party will continue to hold Government and that it will increase its majority at the next State election. Gifted and Talented Children Mr FITZGERALD: I direct a question to the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport. Earlier this year the Honourable the Premier commented that he saw the plight of gifted and talented children not as a problem but as an opportunity to enhance the natural attributes available within this State and he stated that this area of development would be investigated. I therefore ask the Minister: what developments have taken place to help gifted and talented children? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am aware of an article in a Redcliffe newspaper in relation to a special duties consultant, Mr Pirozzo, who has been doing some excellent work in that part of Queensland to cater for gifted and talented children. What is normally regarded as special education covers both ends of the learning spectmm: those who have learning disabilities and those who are gifted and talented. For many years my department has been to the fore in Australia in providing for those who have learning difficulties. However, my department has perhaps not done enough to cater for those students who are gifted and talented, because, firstly, they are not so easy to identify and, secondly, they do not always perform in the top range of the class. Sometimes these students put in a mediocre performance and have some behavioural problems. Having been alerted to the work of Mr Pirozzo, I took it upon myself to relocate him to the Sunshine Coast area, firstly, in an endeavour to prove to myself that the good work at Redcliffe could be sustained without Mr Pirozzo. I am pleased to be able to tell honourable members that the program is still mnning well. In addition, I wanted to see whether Mr Pirozzo could establish the same sort of rapport and deliver the same sort of service on the Sunshine Coast. It has been reported to me that he is in fact doing that. Last week I instmcted my department that next year a special consultant is to be appointed to each of the 12 regions throughout the State to co-ordinate all the types of programs that can be used by teachers to provide better education facilities for gifted and talented children. In addition, in April this year I launched a video. That video is an aid for teachers, parents and counsellors. It will assist them to learn how to identify these children and how to be more sensitive to their needs and it will give them teaching strategies that can be used to enhance the education process for the children. Questions Without Notice 6 September 1988 445

Briefing of Premier and Deputy Premier by Commissioner Fitzgerald Mr BURNS: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his statements in the media that no further Ministers will be named at the Fitzgerald inquiry this week and to statements by the Deputy Premier that there will be many more startling disclosures this week. I ask: does Commissioner Fitzgerald brief the Premier and/or Mr Gunn on a confidential basis on matters affecting the inquiry or persons who will be adversely named at the inquiry? If that is so, on what grounds does the Premier disclose to the media the results of those confidential discussions? Mr AHERN: I take it that the honourable member has checked this question with his leader, who, along with the Leader of the Liberal Party and myself, was given a confidential briefing in respect of the Herbert evidence? It was on that basis that the commissioner gave us certain information. I sought to overcome media speculation that there was another Minister under a cloud, and the statement that I have made—from which I do not resile—is that, to the best of my knowledge, that is not so. Given all the knowledge that I am entitled to have as Premier of this State, and as a result of discussions with the Attorney-General of this State, who has certain duties to perform in respect of this commission, which are proper, I have made a statement which I believe to be entirely proper in the circumstances. In a climate in which mmour and innuendo are flying all over the place, and in which honourable members opposite are doing the best they can to fan the fires of mmour, I am entitled to make statements about the credibility and integrity of my Ministry, and I have no regrets.

Dismissal of Sir Terence Lewis Mr BURNS: I direct a further question to the Premier, who has admitted that he received confidential information about people who are to be named before the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry. I ask: why did the Premier have to wait until last week, when evidence was given about the alleged cormption of Mr Lewis, to act on the grounds of administrative incompetence or to take the necessary steps to send the letters that he sent last week? Having been aware of those allegations being made to him by Commissioner Fitzgerald, and having had the matters raised with him, why did the Premier wait so long? Mr AHERN: The question is nonsensical. The evidence was only presented in public a few days ago. It is easy to suggest that a briefing was held on what was to be presented, but it is what is actually presented by word of mouth Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lytton! Mr AHERN: It is one thing to be given a background summary of evidence to be presented, but what is factual—realistic—and the only serious matter upon which one can act is what is actually stated under oath before a commission. The two are entirely different. That is a reasonable statement, surely.

Housing Problem in South Brisbane Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Family Services and Welfare Housing, I refer him to his challenge to the Federal Govemment to match his offer of $5m to help solve the housing problems in and around South Brisbane and in Queensland, and I ask: what is the Minister's reaction to the Federal Government's continual buck-passing on this issue? Does the Minister agree that it would have been better to aUocate money in solving that problem than to waste $45m on an ill-fated referendum, bearing in mind that in New South Wales, the so-caUed one vote, one value stronghold, the No. 2 referendum question fared badly? Mr McKECHNIE: I am very annoyed about the Federal Govemment's attitude to the housing problem in the South Brisbane area. The facts of the matter are that the 446 6 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Federal Govemment has cried poor for too long. The electorate of South Brisbane is represented by an Opposition spokesman in this House, somebody who should have some clout in the Labor Party. It is represented federally by a Minister in the Hawke Govemment. The Queensland Govemment is told continually by those persons that they cannot do anything for the people of South Brisbane. However, the Federal Govemment has just wasted $45m on a referendum that it put up for none other than political purposes. I am not suggesting that the Federal Government should have given the whole $45m to solve the housing problems in the South Brisbane electorate; just the interest on that money for eight months would have helped me to do something about the problem. I made an offer to the people of South Brisbane that, if the Federal Govemment would put in $5m, I would contribute $5m additional to the amount that I contributed last year. That was not a bad offer. The people of South Brisbane should stand up and say to the honourable member for South Brisbane and their local Federal Minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Honourable Ben Humphreys, that it is about time that they changed from being lightweights to heavyweights in the Labor Party. The honourable member for South Brisbane perpetually criticises the Queensland Government for not doing enough, but she and the Federal Minister will not publicly support my call to the Federal Govemment to put some money into the South Brisbane area for housing. I add also that the Federal Govemment squeezed the States. This year, in real terms the Queensland Govemment received less money for housing for Mr and Mrs Average in this State than it received last year. Despite that, the Queensland Govemment has a policy that will increase by 40 per cent Housing Commission funding for rental housing. That was announced in the Governor's Opening Speech and that is what this Govemment is doing. The Federal Govemment has a surplus of $5.5m despite the fact that it wasted $45m on the referendum. Why will the Federal Govemment not stand up for Queensland? The honourable member opposite and her colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs should try to become something more than lightweights and convince the Federal Govemment to take up the offer that I have made of assistance to the people of South Brisbane. Pension Payments to Mrs T. Hooper Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to recent allegations that have been made in relation to the parliamentary pension that is being paid to Mrs Terri Hooper. I ask: what is the real situation in connection with that pension? Mr AHERN: Comments have been made in today's press and by honourable members opposite in relation to the parliamentary pension that is being received by Mrs Terri Hooper, the widow of the late Kevin Hooper. I had a great respect for Kevin Hooper, who fought for the things that he felt were enormously important. Over the years he earned the respect of members on both sides of the House. However, it is time that the real situation in relation to the matter of his widow's superannuation entitlement was stated fairly and openly. Mrs Terri Hooper receives a pension of $829.83 per fortnight, which is $21,650 per annum. To date she has been paid a total sum of $81,041. During his time in this Parliament from 27 May 1972 to 9 March 1984, a total of 11 years and nine months, Mr Hooper's superannuation contributions were $32,905.80. Therefore, to date, Mrs Hooper has received approximately $81,000 from contributions that amounted to almost $33,000. In today's press a member of the Labor Party has asked why Mrs Hooper cannot receive a pension equal to at least the level of Mr Hooper's contributions. The tmth is that to date Mrs Hooper has received almost three times the level of contributions that the late Mr Hooper made to the superannuation fund. Questions Without Notice 6 September 1988 447

Mrs Hooper's pension is indexed to the CPI. The question has been asked why we cannot fix the problem retrospectively for her. Before his death, Kevin Hooper either opted not to join the new superannuation scheme or had not decided to join it. That is a position that applies to a number of members on the Govemment side of the House. At the time of the introduction of the new scheme, options were given to all members. Other issues would arise if it was decided to fix the problem retrospectively. The former member for Rockhampton has asked for similar consideration. Questions have been raised by the family of the late Keith Hooper, a former member of this Assembly. Questions have been raised by the widow of the late Vince Jones, the former member for Callide. Vince died during the period between the passing of legislation and the signing of the proclamation by the Govemor in Council. Despite the fact that, at the time of Vince's death, the relevant legislation had actually been passed, his wife receives a very small pension. Over the years it was decided that nothing could be done about the problem. No doubt the State Service Superannuation Scheme would involve hundreds of similar cases. This problem cannot be fixed retrospectively without fixing the lot. I do not believe that Terri Hooper has been badly treated. She has a fully indexed pension which is capable of sustaining her. I am sure that, if the late Kevin Hooper were in this House today and able to argue the case, he would agree that the pension is not unreasonable in the circumstances. Former Police Inspector Allen Bulger Mr INNES: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, I refer to the answer given last week by his predecessor as Police Minister, the Minister for Land Management, who said that the reason he did not remove Inspector Allen Bulger from the Licensing Branch, upon reading in November 1985 that Mr Sturgess found that the Licensing Branch had been failing to act diligently against prostitution and that the officer in charge. Inspector Bulger, was "lazy, incompetent and probably cormpt", was that he had no proof of Inspector Bulger's cormption. I ask: when the Deputy Premier took over the Police portfolio three months later, did he take the same view? If he took a different view, what was it? Mr GUNN: I might say that I have answered this question before. When I took over that particular portfolio, all the correspondence that I had was handed straight over by me to the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry. That was duly done. All correspondence is with the inquiry now. I emptied my safe. I had in the safe correspondence that I had received from the previous Minister and the previous Attomey-General. I opened the safe to Mr Crooke, counsel assisting the inquiry, and he removed whatever he wanted, including those particular papers.

Former Police Inspector Allen Bulger Mr INNES: I ask a further question of the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police: why did he take a recommendation to Cabinet in early 1987 to appoint Inspector Bulger, who had been described by Mr Sturgess as "lazy, incompetent and probably cormpt", as the officer in charge of the intemal investigation unit, which is the cmcial police unit primarily responsible for investigating allegations of police cormption? Mr GUNN: The Minister's role, of course, is to always take to Cabinet recommen­ dations that are brought forward by his commissioner. I had no proof of those particular allegations. I would like to read from an interview that was conducted in Adelaide with Mr Whitrod, who is the very same gentleman who has been talking about the great cormption in the Queensland police force. The interview is as follows— "Reporter—'Did you know the police were cormpt in the Queensland Police Force when you were commissioner?' 448 6 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Whitrod—'When? Some, some I suspected. I never was able to secure enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cormption did in fact take place.' Reporter—'Do you think that it was isolated to just your police force?' Whitrod—'No, no, I was aware of links down the east coast to Sydney and Melbourne.' Reporter—'And were the links simply with other cormpt police?' Whitrod—'The information I had was along those lines.'" In a submission to the Honourable the Minister for Works and Housing, who at that particular time was Mr Hodges, Mr Whitrod recommended that Senior Sergeant Lewis be promoted to Inspector Grade 4 and assigned to the Office of Commissioner of Police (Communications). In doing so he said— "The duty officer at the police operations centre has a very responsible position. All mobile patrol vehicles operate under his command and it is essential that he be an experienced officer well able to evaluate swiftly the emergent circumstances which are constantly reported to him ... I consider that Detective Senior Sergeant Lewis has the experience and ability to carry out these duties efficiently and accordingly recommend his promotion to Commissioned Rank..." He made recommendations along the same lines in relation to Lewis' upgrading to Inspector Grade 3 and also to Inspector Grade 2. The Minister's role is to take along to Cabinet recommendations on any promotions whatsoever. This has been done for many, many years, including those very dark years, I might say, when Labor was in power in this State. Mr Innes: You knew that this man had a cloud over him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sherwood! Mr GUNN: I do not go on hearsay, and we have never acted on hearsay yet. We act only on direct evidence. That was done. Parole of Walter John Anderson Mr BOOTH: In directing a question to the Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Services, I refer to a report in the Courier-Mail today about a call for the parole of convicted murderer Walter Anderson, and I ask: is this report correct? Does this have any relation to the evidence of Jack Herbert at the Fitzgerald inquiry? Mr COOPER: I thank the honourable member for the question. While this matter has still to go to Executive Council on Thursday, I am in a position to advise the House that—certainly to the best of my knowledge—this recommendation from the Parole Board is in no way related at all to any public statements that have been made to the Fitzgerald inquiry. The Parole Board decision was in fact made on 29 July. The application for parole was made some weeks before that. The Parole Board's decision came to me on 10 August. That matter was then taken by me to Cabinet for its consideration on 5 September. The normal procedure has been followed right the way down the line. In some of these cases the Parole Board deliberates for many weeks. It is in fact probably one of the toughest Parole Boards in this country. Queensland certainly has some of the longest sentences served by lifers in the country. As I said, normal procedure was certainly followed all the way down the line.

Referendum to Alter Constitution Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs: in the light of the Australian people's acceptance last Saturday of the fair and equal representation electoral system in Queensland, will he request the Questions Without Notice 6 September 1988 449

Prime Minister to now correct the unfair Federal electoral gerrymander system that requires an overwhelming majority to remove the ALP from office? Mr KATTER: It is intriguing that the decision on Saturday was against the so- called one vote, one value proposal. As the Australian people have said that they do not want that to happen—that they do not want that form of Government—obviously the Federal Government should implement the wishes of the Australian people that were expressed overwhelmingly in every single State in Australia. Mr Braddy: You tried to export Joh and they wouldn't have him. Now you want to export the gerrymander. Mr KATTER: That decision was not mine or a decision made by those on the Government side of the House. I have heard the word "gerrymander". That is rather intriguing, because although a million people live in the northern half of this continent— I repeat: over a mUlion people live in the northern half of this continent—they have only five representatives in the Federal Parliament. Mr Simpson: Shame! Mr KATTER: Only five! Sixteen million people divided by one mUlion people and 125 members in the Federal Parliament divided by five means that northern Australia should have eight Federal members. If on the numbers northern Australia should have eight, how is it that it has only five? The answer, of course, has been shouted out by members of the Opposition— "gerrymander". That is how the northern half of this continent is left with only five members, whereas on the figures it should have eight members in the Federal Parliament. The Federal Government is very effectively working a gerrymander at present. I conclude my answer to the honourable member, who has been a great advocate in this House for some considerable period Mr Wells: Does that mean that you agree with one vote, one value? You had better, because what you are saying is that one vote, one value is right. That is the logic of what you are saying. Mr KATTER: I take the honourable member's interjection and state that I would be very happy if the Federal Government at least implemented a policy of one vote, one value with respect to Australia's frontier, which is in the northern half of the continent. However, the Australian people were not happy to settle for that on Saturday. They wanted some type of protection for those people who live in geographically isolated areas. Last week I was very surprised to find that even in Russia the Siberian members of the central Comintern are elected by 300 000 or 400 000 people, whereas in the inner- Moscow area they are elected by 1 million people. Even Russia has a fair system. Every country in the world has a fair system except Australia. Geoffrey Blainey described Australia as a nation half won. If Australia continues in the way it is going, it will not be a nation half won; it will be a nation lost.

Proposed Aboriginal Cultural Centre Ms WARNER: In directing a question without notice to the Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs, I refer to the fact that before March of this year he informed various Aboriginal groups, the Brisbane City Council and myself that he intended to establish an Aboriginal cultural centre in Musgrave Park. The Lord Mayor indicated her approval of the scheme in the newspapers and since that time the Minister has reneged on his commitment. I ask: could he explain to the House the reason for his change of heart and advise if the Aboriginal people will have a cultural centre as promised by him? 450 6 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Mr KATTER: It is correct that I spoke with various members of the Government and to certain Federal authorities. We were looking for a solution that would overcome a number of social problems which exist, particularly in the honourable member's electorate. Discussions were held with each of the various groups and it was said—not promised—that a cultural centre would be established. The idea was put to the Gov­ ernment and the other authorities and was considered to be a very good idea which would be implemented at some time in the future. The Lord Mayor of this city made a statement in the Courier-Mail headlined "Hands off Musgrave Park". I can provide the honourable member with a copy of that statement. Later on the Lord Mayor stated that she would establish a cultural centre in Musgrave Park. The Queensland Cabinet took the stance that the park belonged to the Brisbane City Council, should remain under its authority after Expo and that this Govemment should not interfere in any way. This Government believes that the Brisbane City Council has primary and ultimate responsibility and control of Musgrave Park. Ms Warner interjected. Mr KATTER: I would take the interjection from the honourable member, but I cannot hear her. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a debate. The Minister will continue to answer the question. Mr KATTER: I cannot accept the interjection, because I cannot hear what the honourable member is saying. The Government has taken the stance that Musgrave Park belongs to and is under the control of the Brisbane City Council. That was the position before Expo, and the Government thought it only fair that that should continue. AU I can do is to strongly urge the Brisbane City Council to look at the proposal. It will overcome a lot of the problems experienced by the Brisbane State High School and provide a facility for people of Aboriginal descent who live in the area.

Superannuation Entitlements of Public Officials Mr COMBEN: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the announcement from Cabinet that the Governor in Council would be given discretion to deny part of the superannuation entitlements of public officials on certain grounds. I ask: (1) will one of the grounds of such discretion be incompetence; and (2) if so, will that principle also extend to Ministers such as the former Minister for Police, Mr Glasson? Mr AHERN: The matter is to be the subject of debate in the House today, and I think it is reasonable that the whole issue be debated at that time.

Funds for Home and Community Care Program Mr COMBEN: I ask the Minister for Health: will she advise why it took her more than six weeks to distribute funds received from the Commonwealth for use in the Home and Community Care Program to voluntary organisations, such as domiciliary nursing services. Meals on Wheels and respite care services, with the result that those voluntary organisations have lost interest or could have had to pay interest on loans and overdrafts taken out to cover the delays in receipt of the money? Why did National Party members receive individual grant cheques for presentation whilst Liberal and Labor members did not receive such cheques or advice of the grants made? For how long did the Minister for Finance, Mr Austin, store in his office individual cheques for the Nambour Meals on Wheels and the Nambour Care Centre before sending them to those organisations last Thursday? Mrs HARVEY: If the Opposition spokesman on Health spent more time peering into the paperwork on how the Health Department works and how it is administered than he does peering into people's private back yards, he would know that at the end Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 451

of the financial year—at Budget-time—because of the arrangements that are being made with the HACC program, these cheques are always mnning over. At that time of the year priorities are being re-established with the many people who ask for an overmn on the money they originally applied for. I believe that the HACC program in the Inala area was affected; I could cite many others as examples of overmns of money. At that time of the year the department has forced on it some delays in those programs. Delays are also forced on the department by Commonwealth negotiations on the HACC program. So it is a very complicated time of the year for the department and for liaison between the State Health Department and the Commonwealth department. It is not unusual at all, although it is regrettable. I have made a commitment that next year I will make sure that all those cheques are drawn in advance and the problem- solving will commence at least three months before the end of the financial year. The cheques are distributed in the way that I feel gives the best representation for the people receiving HACC grants. I believe that the way that they have been distributed is the best way to ensure that those who receive HACC grants have personal represen­ tations from the people who have been supporting them and who have personally written letters and made strong representations to me urging increases in funds. Declaration of Cape York Peninsula as an Environmental Park Mr HINTON: I ask the Minister for Northem Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs: is he aware that the Burke branch of the ALP is seeking to have the whole of Cape York Peninsula declared an environmental park? Mr KATTER: It is no secret to members of Parliament who represent north Queensland that for some considerable time certain members of the conservation movement have put forward proposals to reduce all of the peninsula and a significant proportion of the gulf country to the status of a national park. Although the various Ministers responsible for national parks in this State must be applauded for their work, I must point out that, if proposals put forward by these people had gone ahead, there would not, and could not, be any space base proposal for the peninsula area of north Queensland. Mr Scott: Where is the Burke branch? Mr KATTER: I have actually seen correspondence from the Burke branch. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Dismissal of Sir Terence Lewis Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Mr Speaker Mr Ahern: Hurry up. Mr GOSS: The Premier would do well to listen, because on behalf of the Opposition I propose to raise today a very serious charge directly and personally against him. It relates to the question of moving against Sir Terence Lewis. As we know, and as the Premier said this morning, on behalf of the Opposition I have made repeated calls for the Govemment to move against Lewis either by sacking him or by suspending him without pay. Last week, I made the point, which was quite a proper point, that if the Government is going to move against Lewis, it should do so on the grounds of maladministration, not on the grounds of cormption, because that is the question for Commissioner Fitzgerald and any subsequent court. I stand by that. Throughout this whole debate since the time I first called for Lewis to be suspended, I have been quite consistent. I first called for him to be suspended, and the Govemment 452 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest acted subsequently on that. I first called for the Government to freeze superannuation and, after four months of the Premier's saying, "You can't freeze the superannuation", he was finally forced to do it in April of this year. The Premier has a track record as a Premier, as a Minister and as a back-bencher of dithering and ignoring the evidence; turning his back on evidence that was put under his nose. As if that track record is not bad enough, this morning honourable members heard from the Premier the most disgraceful thing that he has ever done and the most disgraceful thing that any Premier could do, that is, to deliberately and knowingly mislead the Parliament on a most important question—a question fundamental to the success and the future direction of the Fitzgerald inquiry and the Police Department. Before I come to the essence of the charge against the Premier, I wish to put the record straight on the matter. For months I said that the Government should move against Lewis on the grounds of maladministration and dereliction of duty. Honourable members have heard repeated examples such as the Sturgess report, the Lucas inquiry and so on. The Premier has said consistently—and is on the record as saying—that Lewis is innocent until proven guilty. He came out with many glowing phrases such as, "We are not a hanging jury" and, "We will act on the legal advice." Quite clearly, what he was saying was, "We cannot sack him on the grounds of maladministration, because he is innocent until proven guilty." Up till Tuesday of last week, that was still the position. However, on Wednesday Herbert gave clear and direct evidence of cormption. It was only when that direct evidence of cormption was given that the Government moved. It became quite clear to every observer that the Government was moving against Lewis on the grounds of corruption and not maladministration. If honourable members require confirmation of that, I will quote from a joint press release of the Premier and the Deputy Premier headed "Lewis Suspended Without Pay". The fifth paragraph stated— "They said the Executive Council decision, on Mr Gunn's recommendation, resulted from evidence given in the Fitzgerald Inquiry into Police Corruption yesterday." That evidence by Herbert was direct evidence of cormption. I table that press release. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr GOSS: It is set out quite clearly in that document. Until last night, the Premier went on pushing that line. Last night, he back-flipped again. He appeared on the Four Corners program. When the specific question was put to him by Andrew OUie as to whether the grounds for dismissal were corruption or maladministration, the Premier said that the grounds were maladministration. He agreed with OUie that the questions of corruption had to be left with Commissioner Fitzgerald. In other words, the Premier had finally back-flipped and come to the position that the Opposition has been putting in this Parliament and in public for months. He conceded that the Opposition was correct. So much for all his waffle about lightweight Labor lawyers! He has never once tabled his own legal advice to which he keeps referring. The reason is that he wants to use that legal advice as a smoke-screen for his own dithering and inaction and the way in which he has propped up and protected Lewis for months. Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker, I take strong exception to the Leader of the Opposition's saying that I protected Lewis. Mr Goss: You did. Mr AHERN: I have not done that. It is a very serious matter. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that statement. It is totaUy offensive to me in the context of the Fitzgerald inquiry at the moment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier finds the imputation that he protected the Commissioner of Police objectionable and asks that it be withdrawn. Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 453

Mr GOSS: Out of respect for the Chair, I duly withdraw. The Premier is on record as consistently rejecting calls for moves against Lewis— consistently—on the basis of his innocence until proven guilty. Mr Ahern: At that time. It's the timing. Mr GOSS: So is he now guilty? Mr Ahern: No; it's the timing that's the issue. Mr GOSS: I will come to the timing and the honesty of this Premier right now, if that is the question, because I believe that this Premier's handling of this issue reveals the truth about his honesty and integrity when it comes to the Fitzgerald inquiry and his preparedness—his willingness—to mislead this Parliament and the public to cover up Mr Ahern: Demonstrate it! You've only got four minutes. Demonstrate it! Mr GOSS: Four minutes will be stacks of time. In answer to a question from me this morning about the grounds for dismissal, this Premier back-flipped to his third position. For weeks and months his response has been to take no action because Lewis is innocent until proven guilty. Then last night on the Four Corners program he took his second position, when he said that the ground for dismissal was maladministration. Today the Premier was given the opportunity by me in this Parliament to state what the grounds are, and today he claimed that there are the twin grounds of maladministration and the evidence of cormption. Is that correct? Mr Ahern: So what? I refer you to what I said in the answer to your question this morning. It is totally right. I have not misled the Parliament in any way. You have not demonstrated it. You have made a serious charge and you have failed to demonstrate it. Mr GOSS: So it is now twin grounds? Mr Ahern: You're making the speech. Mr GOSS: The Premier said today that the grounds were the twin grounds of maladministration and corruption. That is his third different position. That is the dithering and indecisiveness that puts the future of this State at risk. An honourable member: Rubbish! Mr GOSS: I will tell honourable members what the truth is. I will read into the record a letter that gives the lie to what honourable members were told this morning by this Premier. The letter concerned is from the Deputy Premier of this State to Sir Terence Lewis last week Mr Ahern: You're on Lewis' mailing list, eh? Mr GOSS: No. I did not get it from him. Mr Braddy: He's got two minutes, Premier. Can't you take it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Rockhampton! There is far too much audible conversation. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr GOSS: The letter from Mr Gunn to Sir Terence Lewis states— "I refer to the evidence given by former Detective Sergeant Jack Reginald Herbert at the sittings of the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Misconduct by Police (the Fitzgerald Inquiry) that you cormptly received from him certain moneys over a period of some time. 454 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

In my opinion, this conduct of which he has given evidence constitutes lack of good behaviour on your part within the meaning of section 6 of the Police Act 1937-1987. In the circumstances, I now call upon you to show cause to me in writing within seven (7) days of the date of this letter why you should not be dismissed from the office of Commissioner of Police and as a member of the Queensland Police Force." That letter contains no reference to maladministration. This Premier has lied to this House this moming because he said there were two grounds in the letter. The letter to Lewis from the Deputy Premier shows that the Premier has lied to this House because he is moving on the grounds of cormption and he gave that misleading answer today to cover up the tmth and to cover up his own indecisiveness. Time expired. Mr AHERN: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr Casey: Speak in the MPI debate—take 10 minutes. Mr Comben: You've got 10 minutes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The member for Windsor! Mr Comben: I was only helping him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Windsor! I call the Premier. Dismissal of Sir Terence Lewis; Leader of Opposition's Allegation of Misleading of House by Premier Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) (11.10 a.m.): I rise in this Matters of Public Interest debate to rebut the panic allegation—which is totally baseless—that has been made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition today. The letter to Lewis, which I am entitled to have, has highlighter over the relevant section. Mr Speaker, do you think that, having that letter in my hand here this morning, I would seek to mislead the House? What a nonsense! The honourable member is seeking to put a constmction on the reply that I gave to his question. If he reads the record tomorrow morning, he will see that in no way have I misled the House. I indicated Mr Goss: Two grounds. Mr AHERN: Let me clarify the situation for the benefit of the honourable member. In the knowledge that that question would be asked today because the honourable Leader of the Opposition had so indicated in the newspaper, I was very careful to ensure, before entering this House, that I had the necessary documentation with me. As to the charge that was delivered to Sir Terence Lewis—the honourable Leader of the Opposition rightly says that the issue here relates to good behaviour in respect of the allegations made by Mr Herbert in the last couple of days. However, I indicated that we have advice Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is simply this: the Premier has referred to a letter. I move— "That the Premier table the letter." Mr AHERN: Mr Speaker, there is no need for the Leader of the Opposition to move for its tabling; I will table it. Mr Goss: Caught out lying. Mr AHERN: I take strong exception to that. I have not lied. Never in my 20 years in this place have I lied. Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 455

What I have indicated to the House is quite acceptable and reasonable—that at this stage of the evidence the Govemment is advised that there is a case in respect of the general issues of the inquiry relating to maladministration. That is surely right. I did not say that that was the issue that had been put to the commissioner, and I have not done so. Mr Goss: That was the question you were asked. Mr AHERN: The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to put words into my mouth. In fact, it is he who has misled the House. I had full knowledge of the document, which I now table so that everyone can have a look at it. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr AHERN: That is the basis, and it is a reasonable basis. What I said last night and what I said to the House today is totally consistent both with the advice that I have received and with that letter. There now rests at this stage of the presentation of evidence before the inquiry a general question which can be asked in respect of maladministration. Mr Goss: It's not the grounds on the show-cause notice. Mr AHERN: Of course it is not, and I did not say it was. Mr Goss: You did. Mr AHERN: I did not say it was. The Leader of the Opposition, in his enthusiasm— in his embarrassment over what happened last Saturday—was anxious today to seize the initiative. He has found a Premier who has misled the House! Indeed, he is hoist with his own petard today because what he suggested is not true. What happened is that a show-cause notice on the grounds of behaviour has been properly drafted and delivered. But as I indicated to the House, there rests a general question in respect of maladmin­ istration at this stage of the inquiry, given all of the evidence that has been presented. The Leader of the Opposition, in order to substantiate the request that he made earlier, has been calling for the dismissal of Lewis at earlier stages of evidence. I indicated to the House this moming that the issue was that there was now direct evidence put before the commissioner Mr Goss: Of cormption. Mr AHERN: Of cormption. And that is what led to that charge for Lewis to answer within seven days on an issue of behaviour. I am certain that the people of Queensland will accept that in no way have I misled this House at all. I have always acted consistently with the advice that the Queensland Government has received and with due respect for the mles of law of this State. Everybody who appears before that commission is entitled to fair treatment. Everybody, led by the Government of Queensland, is enthusiastic to get onto the top of this matter. The Government will not allow citizens' rights to be trampled; it does not have to and it will not. This issue has ranged wide over a long period and across all political parties. On many occasions I have heard the honourable Leader of the Opposition saying publicly how appalled he is by this National Party Government. But what he has not said is that allegations have been made against at least two members of his party. They go back to the days when there was a Labor Speaker in this Parliament, and he has also received a mention at the inquiry. Mr Davis: Come off it. Mr AHERN: The Labor Party is taking this Government back into ancient history. Why can the argument not go back into eariy Labor history? That would be totally reasonable. 456 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

No members of my Cabinet were in the Cabinet when Sir Terence Lewis was appointed. Yet it has been said that somehow or other this Government is culpable. What a nonsense! What would reasonable people say about that? Members of the Liberal Party also have appeared on television saying publicly that they are appalled over the issue of cormption. One of the members of that party was actually a member of Cabinet at the time that Sir Terence Lewis was appointed. In fact. Sir William Knox was questioned about the issue on 6 October 1987 during an interview on the World Today with Monica Attard, who asked— "Was it an issue that was discussed with Cabinet?" Sir William Knox stated— "No it seemed to be a pretty smooth mnning operation." Monica Attard asked— "So you weren't aware at the time that it was a controversial appointment?" Sir William Knox said— "No it certainly wasn't a controversial appointment there's no doubt in the minds of Cabinet it was a unanimous view of Cabinet." Later during the interview Sir William Knox stated— "Well what was wrong with the appointment of Commissioner Lewis, why should I have any problem about that? It was a decision of Cabinet made at the time a recommendation to Cabinet for the Governor in Council. There was controversial or any problem associated with that." I do not intend to criticise the honourable member for Nundah. This problem is widespread and long-standing. The "joke" went back to the days of a Labor Party Government in this State. The "joke" is being finished by this administration. That is this Government's responsibility and it is undertaking it seriously and comprehensively, without fear or favour, and providing all of the resources that are necessary to get on top of the problem. Mr Goss: When Hinze briefed you, you tumed your back. Mr AHERN: The honourable Leader of the Opposition says, "when Hinze briefed you". Today I have denied that totally. At no time can I recall any detailed briefing on these particular matters. All of the necessary evidence has been given to the Fitzgerald inquiry. AU the Cabinet reports and financial reports have been given to the inquiry. My Government has given the inquiry every bit of legislative advice and assistance that it needed. When urgent action by this Parliament was required, that action was taken. When additional terms of reference were required, they were provided. At all times this Government has acted comprehensively and openly before the inquiry. We are going to get to the bottom of the matter. There is no point in the members of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party trying to make political capital out of the issue. The problem is bigger than that and requires a commitment from the whole community and all political parties so that we can get on top of it. Members of the Labor and Liberal Parties have no hope at all of making any party political capital from me. At all times this Government has acted in close consultation with its advisers. It is acting on their advice and not taking advice from a group of lightweight Labor lawyers or a couple of other characters. Time expired. Application by Hooker Projects to Rezone Bald HiUs Land for Shopping Centre; Brisbane River Committee Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.20 a.m.): Last Tuesday in this Chamber, the member for Aspley, Mrs Nelson, referred to the application that Hooker Projects made to the Brisbane City Council to rezone land at Bald Hills for a shopping centre. At best Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 457 her statement can be described as a fanciful one or at least as a figment of Mrs Nelson's imagination—untmthful and utter mbbish. If one looks at the facts concerning this application, one will see that the points that I raise clearly show what a fanciful imagination Mrs Nelson has in relation to this application. Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order. The member for Toowong is making a reference to a speech that I made in this House, saying it was fanciful. That speech was based on fact. I ask him to withdraw that statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member for Aspley has asked that certain references made in relation to her Mr Casey: That's only her version. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Mackay that I am in the chair, not he. The honourable member for Aspley has objected to certain comments made by the member for Toowong and has asked for them to be withdrawn. Will the honourable member withdraw them, please? Mr BEANLAND: Not unless you direct me to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I could not hear the honourable member. I ask him to raise his microphone. Will he now make that comment? Mr BEANLAND: Mr Deputy Speaker, I said that I am happy to do so if you so direct me, but the words I said were not objectionable as sucli. If you direct me to withdraw them, I will do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In order to expedite this debate, I think it might be useful if the honourable member withdrew them. Mr BEANLAND: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do so at your direction. The statement made by Mrs Nelson highlights the fact that she is unaware of town- planning matters and that she has not even attempted to learn the facts surrounding any town-planning application. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened in this Chamber. It has happened on a number of other occasions to which I will refer shortly. Mrs Nelson interjected. Mr BEANLAND: The whole thing can best be summed up by the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That is certainly the case when it applies to the member for Aspley. The matter to which I am referring involves four applications in all. The first application was made in 1978. Because of time constraints I will skip over that one. However, Mrs Nelson's speech clearly shows Mrs Nelson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The constant interjections from the member for Aspley, if not acknowledged by the member for Toowong, are serving no purpose. Mr BEANLAND: In this Chamber Mrs Nelson raised a number of very serious allegations which lacked any detail or substantiation, mainly because the reasons that she gave could not be substantiated. The second town-planning application, which was made in May 1986, was withdrawn by Hooker Projects in September 1986. The third application was made in September 1986. Because of some technical difficulty, it was not proceeded with. Either the council will refuse that application or it will be withdrawn by Hooker Projects. Because of that. Hooker proceeded to make a fourth application. The member for Aspley made a number of statements in which she alleged that there 458 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest was secrecy, collusion and conspiracy on the part of the Brisbane City Council. That says something about the member for Aspley. It is utter nonsense. During her entire speech not one of those words was ever substantiated—not one of them. The fourth application was made in December 1987 and it is the one that is presently being considered by the Brisbane City Council—in fact, it is being considered today, not the day after the election as the member for Aspley indicated. It will come before the council chamber today. On 22 December 1987, that application was advertised in that fine newspaper the Telegraph. We know Mrs Nelson's views on newspapers, particularly the Telegraph, because she said—and I wrote this down at the time—that it was a newspaper in its death throes. What a way to talk about that fine publication! The application was advertised on 22 December 1987. Of course, everyone knows that the advertising of applications and the whole range of activities associated with applications are govemed by the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act. That Act totally covers this aspect. If Mrs Nelson or anyone else on the Government side is concerned about an application being made during an approaching holiday period, such as Easter, the Government has in its own hands a means to overcome the problem. It simply needs to pass legislation to change the procedure. It has nothing to do with the Brisbane City Council. Mrs Nelson implied that the Brisbane City Council made the application. What utter rot and utter nonsense! It is totally untmthful. The Brisbane City Council does not make the application. The application is made by the developer. Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has claimed that I have been untmthful in this House, but that is not the case. I would ask him to withdraw that comment as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has asked for a with­ drawal of the comment because it is untmthful. Mr BEANLAND: As I am being directed by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw that comment. Clearly, the words used by the honourable member for Aspley are not correct, because it is the developer and not the Brisbane City Council that makes the application. You know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know it and most members in this Chamber know it. The day on which the application is made has nothing to do with the Brisbane City Council. The same problem occurs during the Easter recess. It is up to the member for Aspley to ask the Government to change the law so that that cannot happen. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions but it has always fallen on deaf ears. This application will go to the council today with a recommendation that the proposal be approved. Upon that recommendation's being made, there will be 30 days during which objectors will have the right to appeal. Mrs Nelson: All three of them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will have to ask the member for Aspley to refrain from repeatedly interjecting. I have already acknowledged a couple of the points of order taken by the honourable member, and I think that she should respect the Chair. Mr BEANLAND: As I understand it, there were five objections, not three, as indicated over and over again by Mrs Nelson. The point I make is that when members rise in this House to discuss these matters, they ought to have some knowledge of town- planning law. I wish to turn now to the very serious accusation made by Mrs Nelson, the member for Aspley, against the Brisbane City Council. She accused the Brisbane City Council of collusion, conspiracy and cormption but did not produce one iota of evidence to substantiate those allegations. She did not produce any substantiation at all during the whole speech. It was just a diatribe; a lot of utter nonsense. If Mrs Nelson stands by those words, I would say that she is again being untmthful, because throughout the Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 459 entire speech—and she spoke for 10 minutes—she did not produce anything to sub­ stantiate those words on even one occasion. It is no wonder that the honourable member has become the laughing-stock of the small-business community in her electorate of Aspley. Everyone knows how she stren­ uously opposed the hypermarket and other developments in Aspley. She stood against proposals for business development in that area. Yet look at how business is thriving in Aspley. The business people are very proud of the role that they are playing in the area. Mrs Nelson's own constituents are going to these shopping centres. Is she still going to say that she is against the hypermarket and other development that has occurred in her electorate that is being so well utilised by her own constituents? I wish to tum briefly to discuss the Brisbane River Committee, which is another one of Mrs Nelson's projects. Because of the shortage of time, I must hurry. If one looks into the Brisbane River Committee, one finds what can only be termed gross waste on the part of the State Government. In the Pmdential Building, a large suite of offices is occupied by only two people—an executive secretary and a typist. That is a scandalous situation. Furthermore, Mrs Nelson went overseas on a junket earlier this year. What did she come back and say? She said that she believed that innovative and spontaneous development could be the key to the river's future. What a joke! Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has made a false claim about a trip overseas which was not paid for by the tax-payer. I ask him to withdraw that comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not think there is any point of order. Mr BEANLAND: I do not recollect using the word "tax-payer" at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply said that Mrs Nelson went overseas. Clearly, Mrs Nelson's statements on her return highlight the fact that she learnt nothing. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Toowoomba North- are you speaking? The honourable member for Mansfield— Mr BRADDY: Mr Deputy Speaker Mr McPHIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Toowoomba North had been alert, he would have risen in his place at the correct time. I understood from my list that the honourable member for Mansfield forfeited his position. I call the honourable member for Mansfield. He was first on his feet.

Referendum to Alter Constitution Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (11.30 a.m.): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If this were a formal address in another place and I was asked to give a title to it, I would have to give the address the title "The demise of a once-great conservative political party—the Queensland Liberal Party", because of its decision to join the coalition in opposition, the socialist ALP, during the recent referendum campaign. During the 3 September referendum campaign the leaders of the two opposition parties in coalition, Mr Goss and Mr Innes, and the Liberal Lord Mayor of this fine city, SaUyanne Atkinson Mr Henderson: "Salaryanne". Mr SHERRIN: I thank the honourable member for Mount Gravatt; "Salaryanne". The leaders of the two opposition parties and the Lord Mayor appeared in ALP- sponsored advertisements. It was interesting to note the interview with Peter Reith, the Federal Opposition spokesman for Justice and Attomey-General, who, after claiming 460 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest victory on Saturday night, gave the advice that next time SaUyanne Atkinson should read the fine print. If one analyses the vote in last Saturday's referendum and compares it with the vote for the two coalition opposition parties during the 1986 general election, one sees that in the 1986 election the Labor Party gained 41.4 per cent of the vote and the Liberal Party gained just over 16 per cent, which means a total party-committed vote of 57 per cent. At that time their base support was 57 per cent. It is interesting to note that in Queensland in the 3 September referendum—I will keep the issue pertinent to Queensland— 35 per cent of people voted "Yes" to question No. 1, which is even below the ALP base support of 41 per cent, and 65 per cent of people voted "No" to question No. 1. I will come back to question No. 2, but on question No. 3, the vote was 38 per cent. There must have been some defectors from the ALP ranks who were not following their own party's guide-lines on this question, because 62 per cent voted "No". To question No. 4, which was the one of gravest concern to church groups and people with conservative values, 33 per cent voted "Yes". This shows a tremendous defection from the ALP ranks, because 67 per cent voted "No". Turning back to question No. 2—the Opposition has made much of the 45 per cent "Yes" vote. When one looks at the base support for the two opposition parties, who encouraged their supporters to vote "Yes" on this issue, one realises that that figure is not even half-way. The interesting point is that 45 per cent of Queenslanders voted "Yes" on this issue and yet there was 55 per cent base support. Very clearly, if one assumes that 41 per cent of the ALP voters in Queensland followed this path—and I am not so sure of that because of the shocking display of ALP leadership in Queensland—that means that only 3 per cent of that 16 per cent of the Liberal Party's base support followed the direction of their party. It is a shocking indictment of the leadership of the Queensland Liberal Party that, from its base support in this State, it can only muster 3 per cent support for the direction that it gave to the Queensland people. Mrs Nelson: Is this the western suburbs branch of the Democrats? Mr SHERRIN: I have heard it said that they are the western suburbs branch of the Democrats because they have degenerated to such an extent. There has been a mass defection of support from the Queensland Liberal Party. The Liberal rank and file have deserted their party on this issue in a form that was never thought possible. It was a dramatic vote of no confidence in the leadership of Angus Innes and John Moore on the organisational side, and in the policies of the Queensland Liberal Party. The Liberal Party should heed that it is totally out of touch, not only with the electorate at large, but also with its own rank and file. Over the past three months the Queensland public, the overwhelming number of whom I would argue are conservative in their values and in their voting patterns, were looking for leadership from the various conservative political parties in relation to the referendum, which, as we all know now, had a hidden socialist agenda. The leadership that these conservative voters looked for so longingly did not come from the Liberal Party; it came from the National Party and from the Queensland Govemment. I will say it again: there was a mass desertion from the Queensland Liberal Party by conservative voters. I will embellish this speech with some anecdotal comments from last Saturday. I will take one booth, but I will not mention any names for fear of embarrassing the lone Liberal who turned up. There were six National Party people distributing how-to-vote cards. The ALP imported a few people—one lady from the Leader of the Opposition's electorate of Logan, one fellow dragged in from Nundah and a couple of local people. I think at its best the ALP had four and, on average, two people in attendance. The lone Liberal rolled up at 8.30, after about 400 people, people looking for some form of conservative leadership, had gone through. We said to him, "Where have you been?" He said, "Sorry, I didn't know about it untU Thursday night." He did not even know Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 461 that he had to man the booth. Then he did not know which how-to-vote card to give out, because three Liberal how-to-vote cards were available for distribution in Queensland. 1 will come to them in a minute. He left at 10.30. We never saw him again. A total of 2 000 people went through the polling-booth, and there was no Liberal representative. I ask the House to wait for this. He said to the National Party people there, "I will leave our Liberal how-to-vote cards under a stone so they don't blow away. If anyone asks what the Liberals want to do, could you tell them where they are?" Out of 2 000 people, only two asked what the Liberal Party was doing. They picked up the cards, looked at them, threw them away and said, "They don't tell me anything." In Moreton one Liberal had to cover three booths that had about 10 000 people go through them. He would do an hour at one booth and mn away. He left his Liberal how-to-vote cards on the National Party table, because he was not even given a table. How organised were the Liberal Party! What a disgrace! The Liberal Party provided no leadership at all for conservative voters. I understand that in Toowoomba one Liberal had to service all of the booths. So much for the big Liberal revival in this State! Mr Austin: There were none in Nicklin. Mr SHERRIN: None in Nicklin! Where is the leadership for the conservative people of Queensland? It is an absolute disgrace! Liberal factionalism resulted in three how-to-vote cards. The Federal Liberals had the "No", "No", "No", "No". In my electorate the State Liberals distributed a card urging "No", "Yes", "No", "No". The SaUyanne card urged "No", "Yes", "Yes", "No". I will become anecdotal again. At the polling-booth that I attended the Labor Party people were distributing the "Yes" how-to-vote card. That is fair enough. The Nationals were there to distribute the "No" how-to-vote cards. As the people got to the lone Liberal—that is, when he was there—he would say, "Here is the 'Maybe' how-to-vote card." What sort of leadership is that? He was absolutely disgusted to be representing the Liberal Party, and I know that it was exactly the same for the few Liberals who turned up. The referendum was the most important in the history of Australia. It was also the referendum proposal with the greatest danger for the Australian people, particularly those with conservative values. This referendum campaign set the seal on an incestuous, immoral and sleazy relationship between the socialist ALP and the Queensland Liberal Party. The Queensland people can well ask, "Have the Queensland Liberals learnt their lesson after this rejection by the conservative electorate?" I am afraid that is not the case, because yesterday's Sun carries the following article— "Senior Queensland Liberal and Labor officials have been meeting behind closed doors ... The meeting involved senior ALP officials, including... federal front-bencher John Moore." Three days after they were decisively beaten, Mr Innes and Mr Goss have made supporting comments. We should not be surprised about the direction taken by the Liberal Party in Queensland during the referendum campaign, or by the manner in which the Leader of the Liberal Party has willingly entered into this infamous coalition in opposition. What does the future hold for the Liberal Party? We can no doubt expect more sleazy deals between the ALP socialists and the Queensland Liberals, more joint policy statements between Mr Goss and Mr Innes and more senior Liberal politicians appearing in ALP-sponsored advertising until their coalition opposition reaches such an incestuous relationship that the Queensland Liberals are forcefully incorporated into the ALP faction list as the fifth faction—the trendy irrelevants. 462 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

Education-funding Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (11.40 a.m.): On Friday, 2 September, in the Roma Street fomm, an important education meeting was held. The meeting was organised by the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Associations to draw attention to the Queensland Govemment's faUure to adequately fund education in Queensland schools and to lobby for a better performance in this financial year. It was significant that the Minister, Brian Littleproud, was not present; nor was he represented by either a National Party member of Parliament or a departmental officer. As shadow Minister for Education, I was present, spoke at the meeting and listened to the other speakers, who represented the Queensland Teachers Union, the QCPCA, the Australian Democrats and the parliamentary Liberal Party. The failure of the National Party Govemment to attend and answer for its stewardship of education in Queensland for the past 31 years was significant. This Govemment has the worst record of any Govemment in Australia in relation to education. This Govemment has continued to hide behind lies and half-tmths in relation to education in Queensland. This Govemment has continually tried to blame the Commonwealth Govemment for its own failure to give sufficient priority to education in Queensland. A review of the National Party's commitment to education and its relative lack of priority reveals the tmth. In 1975 the Queensland Budget provided for 24.2 per cent of its expenditure to be spent on education. Since then there has been a decline of Govemment education spending in this State until we reached the low point in last year's Budget, which provided for only 22.2 per cent of State expenditure to be spent on education. It is interesting to compare Queensland's priority on education spending with those of other States, because such a comparison reveals the tmth that the National Party Government does not commit itself to education as a top priority. The Victorian State Budget handed down only two weeks ago provides for 26 per cent of its State Budget expenditure to be spent on education; yet Victoria is only third on the list of States for per capita spending on education. If Queensland is to spend adequately on education, it will require a commitment from the Queensland Government in this Budget to raise its spending to at least the Victorian level, that is, 26 per cent of the State Budget. Such a level of spending would only just approximately attain the national average per capita spending. It would not go any way towards rectifying the many years of underspending and undercommitment on education from the National Party Government of this State. I estimate that, if the Government were to raise its education spending to 26 per cent of the Budget, it would have to commit approximately $360m more this year than it committed last year. When I recently debated education-funding with the Minister for Education, Mr Littleproud, at the Burleigh Heads primary school, I heard him tell the audience that Queensland spends about 25 per cent of its Budget on education. At no time in the last 14 years has Queensland got anywhere near spending 25 per cent. I repeat that it reached the low point in 1987-88, when only 22.2 per cent was budgeted for education. In education, as in other areas, this Government is good at erecting facades and equally good at hiding from reality. It is significant that during the last year, whilst neglecting education to a level far below the Australian standard, this Government built Education House and erected another facade to public service bureaucracy which hides the reality of undercommitment to education. Mr Casey: Would you say it is an erecting Government? Mr BRADDY: Indeed. The Government has an ability to put up shopfronts and hide behind them. Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 463

Its behaviour in police matters is similar. The Fitzgerald inquiry has revealed a staggering level of corruption and maladministration, yet the Govemment is in the process of building a new police headquarters—another facade to hide from the people the stench of cormption and Government neglect. In both police and education matters, the Labor Party, unions and community groups have been telling the Govemment about the real problems and neglect for years and, in both instances, the Govemment has failed to face reality and has condemned any criticism, even when it was more than justified. I challenge the Minister for Education and his Government to commit at least 26 per cent of this year's Budget to education spending. I believe that anything less than 26 per cent on education expenditure would reveal a continuing lack of commitment and priority to education by the Queensland Govemment. Mr McPhie: What was the percentage last year? Mr BRADDY: Last year it was 22.2 per cent—the lowest in Australia. In 1975, when the Queensland Govemment budgeted 24.2 per cent for education expenditure in its Budget, Queensland had a Year 12 student retention rate of 32.8 per cent. In 1988, the retention rate to Year 12 is 55.1 per cent. However, with a growing population and an even faster-growing school population because of retention rates, the Queensland Government has decreased its commitment and priority to education. Education expenditure has dropped from 24 per cent to 22 per cent, yet significantly more people are staying at school. This is the unpalatable tmth which is now widely recognised in the Queensland community. As I have travelled around the State talking to parents and teachers about education matters, I have heard the same story. I have heard of library grants for school libraries which have remained unchanged for 10 years—not even any attempt being made to match inflation. I have heard of parents and citizens associations paying for many school necessities, including ground maintenance and paper for schools. I have heard of this Govemment's lack of commitment to continuing education for teachers and its lamentable efforts at providing in-service training for teachers. I have heard of the slashing of teacher-aide hours so that teachers already overburdened in many instances by large class sizes are having to undertake duties previously carried out by teacher aides. The time is long overdue for this Government to match the enthusiasm and commitment of Queensland teachers and Queensland parents to education with its own enthusiastic commitment and priority. The Australian Labor Party has made a com­ mitment to education. It has resolved that its objective in its first term of office would be to raise the level of spending on education in Queensland to at least the national average. That commitment has been communicated to parents and citizens associations in Queensland. The Opposition challenges the Queensland Govemment to stop hiding behind untmths, monuments and cranes and get out into the education world and provide the necessary funds and facilities for education in Queensland. The Minister would have done well to attend last Friday's public meeting at the Roma Street fomm and to take away with him the impression of the community's commitment to education and anguish at his Govemment's failure over a long period of time to meet its responsibilities to education in Queensland.

Fishing Agreement with Soviet Union Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (11.50 a.m.): The amount of money spent on education by the Queensland Govemment in its last Budget was $1.3 biUion. That is a massive amount of money. The $1.3 biUion is the amount of hard cash that was provided by the Queensland Govemment. I believe that the amount of money to be spent on education in the next Budget will be greater. Mr Braddy interjected. 464 6 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

Mr FitzGerald: Ask him whether his figures include capital works. Mr McPHIE: In addition to that $1.3 bUlion, the capital works component was more significant. If that item is included in the percentages referred to by the honourable member for Rockhampton, it gives a totally different percentage. A very good record was achieved by the Queensland Govemment in its spending on education last year. I am sure that that spending will be matched in the coming year. Mr Casey: How much was the capital works program? Mr McPHIE: I am not speaking about education today. I will not even speak on the referendum issue, because the results are on the board. Honourable members saw them last Saturday. The figures are a credit to the Premier of this State and the wonderful job that he is doing as leader. The referendum result is a credit to the National Party of Queensland and the Federal coalition. Australiawide, the questions asked in the referendum were rejected overwhelmingly by the people. The Federal Government has been fiddling around with the Soviet fishing agreement for many months. I draw the attention of the House to this matter because it is more than just a simple commercial undertaking. It contains so many ramifications for the people of Queensland and the people of Australia as a whole that it should be mentioned in this Chamber. For some months negotiations have been taking place. There has been a significant amount of inaction from the Federal Govemment. However, a decision has not yet been made. For three or four weeks the Federal Government has realised that it was going to lose the referendum, which asked four questions, and it did not want, at the same time, to be a loser on its fishing agreement with the Soviet Union. Worldwide, the Soviet Union's record in the fishing industry is extremely bad. It is one of commercial exploitation of resources throughout the world and, more impor­ tantly, it is one of intense defence intelligence-gathering. I understand that the proposal before the Federal Government, which is negotiating with the Soviet Government and on which information is not being released at present to the Australian people, is for about 50 Soviet fishing vessels to visit Australia each year and for Australian ports to be used for crew changes, the obtaining of provisions, fuel and repairs. On the face of it, that might seem to be a good commercial undertaking, because there are plenty of fish off the Queensland coast as well as in other areas off the Australian coast. Fish are there for the taking. Australia is not using those resources to the maximum. It could well be argued that the Australian economy could earn money by allowing Soviet fishing fleets to enter Australian waters. However, if one looks at the Soviet Union's fishing record around the world, one will find that over a period of years, virtually from the end of World War II, the Soviet Union's fishing record is one to be condemned. The Soviet Union has more than 3 600 fishing vessels on the oceans of the world. Those ships fish out areas, deplete reserves and then move on to another area. The Soviets violate agreements and fish illegally, especially in areas in which local authorities cannot monitor or control their activities. The Royal Australian Navy does not have sufficient ships to put to sea at any one time to monitor the goings-on and the operations of 50 Soviet fishing vessels. Mr Casey: Have you ever looked at the Taiwanese effort? Have you looked at them? Mr McPHIE: I am talking about the Soviet fishing agreement. Mr Casey: You are, but have you looked at the Taiwanese? Mr McPHIE: I am not talking about the Taiwanese or the Indonesians coming down. If the member for Mackay would pay attention, he would hear a lot more about the Soviet Union's fishing record around the world. Matters of Public Interest 6 September 1988 465

The Soviet Union has already fished out the shallow water in the Atlantic Ocean and the deep water in the north-east Pacific Ocean. It violates its agreements. It denudes an area completely. In some areas there are no fishing reserves left. It will take years for the fish to breed-up in those areas. Soviet fishing vessels have fished the deep Atlantic Ocean waters off the African coast. Now they are coming to Australia. There is no doubt that there are fish in Australian waters. There is also no doubt that Australia should be taking those fish, processing them and exporting them. Mr ArdiU interjected. Mr McPHIE: Australia has a 200-mile exclusive economic zone set-up. Most of the Taiwanese and some of the Indonesians are fishing in accordance with the require­ ments of that exclusive economic zone and with their agreements. I am concerned about letting in Soviet fishing vessels, because worldwide the Soviet Union's record is one of continual espionage activity of its fishing and merchant fleets. The Soviet Union has not changed its pohtical ideals or objectives one iota. The Soviets will make their agreements, come to Australia, say that they will comply with the requirements of the Australian Government and the conditions of use of the exclusive economic zone, and then they will just ignore them. Mr Casey: Mr Katter said this morning they have got a good electoral system. Mr McPHIE: I am not talking about their electoral system. The honourable member must not be paying attention. He is sitting over there chatting away like an old magpie. He has not made one pertinent comment or interjection in relation to the Soviet fishing fleet. He should go out and have lunch, because I do not think that I should have to listen to him. Why is the Australian Govemment letting the Russians in to harvest our crops, especially when there are defence considerations? Their fishing boats, merchant ships and cmise ships are equipped with electronic monitoring devices. At any time in the future when a Soviet ship is in Brisbane, I will go voluntarily with the honourable member and point out the facilities on board. Russian ships steam up and down our coast. The Russians know the frequencies of all radars and transmitting stations along the coast. I would imagine that they have already cracked the codes on all of our defence installations. Mr Casey: That is intemational information available to everybody. Mr McPHIE: It is bad enough that those ships cmise our coast without inviting fishing boats to establish here permanently with their mother ships. We do not need that. Added to that—Aeroflot will be flying in replacement crews, creating an absolutely unacceptable state of affairs. Aeroflot crews and overseas officials are already well proven as military intelligence officers. Only last week in Federal Parliament it was stated that an Aeroflot crew member had been named as a practising KGB agent. As a further example, a former Soviet fishing fleet captain, Vladil Lysenko, has written a book titled A Crime Against the World. If honourable members care to read that book they will leam about the Soviets' disgraceful record of overfishing, intelligence- gathering and broken agreements. Mr Lysenko details how the Soviet fishing fleet crews are controlled by the KGB. He states that Soviet ships carry intelligence-gathering apparatus and that crews are regularly given intelligence work to undertake. But the Federal Government is still dilly-dallying with the agreement, which is typical of the cavalier and irresponsible attitude that it adopts to Australian defence. The Federal Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, Dr Desmond Ball, thq head of strategic and defence studies at the ANU, and the ASIO head, Harvey Bamett, have all stated publicly that they believe that, if fishing fleets are allowed to come to Australia, the

80544—18 466 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

Soviets will spy. However, the Federal Govemment still has the hide to continue to negotiate the agreement. On the admissions of Lionel Bowen and Harvey Barnett, ASIO does not have enough staff to monitor crew movements when a trawler is in port, let alone cover Aeroflot flights, crews and passengers when they come in for a crew change. Despite the Federal Govemment's thrashing at the referendum, it continues to claim that it is responsible when the facts are there for all to see and are acknowledged by Federal Ministers and their employees. In the ultimate quick-change hypocrisy, former Foreign Minister Hayden said that there would be no security risk if the Soviets came to Australia and the agreement was completed. However, in 1985 when the Soviets completed an agreement with Kiribati and again in 1987 with Vanuatu he said there was a security risk. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 24 August, the time allowed for the debate on Matters of Public Interest has now expired.

PUBLIC OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS RECOVERY BILL

All stages Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (11.59 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders agreed to by the House on Wednesday, 24 August, be suspended as would otherwise prevent the immediate presentation to the House of a Bill to provide with respect to entitlements to superannuation on retirement benefits funded to any extent from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of persons convicted of certain offences and for related purposes; and the passing of such Bill through all its stages in one day." Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Austin, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (12 noon): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." In April of this year, the Govemment announced its intention to prepare the most effective legislation available to any State to deter cormption among persons holding public office. Before the close of the last session of Parliament, the Govemment introduced the Public Officers' Retirement Bill as an interim measure pending the introduction of more comprehensive legislation. That Act essentially requires that Govemor in Council approval must be obtained for all retirements from public office. The provisions of that Act have been applied to prevent retirement in certain instances. As foreshadowed in the last session, the Bill now before the House provides much more comprehensive anti-cormption legislation. The main objective of the Bill is to deter cormption among public officials by reducing entitlements to or recovering moneys paid as superannuation or retirement benefits. All persons convicted of offences which show evidence of cormption, and where the benefits of those persons were funded to some extent from the Consohdated Revenue Fund, are covered by the legislation. Police, judges, public servants and members of Parliament are included. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 467

The main provisions of the Bill are triggered by the conviction of a person and involve— • application by the Minister to the Supreme Court for an assessment of the liability payable to the Crown by a person convicted of an offence involving cormption; • assessment by a Supreme Court judge of the liability of the convicted person, based on the superannuation or retirement benefits accmed by that person whUe in the employment in which he was engaged when he committed the prescribed offence; • requirements for the judge to take a number of possibly mitigating factors into account when assessing the amount of the liability of the convicted person; • in particular, provision for the relief of hardship on a spouse or on dependants where those persons had no knowledge of the cormpt activity; • application of restraining orders on the disposal of certain property, as security for the payment of the assessed liability to the Crown; and • enforcement through civil proceedings of orders made by the judge to pay the assessed liability to the Crown. Provision is also made in the Bill to prevent the resignation or retirement without the approval of the Governor in Council of public officers who are under suspension. For the benefit of members, explanatory notes have been issued with the Bill. This legislation breaks new ground and has far-reaching consequences for cormpt persons who have sought to benefit from the public contributions to their superannuation. The Bill provides that in extreme cases, the convicted person may be left with only his contributions to the superannuation fund, plus interest. In pursuing recovery of the liability assessed by the judge as owing to the Crown, strong powers of investigation into the property and any beneficial interests of convicted persons have been provided. The legislation will cut through the evasion mechanisms which convicted persons may seek to implement to avoid recovery of moneys owing to the Crown. Bona fide interests of third parties to any transaction made in good faith with the convicted person are, however, protected. It is not our intention that innocent parties be affected by this legislation. Provision is made, however, for the cormpt to be treated with extreme severity. This is yet another step in this Govemment's unprecedented drive against cormption in this State. This legislation and subsequent legislation will complement the exceptional work undertaken by Commissioner Fitzgerald. Under Standing Order 241(c), I seek leave to table detailed explanatory notes for incorporation in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— PUBLIC OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS RECOVERY BILL PART I—PRELIMINARY Clause 1—Title • The Act seeks to recover monies already paid as superannuation or retirement benefits, and/or to reduce previously existing entitlements, of persons convicted of offences evidencing corrupt practices, where that person's entitlements have been funded to any extent from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Clause 2—Commencement • Provisions of the Act will commence on a day appointed by Proclamation. Clause 3—Arrangement • Specifies an Act in 5 Parts and 38 Sections. 468 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

Clause 4—Interpretation • Sub-Section (1) covers definitions of terms used throughout the Act. In particular— —"Interest" has been chosen as that "prescribed pursuant to Section 73 of the Common Law Practice Act 1967-1981". This rate is currently ten (10) per cent. Court practice normally interprets this as simple interest. This is not considered acceptable practice for the calculation of entitlements and liabilities in this case. Compound interest is therefore specified for this purpose. —In defining offences to be covered by this Act, specific Sections of the Criminal Code have not generally been quoted. Instead, a description of the type of conduct exhibited in committing an offence is provided. This approach is considered to be less restrictive than the former. It catches use or abuse of public office in a cormpt manner, regardless of the offence of which the person is actually convicted. —In addition to covering the obvious benefits, "Superannuation on retirement benefits" are defined to include entitlements which are preserved in a fund when the person resigned before retirement age and to include payments in the nature of such benefits which are made on termination or non-renewal of a contract. • Sub-Section (2) defines the specific term "bona fide purchaser for value". • Sub-Section (3) provides that, in assessing liability under Clause 8, the earliest proven time a convicted person committed an offence covered by this Act shall be taken as the date when a convicted person first committed such an offence. • Sub-Section (4) clarifies the intended scope of this Act to include all persons who have been convicted of a prescribed offence. Under Clause 7 however, it is at the discretion of the Minister as to whether proceedings to obtain an assessment of liability to the Crown are commenced. This provides discretion in cases where the offence of which the person is convicted is of a trivial nature. • Sub-Section (5) is intended to capture benefits under a superannuation scheme which accme to persons other than the convicted person, e.g. spouse and dependents. Benefits which have not been paid to the convicted person but are preserved in some superannuation scheme or have been paid to another superannuation fund for the benefit of the convicted person are also to be included in assessments of liability. Mitigation of the affect of this provision on a spouse or dependents who were unaware of the cormpt conduct of the convicted person is provided at a judge's discretion in Clause 8 (1) (b) (iv). The issue of "awareness" is considered a matter of evidence and judgement. • Sub-Section 6 defines the period of employment of a person for the purposes of calculation of liability under Clauses 8 (1) and 11 (1)—liability extends only to benefits accmed in respect of the period of the convicted person's employment in which he was engaged when he committed the offence of which he has been convicted. Clause 5—Application of Act • Provides clear indication of the intention to cover all cases of conviction of public officers for cormpt practices after commencement of this Act, irrespective of when the offence was committed or how it was uncovered. It is not considered feasible or desirable to limit application of the Act to only offences uncovered at proceedings of the present Commission of Inquiry. • Clause 7 provides discretion to the Minister to determine whether proceedings to obtain an assessment of liability to the Crown are commenced. PART II—COURT ORDERS ON CONVICTED PERSONS This part of the Act establishes the liability to the Crown of a publicly funded superannuant who has been convicted of a prescribed offence. It provides guidelines for the determination of the amount of the liability and the processes to be followed by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Clause 6—Pecuniary liability upon conviction • Establishes liability of a convicted person covered by the Act to pay to the Crown a sum assessed in accordance with Clause 8. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 469

Clause 7—Assessment of liability • Sub-Section (1) provides that: —the responsible Minister may apply for an order for the convicted person to pay assessed liability to the Crown. This process is not automatic. It is separate from and subsequent to criminal proceedings. The view taken is that this process, involving recovery of benefits, is essentially a civil matter between the Crown and the convicted person. —the application by the Minister is to a Judge of the Supreme Court. The processes could be complicated, large sums could be involved, interests of third parties may need to be considered, property ownership questions may be relevant, etc. • Sub-Section (2) establishes grounds on which a convicted person owes a liability to the Crown. Clause 8—Factors relevant to the assessment of liability This Clause provides guidance for the Supreme Court judge in assessing the liability of a convicted person to the Crown. • Sub-Section (1) —Paragraph (a) defines the maximum amount of liability which the judge may assess. In general terms, the effect of this paragraph is to provide that the convicted person's superannuation or retirement entitlement may be reduced to a minimum of the contributions actually paid into the fund by that person, plus interest. —Liability is assessed on only those superannuation or retirement benefits accmed in respect of the period of employment during which a person committed a prescribed offence of which he is subsequently convicted. This provision exempts from the calculation of liability those superannuation or retirement benefits accumulated during subsequent periods of employment in a different type of Public Office from that held when committing the prescribed offence of which the person was convicted. Clause 4 (6) provides an interpretation of the term "period of employment". For example, a person convicted of a prescribed offence committed when he was, say, a Public Servant, but who subsequently served in another Public Office before retirement, would be subject to assessment of liability only on those superannuation or retirement benefits (if any) accumulated during service as a Public Servant. Benefits accumulated during the subsequent period of employment in another Public Office would not be attacked. —Paragraph (b) provides the judge with discretion to reduce the liability of the convicted person after considering a number of relevant factors, which may include those listed. —Paragraph (b) (i) reflects the view that a period of unimpeachable service should not necessarily be totally cancelled by the commission of a prescribed offence. Disentitlement provisions are triggered by the first act of cormption of the convicted person. This paragraph provides the judge with discretion to decrease the liability to the Crown where the provisions of Paragraph (a) might otherwise be considered unduly harsh. —Paragraph (b) (ii) provides discretion to the judge to reduce the liability to the Crown where the offence of which the person is convicted is considered to be of a relatively less serious nature. —Paragraph (b) (iii) provides discretion to the judge to reduce the liability to the Crown where the gain from commission of the offence is relatively minor. —Paragraph (b) (iv) provides for consideration of the interests of spouse or dependents where these persons were not aware of the cormpt activities of the convicted person. The original entitlement of a spouse under the scheme could, for example, be effectively restored by the judge on the basis of evidence tendered that the spouse was unaware of the cormpt activity. • Sub-Sections (2) and (3), together with the definition of the term "interest" in Clause 4.1, detail the basis of calculation of the maximum liability under Sub-Section (1), paragraph (a). 470 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

• The interest rate currently prescribed in Section 73 of the Common Law Practice Act 1967-1981 is 10 percent. Clause 9—Liability is a Judgement Debt The liability to the Crown of the convicted person is considered to be in the nature of a judgement debt arising from civil proceedings, with similar enforcement options. To encourage early settlement of obligations to the Crown provision is made to over-ride the provisions of Sections 72 & 73 of the Common Law Practice Act and for compound interest (currently at a rate of 10 per cent per annum) to apply on amounts outstanding from time to time. The Common Law Practice Act would allow simple interest only to apply. Clause 10—Notification of Application; Appearance on Application The interest of a spouse and dependents in the amount of the judgement of liability of a convicted person to the Crown are recognised by this Clause. Evidence may be presented by such persons for consideration by the judge in assessing liability under Clause 8. Clause 11—Compulsory Commutation of pension benefits • Once an order assessing the liability of a convicted person has been made (Refer Clause 8 for guidelines for this assessment) it is provided that entitlements to pension cease. • The main purposes of this provision are to sever obligations of the fund to a convicted person and, through commutation of prior pension entitlements, to provide a lump sum from which the assessed liability may be drawn, in whole or at least in part. • As in Clause 8(1), only those superannuation or retirement benefits accmed in respect of the period of employment during which a person committed an offence of which he is subsequently convicted are affected. Clause 4 (6) provides an interpretation of the term "period of employment". • Provision is made in Sub-Section (3) for the removal of any continuing liability of the fund to spouse or dependents. The value of any such entitlement is also included in the commuted value of the convicted person's entitlements from which the convicted person's liability to the Crown is be met (Clause 4 (5)). Mitigation is however provided as noted above under Clause 8 (1) (b) (iv). This mitigation would not extend to reinstatement of pension rights but could provide a lump sum equivalent. • Provision is made for the Superannuation fund to pay the convicted person's liability to the crown before paying the remainder of the entitlement, if any, to the convicted person. • Where the assessed liability exceeds the prior entitlement the difference may, of course, be pursued as provided in Part III of the Act. PART III—RESTRAINING ORDERS This part of the Act provides, under certain conditions, for the use of restraining orders to restrict certain rights of persons (including persons other than the convicted person) to whose property they relate. Disposal of property specified in the restraining order may be prevented until the Court order for payment of the liability of the convicted person has been satisfied. Clause 12—Application for Order • Application may be made by the Minister to a Supreme Court judge for a restraining order against property of the convicted person, against specified property of another person or against property jointly held by the convicted person and others. • The Clause provides, in effect, that an application for a restraining order may be made immediately upon conviction of a person, provided, of course, that it is intended to proceed to seek assessment of liability as provided in Clause 7. The provisions of the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act (1987) which allow for the freezing of assets prior to conviction have not been adopted. It is considered that the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven should be upheld. • The conditions under which a restraining order may be granted against the property of a person other than the convicted person are detailed in Clause 14. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 471

• Provision is made for the property owner(s), against whose property a restraining order is sought, to be given the opportunity of appearing and participating in the proceedings before the judge. Clause 13—Making of Restraining Order • Sets out the conditions which may be applied by a judge in a restraining order, including vesting custody and control of the property in the Public Tmstee, where the judge thinks fit. • Provision is made to mitigate the effects of the order on persons other than the convicted person. Provision is also made for reasonable living and business expenses of the convicted person to be exempt from restraints if considered necessary by the judge. Clause 14—Conditions for Restraining Order against property other than that of convicted person • Conditions are specifed under which a restraining order may be granted to the Minister against the property of a person other than the convicted person. • The rights of bona fide purchasers of property for value are preserved but attempts to disguise beneficial ownership by the convicted person by various devices are attacked and made ineffective. Clause 15—Protection of innocent persons • Permits recognition by a Court of the bona fide interests of persons other than the convicted person in property which is to be restrained or used in satisfaction of the convicted person's liability to the Crown under this Bill. • Such persons must not have been party to attempts to evade the provisions of this Bill. Clause 16—Imposing or varying conditions on restraining order • Provides for variations to or removal of the restraining order on application from interested parties, if thought fit by the judge. Clause 17—Discharge of restraining order • Provides for the removal of the restraining order on the quashing of the conviction of the convicted person. • This process is not automatic—application for removal of the restraining order must still be made to a Supreme Court judge. Clause 18—Effect of restraining order • The scope, effect and duration of the restraining order are detailed in this Clause. • The restraining order creates a charge on the property but with no priority over other bona fide encumbrances already existing on the property. • The rights of bona fide purchasers of the property who, at the time of the purchase, had no notice of the charge are protected. • In relation to property of a person other than the convicted person, and where the property did not once belong to the convicted person, the charge created by the restraining order extends only to the amount of superannuation or retirement benefits of the convicted person which have assisted in acquisition of the property. Clause 19—Contravention of restraining order • Specifies penalties for knowing contravention of a restraining order and provides for corrective action to be taken where disposition of property was not for value or in good faith. • The rights of bona fide purchasers of the property are, however, not affected. Clause 20—Registration of Orders and Charges • Provision is made for registration, on receipt of a request by the Minister and of relevant evidence, of all restraining orders and charges on property which is subject to registration in some form. • The intention is to inform potential purchasers of the property of the restriction on sale and of the priority encumbrance on the property. • Provision is also made to prevent registration of any instmment affecting land subject to a restraining order. 472 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

PART IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS This part of the Act covers miscellaneous matters necessary for the operation and administration of the Act. Clause 21—Further Powers of Supreme Court • Provides for orders or directions to be given by the Court to the Public Tmstee in respect of use and management of property controlled by the Public Tmstee under the terms of Clause 13 (1) (b). Clause 22—Ancillary powers upon applications • Defines further powers of the judge to ensure compliance and apportion costs when making an order on the liability of a convicted person or on issuing a restraining order. Clause 23—Procedure upon applications • Details procedural matters and provides that the Rules of practice of the Supreme Court are subject to the provisions of this Act. Clause 24—Use of evidence before Court of trial • Establishes rights to transcripts and established as conclusive evidence, in an application to a judge to assess a convicted person's liability to the Crown, the transcript of evidence and statements of fact before the court at which the person was convicted. Clause 25—Authority of Public Tmstee • Establishes the Public Tmstee's powers to manage property placed in its custody by a restraining order issued under the provisions of Clause 13 and to charge for this service. Clause 26—Liability for Public Tmstees fees • The owner of a property will be responsible for the charges and reasonable expenses of the Public Tmstee in collecting and managing the property subject to a restraining order. • Provision is made, however, for the cost of the Public Trustee's services to be recovered from the convicted person by an owner who is not a convicted person. Clause 27—Exclusion of liability generally • The purpose of this Clause is to ensure that no liability for loss may be assigned to the Crown, the Minister or the Public Tmstee through the existence of a restraining order on certain property or through any exercise of responsibilities under the restraining order. • The effect of the Clause is that liability may accme to only the Public Tmstee and, then, only in cases of negligence. • This provision will be particularly important in cases where the value of the property is volatile, e.g. shares. Clause 28—Minister or delegate may require information • Provides for powers of investigation of the affairs of the convicted person, particularly with respect to co-operation required in the identifying and tracing of property of the convicted person. Clause 29—Offences arising from Section 28 • Provides powers to discourage and penalise any obstmction to the investigation of the affairs of the convicted person. Clause 30—Prosecution of Offenders • Specifies processes for dealing with offences against this Act. PART V—DEFERMENT OF RETIREMENTS AND RESIGNATIONS This Part of the Act repeals the present Public Officers' Retirements Act 1988 but reintroduces in this Act some similar provisions in respect of officers who have been suspended from duty. Clause 31—Repeal of Act No. 33 of 1988 • Repeals the Public Officers' Retirements Act 1988. That Act was intended as an interim measure only, basically aimed at preventing retirement of all Public Officers without approval of the Governor in Council. Clause 32—Interpretation • Defines the term "officer on suspension". This will cover all holders of public office who may be suspended. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 473

• Note that grounds for suspension include "a ground that has connexion with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence". Clause 33—Officer on suspension cannot retire or resign • Provides that a person on suspension shall not retire or resign without the approval of the Governor in Council • If approving retirement or resignation for a person on suspension, the Govemor in Council may specify conditions applying to that resignation or retirement. Clause 34—Approval of Govemor in Council • Explicitly provides that one of the areas in which conditions may be specified by the Governor in Council is in relation to dealing with entitlements to superannuation or retirement benefits. • Instmctions in relation to those entitlements which are in accord with the conditional retirement or resignation may not be later countermanded or varied unless they still comply with the conditions specified by the Governor in Council. Clause 35—Effect of certain dismissals on superannuation or retirement benefits • Provides that a person dismissed from public office who is entitled to be paid the whole of his superannuation benefits may be required to place those benefits in escrow. • Determination on this matter and on the conditions of escrow are made by the Govemor in Council. Clause 36—Effective date of certain retirements • Ensures that a notice of retirement from an officer on suspension and that was tendered prior to his suspension has no effect unless approved by the Govemor in Council. • In cases where it is thought fit, an officer may be suspended during his required period of notice and the provisions of this Clause will be sufficient to prevent the notice of retirement from being effective. Clause 37—Requirement for compulsory retirement suspended • Effectively removes the automatic retirement age provisions from other Acts for officers on suspension. • In effect, officers reaching the age of 65 while on suspension will continue on suspension for the purposes of this Act—they will not compulsorily retire at that time. Clause 38—Retirement deemed effective in particular case • In the case of the death of the officer on suspension, provides for retirement to be deemed to have occurred immediately before his death. • This will avoid the provisions of the Superannuation Acts which would otherwise disadvantage a person who has not been convicted of any offence. Mr AUSTIN: I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Goss, adjourned. At 12.04 p.m.. In accordance with the Sessional Order, the House proceeded with the debate on the Address in Reply.

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Fifth and Sixth Allotted Days Debate resumed from 31 August (see p. 356). Mr LANE (Merthyr) (12.04 p.m.): It is usual in a debate of this nature to support the motion moved by the leading speaker in the debate and supported by the seconder. Of course I do so, and pledge loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. I endorse all the sentiments that have been expressed by most members in this debate so far. Later in the debate, I intend to deal with an important matter, but I would like to dwell first of all on what loyalty to Her Majesty means and on the full implications of her role before I tum to a matter affecting local govemment. 474 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

I believe that the loyalty expressed by members should not be a negative loyalty, as it is probably perceived by some in this House, or loyalty that has as an underlying viewpoint that Her Majesty is sovereign and that it is too much trouble to change the system. I believe also that it should not be negative in the sense that although people would like to cut Queensland's ties with the monarchy, they might lose some votes if they tried. I have heard these views expressed in the hallways of Parliament House. Moreover, loyalty should not be negative in the sense that although the monarchy does not seem to be very relevant nowadays, nobody has yet thought of a better or alternative system that might work. I propose that there be given by all members of this House, for very good reason, a positive loyalty to Her Majesty, a loyalty which expresses the view that of all the systems of govemment that have been tried around the world, the present system is the very best, which is the reason why it operates in Queensland. Mr Davis: What about an elected king? Mr LANE: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for expressing the policy of the Opposition on that particular subject. Apparently he believes in having an elected king—not an elected queen, I would observe, or some other way of deciding upon a head of State. He reflects his chauvinism as well as his political immaturity. To retum to the theme of my speech, I reiterate that Queensland has the very best system of govemment that includes a monarchy in the world. It has stood the test of time. I suggest to honourable members that it is still very relevant today. As an institution, the monarchy—and I refer to it specifically in that role—has a number of reserve powers that are important to government in this country and important to the people. The simple overriding power that exists is that royal assent can only be given to legislation if it has passed through the proper legal and parliamentary processes before it arrives on the royal doorstep. It is a very great safeguard. The Queen carries out a very practical role by the exercise of her authority through Executive Council. An Act that does not receive assent through her delegate, the Governor, does not become law and will not be given effect to by the courts. Assent is given only after legislation has passed through the full course of procedures that are constitutionally required, and after it has stood the test of public scmtiny and amendment by a full Parliament that has been properly called together in the Queen's name. Just as it is the sovereign's duty to accept the advice of Ministers on all things, it is also her duty to accept advice from no-one else. She must guarantee that no-one but the duly appointed Ministers can claim to exercise the prerogatives of government and that no other body except a Parliament appointed by her writ can make laws in her name. If laws are not made in her name, they can have no validity in the courts or in the community; hence, the reality is evident behind the symbolism of the role of Her Majesty and of the Governor in this State. Royal assent is a power that is very simple but very rarely referred to in this place, although it is so basically important to this country's form of democracy. The monarch's power to give private counsel to her Ministers is also important. The power of advice is a prerogative that can be exercised by the sovereign or her designate. Although in theory it is the Minister who advises the sovereign, who in turn is bound by such advice without offering a word of criticism in public, in private the sovereign is afforded the opportunity of saying exactly what she thinks to the Minister's face. That power is not exercised often, but it is exercised often enough by the sovereign or her designate. I have had personal experience of that type of intimation—the details of which I cannot discuss, of course—but I can indicate that that type of response from the Queen's representative on matters of importance can have quite an influence on the course of government. When it comes to matters of great importance it is a two-way street. I have referred to the royal seal of assent and to its being essential to law and the authority of legislation. Any action taken without it would immediately be challenged as unlawful and would have no effect. Whilst most Australians are not aware of the full legislative implications of the monarchy to this country's system of democracy, Australians Address in Reply 6 September 1988 475 hold the sovereign in a place of real affection and recognise the symbolism of her position as some guarantee of stability. I am espousing how that guarantee is put into effect outside the symbolism. I have referred to some of the formal and informal powers of the monarchy, and they are not without importance or relevance today. I wish to make a comment or two on the individual who occupies the office of Her Majesty, that is Queen Elizabeth II. I invite honourable members to tell me of any other country in the worid which has such a head of State. She has been magnificent in that role and impeccable in her behaviour. She is almost without flaw in her personal conduct and in the way in which she conducts herself as a regent. On royal occasions, her conduct is exemplary, and even the greatest republicans in this place would agree with that. She takes a great deal of real interest in events which affect her subjects. She can be stem or compassionate, as the need and occasion arise. She is also very human. If honourable members and the pubhc observe her at a race meeting when her horses are galloping, they will see just how human this country's monarch can be. All in all, Australians and Queenslanders who are part of the British Commonwealth of nations are blessed with the most distinguished and competent head of State in the world today. I tum now to comment on a few recent events in this country which reflect on Australia's relationship with the monarchy and which have not brought credit to this country. I refer to the demeaning debate which took place prior to the announced appointment of the Honourable Bill Hayden to the office of Govemor-General of Australia. I have no personal objection to the proposed appointment of Mr Hayden to that role, whatever his expressed views on republicanism might have been a few years ago. I have known Bill Hayden both as a policeman and as a politician for a number of years. There is much to be admired both in his achievements and in his conduct during that period. Bill Hayden obviously has great pride—having not come from a silver-spoon background—in his achievements and in having attained what is the highest office in the land. Along the way he has educated himself and grown into the positions that he held as Minister of the Crown, particularly that very important office of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In this day and age this political position requires great study and application beyond that of many other portfolios. One of the easiest places for one to make a fool of oneself is on the intemational stage involving foreign policy. Many people with vested interests try to find flaws in one's conduct and presentation. Bill Hayden has been equal to the occasion and has never let Australia down. Over many years I have had the opportunity of witnessing at first hand how people handle themselves in public office both at the local level when attending a fete or a girl guides meeting— which is the limit of the experience of some honourable members in this House—and at meetings of intemational significance both in Australia and abroad. Mr Davis interjected. Mr LANE: The honourable member would make a great Foreign Minister. Australia would be at war with the whole world in about a week. Some people from the most humble beginnings who have been reared in the most unsophisticated environments handle themselves exceptionally well, whilst others do not and never will. On the other hand, often those who seem educated to the task have, because of lack of diligence or personality deficiencies, been great flops. On many occasions they have let down their party, their organisation and their country. There was a time when the position of Foreign Minister, a job with overseas contact, or even a job at home of any significance, would have been filled by someone from what would have been seen at that time as part of the mling elite. They are the group who see themselves as having been born to govem, to whom a year or two at Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps even at the London School of Economics, is an essential prerequisite to membership of the bom-to-govem club. 476 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

I have encountered them, mostly from the realm of Federal politics, and mostly from the Liberal Party, although they exist also in the National Party and, these days, in the Labor Party. Whilst they should not be dismissed out of hand, as some of the class-war warriors tend to do—there are some good men amongst them, in fact—as a group, I would prefer to be without them. Fortunately we have grown away from that Victorian class society to something more equitable. I believe, as I am sure Bill Hayden does, that his proposed appointment helps to mark the end of that era. I share his satisfaction. His appointment will take something away from society's snobs, and so be it. We are about to have a working- class Governor-General and I think that, from time to time, on appropriate occasions, that is not a bad thing. In summary, I congratulate the Governor-General designate, Mr BiU Hayden, on being chosen and I wish him well in his job ahead. The Governor-General must be a person for aU Australians, and I believe he will be just that, a man of common sense and of application to the job. The unfortunate aspect of the circumstances surrounding his appointment lies in its handling by the Prime Minister, a man who believes his public appeal lies in being the ultimate ocker, a very cheap mont-de-piete version of Paul Hogan, without the good- natured humour. It is in this rough, mde and irreverent role that the Prime Minister sought to ignore the palace and declare that he would give the Governor-Generalship to his mate Bill Hayden, ignoring the Queen entirely and recognising no role for her in the appointment of her representative in this country. The Prime Minister's actions were in his usual bad taste and were indicative of his normal code of bad manners. If the matter was to be debated at all prior to its assent, the very least Mr Hawke could have done was to say that he intended to put forward Mr Hayden's name for consideration by Her Majesty. That advice would have been respected and acted upon, as it must be. Nevertheless, the proper courtesies would have been observed and there would have been no need for the Queen's displeasure to be made known, as it was. The Prime Minister acted very poorly in this matter. Many Australians felt ashamed of his conduct. Perhaps Bill Hayden will give this "Bevan" who occupies the office of Prime Minister a polite lesson in good manners before he goes much further. I wish to turn to another component of government, the future efficiency of which is essential to Australia. I speak of local govemment. Queensland has 134 elected local authorities, consisting of shires, cities and towns. Their foundation lies in legislation made many years ago. However, following the events of last week-end, this Government has a mandate—indeed, an obligation—to look at local government in the very near future. That is the proposition I wish to put forward. Following last week-end's referendum decision on question No. 3, I call on the Government to move immediately to abolish at least 10 per cent of local authorities in Queensland, with a more aggressive exercise to be entered into at a later time. Following the referendum, the State Government has a mandate from the people to continue legislative and administrative control of the 134 local authorities in Queensland. With that goes the responsibility to achieve maximum efficiency in terms of costs to the rate­ payer and in day-to-day administration. It is ridiculous that it takes 134 separate local authorities to run the State, bearing in mind the size of government at State and Federal levels. I therefore call on the Government to introduce immediately legislation to establish a permanent boundaries commission to redraw the boundaries of Queensland's local authorities, with a riding instmction that 10 per cent of them be abolished within 12 months. Mr De Lacy: Why didn't you make this speech last week? Mr LANE: I did not want to cloud the issue in the referendum; that is why I did not make it last week. It was written for last week, but I decided to make it this week. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 477

I believe that my proposal is easily achievable and would save millions of dollars in government costs to Queenslanders. The rotten boroughs that exist under the present boundaries are a public scandal and a public disgrace, and pander to the egos of local potentates. A serious gerrymander at the local govemment level exists in this State. That should be dealt with. There is an obligation arising out of the "Yes" vote on question No. 3 in the referendum to do something about it. If the commission is not given an immediate and arbitrary target of 10 per cent, it would, under political pressure from many quarters, prevaricate and make excuses. There is no such meaningful commission in this State and one has not been in existence since 1928, although it has been common in other States. Since 1982, in New South Wales a permanent commission has existed and has been working on this very matter. I turn now to some specifics. As honourable members know, local government is a creature of the State Parliament. Since the referendum, it still remains a creature of this Parliament; for us to make laws and do as we should. I do not suggest that we show any disrespect for the elected members, but I would like to see them made more lean and hungry in the way that they administer their shires. The Albert Shire and the city of the Gold Coast form an excellent area in which to start. Obvious grounds exist for an amalgamation of the city of the Gold Coast and the Albert Shire into one council known as the Greater Gold Coast council. That would be the first step. On the southern Darling Downs, in the area surrounding Warwick, an immediate and obvious advantage would be gained in amalgamating the council of the city of Warwick with the shires of Glengallan, Rosenthal, AUora and Clifton. Even the members who cannot read English need only to look at the map that I put before Parliament today to see how necessary is the task of amalgamating the shires surrounding Warwick. I table that map and ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member seeks leave to incorporate a map in Hansard. I have seen the document. I will discuss the matter with the Chief Hansard Reporter. Leave granted. 478 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document—

V* 1 KILKfVAM

nATISTICM. WVKIOMt MORETON sTANiHom S SOUTH-EASTERN CITIEf ... ^ ^ QUEENSLAND TOWNS tMr 0 SHIMCS WONDAI LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr LANE: There are other areas in the State in which this can also be achieved very easily and expeditiously. I ask that you do not ask me to resume my seat, Mr Speaker, when I suggest that the area surrounding the city of Bundaberg—an area known to you—could well be amalgamated with the adjoining shires of Gooburmm and Woongarra, both of which have offices in the city of Bundaberg within 50 metres of each other. That is another area of obvious overspending and overgovernment that exists at the local government level. Local govemment has obvious advantages. I do not put forward this proposal without some supporting arguments. Many arguments have been put forward for the amalgamation of smaller local authorities into larger viable units. I will outline some of them. Firstly, an increase in the size of a local authority will usually produce an increase both in its population and its revenue and therefore its productive capacity. Secondly, Address in Reply 6 September 1988 479

small, weak financial units have been maintained to the point of financial impotence, resulting in a lack of proper services to the rate-payer. Thirdly, the extreme diversities of financial resources between small, weak councils and larger, viable units is a very compelling argument. The fact that large-scale organisations are more economically efficient because of their ability to spread their fixed costs over greater output and make better use of capital equipment is also a compelling argument. There is ineffective utilisation by weak councils of trained staff, such as professional engineers, involved in the lesser tasks of drafting, costing and routine administration. There could be a net cut in administrative staff by those councils. In addition, local authorities would be able to enjoy lower costs of administration, allowing a greater share of the revenue to be spent on services to the rate-payer. There would be no unnecessary duplication of assets, that is, town halls, depots, buildings, plant and equipment. Many monuments have been built in country towns—monuments to local council chairmen, monuments to local shire clerks—for no other purpose than that. In some towns, for example, two or three monuments to separate individuals have been built to satisfy the egos of these local potentates. The gross misuse of human resources—trained officers and councillors—is another problem. The sociological factors have to be considered. The modem growth of services, environmental protection, town-planning, increased social services, cultivation of the arts and the provision of open spaces and recreation facilities have imposed a heavy burden upon small, weak authorities which cannot adequately provide a full range of services. They seek to concentrate on the essential things. As I say to my colleagues on this side of the House, it is always roads, roads, roads. Of course, it is said that that is where the demand is and that is where the money should be spent. However, quality of hfe issues are also very important. Modem transport and communications have dispensed with the need for smaller authorities, which were created in the horse-and-buggy days. The horse-and-buggy days are gone. In 1988, we are out of the horse-and-buggy days and we should be out of them in terms of local authority administration. Inadequate representation because of the smaller number of persons to choose from sometimes leads to nepotism and power blocs being maintained in a local community. Mr Davis: Good stuff. Mr LANE: Nepotism and power blocs are the sorts of things that go on in many of the trade unions. They also go on in the local councils—— Mr Davis interjected. Mr Prest interjected. Mr LANE: I do not need any help with my speech. I thank the member for Brisbane Central all the same. The other guy has not got enough sense to shut up and listen. Several papers have been delivered on this subject. I think that the paper delivered in 1981 by the Mayor of Ipswich, Des Freeman, at an AIUS seminar touches on the problem of urban overspin, that is, the encroachment of urban development from a city council authority into the neighbouring shires. Of course, the Gold Coast has spread across into the Shire of Albert, the first example that I raised earlier. Although Des Freeman concentrated in his discussions on the relationship between the IpsWich City Council and the neighbouring Moreton Shire, the attendant problems are being experienced by other Queensland cities and arguments for amalgamation are being promoted on a number of grounds related to urban spin-over. For example, persons who are living in a neighbouring shire for reasons of a quieter environment or lower rate levels and who work or use the facilities of the adjoining city are contributing nothing to the city council's finances. That is happening all around Brisbane, the capital city in which I live. It is one of the reasons that has caused me to make this contribution. 480 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Rate-payers within the city council area are confronted with the unfair burden of higher rates because of the situation to which I have just referred. Constmction and maintenance of roads is disproportionately higher within the city because of the growth of radiating arterial roads. Designs of drainage systems within a city have to take into account the mn-off from the total catchment area. Within the city of Ipswich, expenditure is incurred on the two cemeteries that service the surrounding district. So, in terms of cemetery facilities, Ipswich City carries the surrounding district. Without pursuing the subject of overspill any further, I would like to outline some financial benefits to be gained from amalgamation. Regrettably, the latest statistics available are for 1985-1986. Administration costs are very difficult to obtain from many shire councUs. They do not like to confess just how much it costs to maintain the high level of administration. I note from the statistics that administration costs for the city of Brisbane amount to only 3.3 per cent of that councU's budget. However, in the city of Warwick, administration costs account for 10.7 per cent of that council's overall budget. In the Shire of Albert, administration costs in 1985-86 amounted to 8 per cent of the council's total budget. That amount is too high and too big a proportion of rate­ payers' funds to be spent on staff, unnecessary monoliths, unnecessary maintenance of unnecessary buildings and paying too many councils to represent too few people. I repeat that the proportion of the budget spent on administrative costs in the Albert Shire is 8 per cent, compared with 3.3 per cent in Brisbane. If one goes further afield to the small rotten boroughs to which I have referred, such as AUora Mr Booth: They're nice people. Mr LANE: As the honourable member says, the people around AUora are lovely people. The cost of administration in the AUora Shire in 1985-86 was 14.6 per cent of the council's budget, compared with 3.3 per cent in the city of Brisbane. In Clifton Shire, the figure was 11.3 per cent; in Glengallan, 8.4 per cent; and in Rosenthal Shire, 5.9 per cent. Some shire clerks receive large salaries. The Gold Coast Town Clerk receives about $75,000 per annum and the Albert Shire Clerk receives $75,000 per annum. More than $ 150,000 is needed to pay the salaries of two clerks to administer two adjacent shires. With a deputy clerk, the number of clerks could be easily reduced to one or one and a half I could go further, but I know that I am running out of time. The Town Clerk in Warwick receives $49,000. In the same area, the AUora clerk receives $40,000. The Clifton clerk receives $43,000. The clerk of Glengallan Shire, which has a building situated in Clifton, receives $46,000. That is a duplication and an unnecessary waste of public money. Time expired. Mr De LACY (Caims) (12.35 p.m.): In rising to speak to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, once again I wish to raise the issue of the misman­ agement by the Queensland Government of Crown industrial estates. I raised this issue in the House last April and I have raised it subsequently in another context with the media. For the benefit of honourable members, I will explain exactly how the land scams are taking place. Firstly, a person needs to set up a $2 company, which is one of those standard shelf companies that are available in most solicitors' offices. Once a company with no assets and no records has been found—in other words, a clean company—it is just a matter of taking out $2 worth of shares and appointing two people as directors. The next thing that must be done is to purchase an existing lease on an industrial estate. One could say that that might not be easy. The fact is that it is very easy indeed. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 481

The Department of Industry Development will accept a solicitor's letter that makes all sorts of grandiose promises about development. No interviews are conducted and no checks are made as to the bona fides, track record or credentials of that company. The department accepts the word of the solicitor who writes the letter. It is then recommended to the Department of Lands that the lease be transferred to the $2 shelf company. Once that occurs, the lease can then be bought and sold for a profit as many times as the people involved desire. The shares in the company are transferred; the lease remains with the company. Therefore, in effect the lease is sold without reference to the department or the Minister. That scam is operating in areas where land is at a premium; where there is a shortage of land. It is certainly operating in Caims, on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane. It is a rort in the sense that people are speculating, trading or profiteering in Crown land—Govemment land—which they do not own. Those very same people are not carrying out any industry, employing people or meeting any of the so-called objectives of the industrial estate program. At the same time they are pushing up the price of land generally and keeping out those genuine business people who wish to commence industries. For the benefit of honourable members I intend to quote from the annual report of the Department of Industry Development for 1984-85, which spells out the objectives of the industrial estate program— "The thmst of the Department's Crown Industrial Estate programme is to provide fully serviced industrial land appropriately zoned for leasing to industry. Provision of these sites on long term leases, at very concessional rents during the first five years, enables the 'front end' cost of land purchase to be saved, so that all capital resources can be channelled into buildings, plant and stock." That system is designed to attract industry to specific areas and to Queensland itself The Labor Party supports the underlying principles of the industrial estates program. However, that program is not working in Queensland. Last April, I exposed a rort in Cairns on the Portsmith Industrial Estate. The company Al Engineering was paying $299 per annum, or $6 per week, for a lease over 6 644 square metres, or two acres, of prime industrial land in the middle of Cairns. That land was put on the market and sold for $200,000. Admittedly some improvements had been made to the land, but the company made a clear profit of approximately $100,000, which related purely to the sale of the land and not the sale of any business, because no business went with it. The purchaser was Arumpin Pty Ltd, one of those $2 shelf companies that I have already mentioned. A company search on Arumpin revealed that it was formed for the express purpose of land development. The words used are— ". . . power to lease, sell, sub-divide, develop and borrow". I would like the Minister to explain how he can reconcile a $2 company that has those objectives with the objectives of the industrial estate program. Ammpin Pty Ltd was incorporated just two weeks prior to its entering into the contract of sale with Al Engineering for the purchase of that lease. On 12 January 1988, seven days after the lease transfer was registered with the Department of Lands in Cairns, the lease was listed for sale with real estate agents in Cairns for $400,000. The company was aiming for a profit of $200,000 in seven days. If that is not a scandal, I would like to know what is. When I first exposed this. Minister Borbidge did not really deny anything but said that I did not know what I was talking about, and, in vague terms, that he would have a look at it. He rejected absolutely that the practice was widespread throughout Queensland, as I had intimated. I decided that I would look further afield. In fact, I decided that I would look in the Minister's own back yard, at the Gold Coast. I now refer to special lease 42422, 482 6 September 1988 Address in Reply located at 5 Industrial Avenue, Molendinar, at the Gold Coast. This lease had been in the possession of NSW Services. In fact, it had been in that company's possession for the best part of nine years. It consists of 8 585 square metres, which is 2 acres, and has three street frontages. It is sewered and fully serviced in every possible way. It is a prime industrial block, which NSW Services had been leasing for nine years at $352 per annum, or $7 a week. In August 1987 NSW Services entered into a contract of sale with Offshore Marinas Australia at a price of $314,900 on a deposit of $14,900 with the balance of $300,000 to be paid in August 1988, 12 months later. During the process of those negotiations— and it should not be forgotten that there is a period of 12 months between the signing of the contract of sale and the actual settlement date—Offshore Marinas sought permission from the Department of Industry Development and the Department of Lands for the transfer. During the process of those negotiations with the Department of Industry Development that company changed its name twice, to Vercorp Pty Ltd and thence to Gold Coast Maritime Manufacturing Pty Ltd. Honourable members may well ask: why the name changes? They may smell a rat, because I certainly did. I think the reason the company did that was to put as much distance between the original company—the original deal—and the final outcome. It is a system designed to confuse and to obfuscate. One needs to be a Philadelphia lawyer to work it aU out. While the company was carrying out those negotiations with the Department of Industry Development to have the lease transferred to it, it was out in the market-place flogging that lease for $750,000, would you believe. Remember that it contracted to buy it for $315,000, in round figures. The person who wanted to sell it even took things a little bit further. He offered it for sale for $700,000 instead of $750,000. I have in my possession a copy of an offer signed by the vendor in which he offered it for sale, as one of the options, for $700,000. He wanted a deposit of 5 per cent, being $37,500, paid on the signing of the contract by 5 August—and remember that it had to be settled by 14 August—and the original contract to be settled for the sum of $300,000. In other words, he intended having NSW Services paid out and receiving $362,500 by 14 August, the day on which settlement was due. With his deposit of $ 15,000, in round figures, he was aiming to make a clear profit of $385,000, if he could organise the settlement of that original contract on the same date that he resold it. I repeat that, for an up-front deposit of $15,000, he stood to make a clear profit of $385,000. The point I make is that he is not dealing with private land and he is not dealing with freehold land. He is dealing with Govemment land, tax-payers' land—land that is dedicated for a special purpose. I refer honourable members to the original objective of the industrial estate program. In response to my claims, Mr Borbidge stated in the Courier-Mail of 12 August that his department had received certain assurances in respect of future plans from solicitors who were acting on behalf of the company that was purchasing the lease. I know that he did, because I have a copy of those assurances. They are marvellous assurances. They outline a tremendous development program that the company that has changed its name three times intends to carry out. My challenge to Mr Borbidge is to explain how his department can accept assurances that are written by a solicitor on behalf of a $2 company whose principals have never been interviewed by the department; a company that has no track record and no other assets; a company that changed its name three times during the process of negotiations; and a company that was actively trying to resell the lease at the same time that the so-called assurances were being given. The member for Wolston, Mr R. J. Gibbs, asked last week in the House whether or not officers of the Department of Industrial Development at any time interviewed the prospective transferees, that is, the principals of the company that was supposed to be buying the lease. In response, Mr Borbidge stated— "No. The Government's interests are always fully safeguarded by the fact that the conditions of lease apply to all lessees. In the case of the prospective new lessee... agreement was reached in writing with the company." Address in Reply 6 September 1988 483

What a joke! What an agreement, when the company was at the same time trying to sell the lease. And hang the agreement that it had reached! In the Courier-Mail on 12 August, the Minister said that the department has a very active monitoring program on Crown industrial estates in Queensland. If that is so, how is it that the practice of subletting is so widespread on industrial estates at Caims, the Gold Coast and Brisbane? This practice of subletting not only contravenes the objectives of the industrial estate program—and operates contrary to the lease conditions—but it is also unethical because the original lessee is leasing at highly subsidised concessional Govemment rates and then subletting at commercial rates. The cost of leasing is of the order of $7 a week but the original lessee is re-leasing or subletting for thousands of dollars a week. Talk about money for jam! Anyone could make a quid on that basis. On top of that, many instances exist in which lease conditions on Crown industrial estates have not been fulfilled, but leases are being offered for sale. I refer to Crown industrial estates at Cairns, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The prices largely reflect profit- taking on the lease itself If honourable members were to drive round the Emest Junction estate and the Molendinar estate, they would see real estate signs everywhere advertising "For sale or lease". If Mr Borbidge's department has an active monitoring program, how is it that so many leases are undeveloped or underdeveloped? I was alerted to this whole scandal by people who wanted industrial estate land coming into my office in Cairns. They were told that there was none, yet a drive round the estate reveals that it is obvious that there is no development taking place on many of the blocks. On the Molendinar Industrial Estate here is a prime 2-acre block. It has been part of the estate for nine years, but it has horses grazing on it. The only improvement on it is a set of horse yards and it has been there for nine years. Mr Borbidge has the hide to say that there is an active monitoring program. I would like to see what would be going on if there was no active monitoring program. After 10 years of operation, some of the blocks in the area are developed to only 15 or 30 per cent of capacity. It is a disgrace. Returning to the proposed transfer of special lease 42422 on the Molendinar estate— in the same article in the Courier-Mail dated 12 August, Mr Borbidge stated— "On the evidence before the department, all that has occurred has been normal commercial practice with the lease and the capital improvements to the land being sold." The sale price for the lease was $314,900 and the total cost of improvements constmcted by the lessee would have been less than $100,000—I have a quotation of $85,000. That leaves the lessee with a clear profit of in excess of $200,000 on the sale of the Government lease. The lessee is entitled to make a profit on his business, but he was not selling a business because at the time of sale no business was conducted on that lease. Therefore it is not a commercial sale in any sense of the word. For nine years the person concerned had been paying a highly subsidised rent of $7 per week for 8 500 square metres of prime, fully-serviced industrial land situated only 10 minutes from the heart of Surfers Paradise. If that is a normal commercial practice, give me one! For the last nine years the lessee has been subsidised by the tax-payer and Mr Borbidge says that it is a commercial practice to allow the lessee to flog it off at a profit. This is what I mean when I say that it seems that the National Party Government is putting the "free" back into free enterprise; free for a select number of people in the know or for those who know how to rort the system. Lessees simply should not be allowed to profiteer by buying and selling Crown land, because Crown land is Government land and tax-payers' land. By all means, they should be allowed to recoup the cost of their improvements and profit from the sale of their business, but they should not be allowed to profiteer from buying and selling the land. In a question asked by the honourable member for Port Curtis, Mr Prest, on 25 August, the Minister for Land Management admitted that he would not be notified if 484 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Crown land leased by a company is transferred by way of share transfer; that is when the ownership of the company is transferred, the kind of scam that I am talking about. He went on to say— "The transfer of shares in or control of a company can, and does, take place irrespective of the tenure types of land and nature of property owned by the company. This procedure is fairly common these days and has been for some time." What an admission! Does the Minister know that he has admitted that his department does not have a record of the people who control companies that hold dozens of leases representing untold millions of dollars worth of Government assets on Crown industrial estates throughout Queensland? Blocks on industrial estates could be owned by foreigners, such as Japanese, or by crooks, New South Welshmen or anyone at all. The Minister has admitted that he and his department would not know who owns the company that controls the lease. He said that in this House. Further, is the Minister seriously trying to suggest that this is common practice in the private sector, that is, that the lessee of private land can transfer the lease to the control of other persons without the prior approval of the owner of that land? I think the private sector would roll over at the thought of that. This company share transfer method of trading in industrial leases means that a lease-holder can walk away from his agreed obligations with a large profit—in some cases a staggering profit—leaving the land idle and non-productive. The Minister was asked whether he knew that Offshore Marinas Australia, with which his department entered into legal negotiations to transfer the lease in August 1987, was in fact not a legal entity because it was deregistered on 8 July 1986. Part of the answer was— "As it was later proposed that the transfer be to Vercorp Pty Limited, the matter of Offshore Marinas Australia being deregistered is no longer relevant." In other words, that was another one of the name changes. I put it to the House that it is relevant and that it points to dereliction of duty and the irresponsible way in which this Government has been conducting its affairs. I wish to raise one other point in this whole sordid business, that is, the solicitors concerned. When solicitors are sworn in, surely they enter into an agreement with the authorities to act in a responsible way. Surely they have certain principles to uphold. I now refer to Short, Punch and Greatorix, the firm of solicitors which handled the sale of industrial estate land on the Gold Coast. I have previously referred to the letter that the firm wrote to the Department of Industry Development outlining all of the grandiose development program which its client—this is the $2 company—was to undertake. At the same time as that firm wrote that letter to the department outlining the development proposals, its representatives were on the telephone and out in the market-place touting that block for sale. I have spoken to a person who was actually telephoned by one of the solicitors acting for the company urging him to buy the lease. I question the ethics of a solicitor who can write a letter which, presumably, is expected to be taken in good faith by the department and which says that his client company will carry out a particular development program, while at the same time he is out there trying to flog that lease on behalf of that client company. Mr Hynd: Do I understand you correctly to say that Short, Punch and Greatorix were out trying to sell that block of land? Mr De LACY: They were touting the sale, yes. The Opposition believes in the objectives of the industrial estate program. In much of Queensland—certainly Cairns, where I come from, and the Gold Coast—the availability of land and its high cost are the greatest impediment to industrial development. Therefore, the industrial estate program has a developmental role to play, particularly in the industrial development of Queensland. However, in this State it is not working as it Address in Reply 6 September 1988 485

ought to be working; it is being rorted by people in the know, people who are subverting the objectives of the program. I exposed it in April; I have exposed it again. The Minister for Land Management and the Minister for Industry have been caught out. I am calling them to account, not only for incompetence. If they did not act when they were warned about this, they are more than incompetent, they must be part and parcel of the whole thing. That is symptomatic of the malaise, the maladministration and the twisted priorities of the Queensland Govemment. I call upon them to resign or upon the Premier to sack them. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr De LACY: In the few minutes remaining to me, I would like to address the subject of immigration, something on which I hold very strong views. I express my disgust at the policy approach adopted by John Howard and the Federal coalition. The abandonment of bipartisanship on matters to do with immigration policy and race is a sad thing for the Australian nation. Anybody who grew up in a country town in Queensland, or anywhere else in Australia, in the forties and fifties will have seen the ugly side of racism and bigotry against blacks and foreigners. I grew up in a "Would you let your sister marry an Italian?" kind of environment. I recall in the fifties Australian parents having a school concert abandoned because some Italian children were going to sing a song in Italian. Thankfully, those days have gone. Europeans of Italian or central European origin now have a proud place in our society. Our sportspeople Conescu, Henjak, Jesalenko and Fenech are all great Australian sportsmen playing great traditional Australian games. Who wants to return to those narrow-minded, incestuous, spiteful, ignorant, prej­ udiced days when race and bigotry were an important part of our environment? Everybody knows that racism bubbles just below the surface in our society at all times. Any leader worth his salt knows that. And that same leader ought to be able to see the damage that can be done if that racism and that ugliness are allowed or encouraged by irresponsible or opportunistic leadership to bubble over. Bjelke-Petersen did it often. However, in his defence, I do not think that he knew any better. But I did not think I would ever see the day when a Liberal leader would do it. Because opinion polls show that there is widespread concern about Asian immigra­ tion, the Federal coalition has, in one of the most cynical and disreputable episodes of modern Australian politics, played the race card. It is no good saying that the policy is being misconstrued or used out of context. As Phillip Adams said in one of his columns, John Howard has chosen to take the manholes off the sewers, so he has no right to complain about the smell. John Howard's unretracted statements that the rate of Asian immigration should be slowed and his failure to reprimand or repudiate John Stone or John Sinclair of the National Party for their more definitive statements on this issue mean that the Liberals stand condemned. Greg Sheridan, that esteemed conservative journalist—I stress the word "conserv­ ative"—who is no friend of the Labor Party, said in the Weekend Australian, when referring to the Liberals— "They have consciously embarked on a course designed to exploit race as a political issue, and the only way they can redeem themselves is by thoroughly and publicly repudiating this course, and repudiating Mr Howard's leadership." I do not believe that Mr Howard is a racist. He is in some ways worse. He is a man who knows better, but seeks to benefit by the exploitation of racial prejudice. By taking up this campaign, Howard has abdicated any vestige of ethical authority. He knows exactly what he is doing, recognises the power of the forces he is unleashing, and is willing to do so because of his personal and increasingly desperate political ambitions. It may not be racist to raise the issue of our immigration policy, but every word that Howard has said—like Blainey before him—is music to the ears of the racists in Australia. 486 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Howard's statement that he wanted to cut the rate of Asian immigration was made in the context of an Australian political environment in which a vicious and filthy anti-Asian immigration campaign has been raging. Mr Howard is not an inexperienced politician. He knew all about that environment, and he must have known the comfort his words would give to racists and bigots. Every Liberal leader worth the name has understood the desperate need Australia has to live down the stigma of White Australia, to have a bipartisan policy recognising that Australia's future is in deep jeopardy if we do not overcome our hostility towards Asians. In conclusion, I want to have recorded the following statement by Greg Sheridan— "The nation can no longer afford Mr Howard as Opposition Leader. He has made our nation smaller. He is too cynical, too opportunistic, too desperate and finally too irresponsible." I call on members of the Liberal Party in this Parliament to dissociate themselves from Mr Howard's statement. Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (2.35 p.m.): It is my pleasure to support the member for Maryborough, who moved the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. While I was sitting in the Chamber I heard a request by the member for Mount Isa that I say a few words about the referendum. He is very pleased that, following the referendum, he will continue to hold the seat of Mount Isa. I could hardly refuse such a request. The referendum result was a tremendous victory for the conservative forces in Australia. It sent a very clear message to the Federal Government. On Saturday, I spent some time at a polling-booth listening to the comments of the people as they went to and from that polling-booth. Comments such as "pulling a swifty" and "putting one over" were rampant at that booth, which was the Yeppoon booth. It is obvious to me that the clear message from the referendum is that the Australian people do not like to be deceived. The Federal Government would have done itself a service if it had given the people of Australia credit for having some common sense. There is an old adage that it is better to tell the tmth, to ask honest questions and to give honest responses, no matter how unpalatable that truth might be and what the objectives might be, rather than put forward the type of deceptive questions that were put forward—and, of course, rejected overwhelmingly in the referendum. Mr Smyth: It was clear that your party, the National Party, conceded defeat in Moranbah, because they did not even bother to turn up on the gate. Mr HINTON: I cannot answer for the people representing the National Party in Moranbah. Perhaps the honourable member's bouncers up there have them frightened. I can assure the honourable member that my towns out in the mining belt—Dysart and Middlemount—were very well manned. Constant letter-drops were made throughout the area, and the National Party got a very good result. I might add that the percentage vote on question No. 2 was 36 per cent and the previous ALP vote in the area was 23 per cent, so there must have been a lot of Labor Party people out there who voted "No". And why would they not do so? If they had not, they would have lost representation for their particular area. Members of the Opposition know that that is a fact. Mr Prest: You're a oncer. Mr HINTON: The honourable member need not be concerned about that. On the radio the other day Keith Wright said that he was very sorry for me. He said that I would have had a nice, safe seat if the referendum had been passed. I can assure the honourable member that I am feeling very safe in my seat. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 487

Electoral results at by-elections around Australia have been a catastrophe for the ALP, one after another. There was a 6 per cent swing against the ALP in Groom; the Labor vote in Barambah went from 25 per cent down to 17 per cent; then the ALP suffered a 7 per cent drop in the South Coast. And last Saturday the ALP was annihilated at the referendum, which was more than a vote on specific issues. It was a vote against the Hawke Govemment, particularly by working-class people who have had a gutful of the ALP's golf-course mentality and high taxes. That is what is going on in electorates right across the country. The zonal system is now enshrined by referendum. It is time that the whinging and the moaning of the cringing mob opposite in this Chamber came to an end, because the people have spoken. They have shown that they like electoral weightage in this State, and, in line with the request of the people last Saturday, electoral weightage they most certainly will have. Mr ArdiU: Sixty per cent said "Yes" in my area. Mr HINTON: The honourable member must have been very lucky. That was unique, because only 45 per cent throughout the State of Queensland said "Yes". The Queensland Government respects the verdict of the people of Queensland. If ever there was a pathetic position, if ever there was a ludicrous position, and if ever there was an indecisive and anaemic position, it was that of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party's how-to-vote card stated, "On question 2, vote 'Yes' or 'No'." The Liberal Party has accused the National Party of indecision, and that is quite unfounded. Have honourable members ever heard anything so indecisive as " 'Yes' or 'No'"? What a degree of confusion and what total upset and disillusionment there must have been amongst Liberal Party supporters who looked at that card on Saturday. Of course, the people dehvered their judgment. There was a wide meaning to the referendum result. It was a great censure motion of the performance of the Hawke Govemment, as well as the individual questions that were in fact addressed. There have been massive tax hikes from some $44m in personal income tax to in excess of $70m today at a time when the Federal Government has claimed to have reduced taxation. In fact, the Federal Government has reduced the top marginal tax-bracket creep and increased the taxation burden on Australia to this enormous extent. I believe that another factor in the referendum resulting in an overwhelming "No" also related to the appointment of Mr Hayden as Governor-General. I believe that there will be a backlash on that issue that will be of great substance, and it will occur in the Oxley by-election. Many, many Labor voters are royalists; many, many Labor voters are traditionalists; and many, many Labor voters do not want the hypocrisy of a republican put into the office of Governor-General in this country. Even though a 15 per cent swing is required to win Oxley, that seat can be turned upside down, and such a swing can be recorded. The appointment of the Governor-General will be a major issue in that by-election. The referendum also had another meaning as far as the Federal Government's efforts to destroy the States was concerned. The Federal Government tried it by political means through the referendum. It has continually taken action against the States by political means through the use of the external powers in the Constitution and, of course, by a massive reduction in the allocation to Queensland. All States have been disadvan­ taged in that way. A $5.5 billion surplus is now being accmed to get ready for the big tax cut just before the next Federal election. The reduction in aUocations of slightly in excess of $900m was funded largely to the tune of $840m by the States. It can be seen that the Federal Government has taken none of the hard decisions. It has raised its surplus through increased taxes and reduced State funding. I think that members of the Federal Government will be thanked very graciously for that by the Australian people at the next Federal election when they will be forced to vacate the seats that they presently occupy. 488 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

The Federal Govemment's reduction in funding to the States creates considerable financial problems for the Queensland Government as it approaches the presentation of its Budget on Thursday. State services right across the board have been reduced as the Queensland Government has cut its cloth to suit over the last two or three years in the face of shrinking Federal allocations to the States. At this stage a three-way proposition must be faced by the Queensland Government. It could continue to reduce further State services, which have been cut in real terms, as honourable members are weU aware. The Queensland Government could deficit-budget. I do not believe that that is a reasonable proposition. Of course, all the other States— the Labor States—have supported deficit-budgeting. As all honourable members know, if one spends more than one earns, eventually one will get into financial difficulty, as every family and every businessman knows. Of course, the third proposition is to increase taxes. That may well be necessary in some areas if Queensland is to maintain the services that the Queensland Government believes are critical to the quality of life of Queens­ landers. I can assure this House that Queensland will remain by a long way the lowest taxed State, even though more revenue will need to be raised for those essential services. I turn now to an issue that is of concern both in my electorate and across the State, namely, road-funding. I thank the Minister for Main Roads, Mr Gunn, for the great support that he has given to my electorate of Broadsound in central Queensland, which is a very large electorate with many poor roads. During the past two years, great strides have been made in rectifying that particular problem. As to the work that has been undertaken on the Capricom Coast—a 9.6 kilometre four-lane highway is being constructed between the Rockhampton-Mackay road and the Capricorn Coast at a cost of $6m. That project is nearing completion and has been very well received by the people of my electorate. At present $7m is being spent on the upgrading of the Farnborough road to a four-lane highway. The EUrott railway overpass on the Emu Park-Rockhampton road has been constmcted at a cost of $ 1.7m. A very innovative system of tourist-loop signs has been set up on the Capricorn Coast informing the travelling public of the accommodation that is available on the coast rather than in the city of Rockhampton. Approximately $35,000 has been spent on tourist-loop signs which advertise that particular tourist loop as an alternative to Highway 1 or the Bruce Highway. Traffic counts have demonstrated that that project has been very successful. The tourist entrepreneurs—the motel and other accommodation- owners on the coast—have recorded increased visitor nights, which is a great compliment to the Government for initiating that particular project. Mr McEUigott: How much of that was to service the Iwasaki resort? Mr HINTON: I assure the honourable member that not one cent was spent on servicing that resort. The tourist-loop road does not go past the Iwasaki resort. It goes to Emu Park, along the esplanade road into Yeppoon and then back to the highway. It by-passes the Iwasaki resort. As honourable members would be aware, Iwasaki is now on his own and he will come under the control of local govemment. His future is in his own hands. The tourist loop is now being incorporated on maps that are circulated by the Sun map Centre and strip maps that are being circulated by the RACV in Victoria and the NRMA in New South Wales, so that southern tourists will be weU advised before they come to Queensland of the route over which they should travel. Perhaps the ears of the honourable member for Thuringowa will prick up now. I will be seeking the construction of a new road from the Iwasaki roundabout, through a district called Lake Mary, and across to The Caves. That will complement the existing tourist loop and allow people to travel more extensively through attractive countryside, particularly in the region of The Caves. Mr Campbell: Did you get that new road, or was it the Minister who lives in your electorate? Address in Reply 6 September 1988 489

Mr HINTON: The Minister who lives in my electorate is Mr Lester. I assure the honourable member that Mr Lester and I have not discussed that issue, and he would not be aware of that proposal. I assure honourable members that when I make a commitment in this House, it is fulfilled. That new road certainly will be constructed. Another project that has been well received in my electorate is the widening of the Ridgelands road, which is a mral local road of great importance to the people of the area. A total of $300,000 was spent last year, and $250,000 will be spent this year on that project. The Dingo-Mount Rora road in the west of my electorate is of major importance. It mns from the Emerald road to the Peak Downs Highway and services three towns, two of which are in my electorate. Because he will be giving me great support in the future on this particular issue, I am pleased that the honourable member for Bowen is still in the House. That road services Moranbah, which is in his electorate, as well as Dysart and Middlemount in my electorate. At this stage it is the most important road in central Queensland. I believe that I have been successful in upgrading the status of that road so that it is the most important road in the area on which the most funds will be spent during the next year. Two years ago that road was mostly narrow bitumen. It was built as a beef development road prior to the constmction of coal-mining towns in the district. It has now had two major changes. Firstly, those coal-mining towns have been built on that road and, secondly, the road is used as a major inland route for heavy transports going to Townsville and Cairns. Those transports, particulariy during the cyclone Chariie period, really tore that road apart. The road was never built for the type of traffic that is going over it. A major effort is being made to upgrade that road.

While I have been in the area, $4m has been spent on the Mackenzie River Bridge, which is a great asset to the area. The Government spent $1.7m on 7 kUometres of road reconstmction immediately north of the Mackenzie River Bridge. Just south of that bridge, 5 kilometres of road is presently under constmction. Yesterday I was pleased to announce that the Government is caUing tenders to carry out a further 8.2 kilometres of work to an area of the road 25 kilometres north of the Middlemount turn-off, which is one of the worst sections of that particular road. That work is expected to cost $2m. It will be a further major ungrading. Mr Smyth: Is the State Govemment spending any money on the grain roads in your area? Mr HINTON: The honourable member does not know that area too well. This is a grain road. Mr Smyth: I am talking about the roads that actually go into the properties that are the responsibility of the State Government. Is the State Government spending any money on them? Mr HINTON: The honourable member does not know the area too well. This road is used by grain-growers and it does go past grain properties. The honourable member had better take a drive down the road sometime and have a look. There is another important road that the member has raised, and that is the May Downs road. It is certainly a grain road. Once the Dingo-Mount Flora road has been upgraded, the Govemment will be tuming its major attention to the May Downs road. The Govemment cannot ignore a road on which the towns of Dysart and Middlemount are the major population centres. It is a road which is used for travel north from Middlemount to Mackay and also for travel from those two centres and Moranbah, which is in the honourable member's electorate, down to Rockhampton. The honourable member should be supporting me, not questioning me. I can assure the honourable member that grain roads will be dealt with once that major throughput road has been upgraded to a reasonable standard. 490 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

I am determined that during this financial year at least two more jobs will be carried out on that road, one south of the Mackenzie River and the other near the Isaac River. I am very confident of achieving finance for those two extra jobs. That means four major jobs will be carried out on that road this financial year. I think that even the member for Bowen would agree that is a very major contribution to that road. While I am speaking about that road, I would like to thank the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Harper, for the co-operation he has given me in obtaining funds for that particular road. I want to mention also the role played in that area by the Federal member for Capricomia, Mr Keith Wright. I have to say that it has been a non-role—a role of criticism and a role of non-performance as far as getting funding in that area is concemed. I need to raise the fact that this is a major arterial road and at this stage it is Mr Wright's job to ensure that it becomes part of the national arterial road network. I challenge him to make sure that that road is given that priority position in the new Federal funding program for 1989. That road has been included in the State Main Roads recommendation to the Federal Govemment for inclusion as a national arterial road. However, at this stage it is a political decision. We all know how the priority of those roads will be determined. It will be determined on politics, not on need. Anyone who has seen the very vague criteria for those roads would appreciate that situation. As far as I concerned, the heat is right on Mr Wright to get that particular priority. The roads that are not given priority will not do very well at all. It should be remembered that for arterial roads the Federal Government has dropped the funding from $450m to $445m, without taking inflation into account. Arterial roads in Queensland—and, for that matter, across Australia—will be faced with major reduc­ tions in Federal road-funding. It is absolutely critical that that road become a national arterial road with priority funding. One week prior to Mr Keating's bringing down his statement, Mr Wright called a road summit meeting. In doing so he claimed that he would pass on a strong message to Mr Keating requesting increased road-funding. A week later, road-funding dropped by $5m, notwithstanding the effect of inflation. Mr Wright did not do terribly weU. It is a characteristic of Mr Wright that whenever pressure comes on him he calls a seminar, a think-tank, a conference, a summit or some sort of a gobbledegook session where a talk takes place but where action is always missing. That is his main claim to fame in central Queensland—plenty of talk, but no action. I believe that a comparison of my own performance with his performance in central Queensland will show that whereas he talks, I act. Mr Prest interjected. Mr HINTON: I cannot quite hear the member for Port Curtis. Knowing the honourable member, it would not be a comment worth listening to, so I will let the matter pass. Mr CampbeU: How much has the State Government increased its contribution to local govemment funding during the last year? How much? I believe it is a worse figure than the Federal Government's. Mr HINTON: All honourable members would recognise that the Federal Govem­ ment provides approximately 50 per cent of the funding for the State Govemment's Budget. Irrespective of how much the Federal Government puts into State Govemment coffers, if that component is reduced by 50 per cent, it would be very, very difficult to maintain the State Govemment's contributions without the imposition of major new taxes. Of course, those problems will be addressed on Thursday. Honourable members will just have to wait and see. Members of the Opposition ought to contain themselves and see what the Premier delivers. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 491

I am very pleased to announce in this House today that on 26 November the Premier will inspect the upgrading program that has been carried on the Dingo-Mount Flora road. Hopefully, he will see fit to add to the program. I will also be taking the Premier to the mral/local road, that is, the road between Dysart and Middlemount. I will be drawing attention to a particular section between the Norwich Park mine and the German Creek mine that is in fact collapsing. That road was initially very badly constmcted. I have to say that it was supervised by the Broadsound Shire Council, but not very well. It was not built to a proper standard. The rapid deterioration of that road will have to be addressed, and perhaps the Govemment ought to look into full reconstmction. Mr Smyth: A serious question: isn't that road a private road—the road you are talking about? Mr HINTON: No. You do not know your area at all well, do you? You should drive down there and take note of or look at the road-maps. That is not a private road. It is a State Govemment road and is classified as mral/local. Mr Smyth: It was taken over by local government. Mr HINTON: Where you are confused is that it was built by a private contractor under the supervision of the Broadsound Shire Council and it was not built to specifi­ cation, which is the problem. Mr Smyth: Who paid for the road? Mr HINTON: The State Govemment paid for it. Financial contributions were made by the companies, but it is in fact a Main Roads Department road and the property of the Queensland Govemment. Mr Smyth: The State Govemment did not pay for that road. Mr HINTON: Before you come into this argument, you just get your facts correct. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member should address the Chair. Mr HINTON: Before the member for Bowen starts to make wild accusations in this Chamber about road-funding, he should get his facts right. The honourable member should also be pleased to know that the Premier will inspect that road on 26 November. I hope that, as a result of that inspection, additional works might be undertaken. Mr Smyth interjected. Mr HINTON: As the member for Bowen is making a fair amount of noise and as he was previously a union official, I would like to bring to his attention a significant occurrence in the Dysart/Middlemount area. I refer to the decision by the miners federation to disaffiliate from the ALP. I read the Common Cause and all the newspapers to which the honourable member has contributed over the years. Those papers are now full of condemnation of the ALP. In fact, the other day Mr Vickers said that the ALP is "on the nose". I think that the honourable member will find that statement very difficult to live with in his electorate. Mr Smyth: Those papers have never praised the National Party. They have praised the Labor Party, but never the National Party. Mr HINTON: I am delighted to say that they have certainly undergone a change of heart because they are giving the Labor Party full measure and they are in there, boots and all. I do not blame them because, quite frankly, what Mr Vickers has said is quite evident. He said that Federal Labor Party policies are indistinguishable from those of the Liberal Party. As I look round this Chamber, I do not see any reason to challenge that statement, particularly when I look at the coalition that confronts the National Party—the coalition of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. 492 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

The problem in central Queensland is that the Labor Party has deserted working- class values. That is why the miners have left the ALP in droves and continue to do so, and that is why disaffiliation has taken place. In fact a vote was taken throughout all the mines, and the figures were 560 to 280 against this affiliation. If that is not a repudiation of the Labor Party by its grassroots Labor union, I do not know what is. This is something that the honourable member will have to live with, and I have no doubt that it will do him a lot of harm at the next State election. Mr Austin: It makes Mr Smyth a oncer. Mr HINTON: He is a oncer. Honourable members should take a good look at him because he will not be here in 12 months' time. I wish to mention another initiative by the Federal Government in the industrial arena, that is, the industrial relations Bill that is currently before the Senate. This is a disgraceful Bill because once again it demonstrates the determination by the Federal Government to usurp State powers. Nothing could be worse in this area because when this Bill goes through the Senate—and it appears to have the support of the Australian Democrats—it will negate the secondary boycott provisions of the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and the provisions relating to Federal unions in that Act. In other words, the Act that was so effective during the SEQEB dispute and which has kept the number of industrial disputes in this State at the lowest level in Australia, will be overridden in a crashing swipe at State powers by the Federal Government. Mr Smyth: I would not make a statement in your electorate about that, because the miners are right behind that legislation in the Federal area. They welcome it. Mr HINTON: That is an amazing statement, because there was a week-long strike and subsequently a 10-day strike in my electorate. Even the 7.30 Report showed the miners' wives in Middlemount begging the Government to do something about the coal­ mining strike in the area because the miners had been voted into the strike by miners from New South Wales. It was not supported one iota by the people in my electorate. Mr Smyth interjected. Mr HINTON: It was not supported. The people in my electorate voted against that strike. They were railroaded into it by the miners in New South Wales, and the people in my electorate were very upset. I assure the honourable member that if that legislation had been introduced only against the unions—it could not be introduced against the men themselves because they did not want to be on strike in the first place— it would have been a very popular measure. The Federal Government is again overriding State powers. In Queensland 35 per cent of workers covered by Federal awards cause 90 per cent of the strikes. This legislation will remove a vital factor in regard to the retention of Queensland's very good strike rate. I will raise another issue that will not upset the honourable member for Bowen quite so much. It relates to the fishing industry in my electorate. I plead with this Government to implement legislation and regulations that will curtail the overexploitation of the resources in this area. The Govemment has an important role to ensure that the resources available to the fishing industry are maintained. I refer in particular to the scallop industry. I have been pressing the Minister to introduce legislation to ensure that the maximum number of pieces of scaUop meat per kilogram is 130. For the benefit of those members who are not familiar with the scallop industry, I point out that this would curtail trawling during the winter months, which is the breeding season, and the small scallops would not be taken. This would allow the scallop meat to grow to its maximum size so that the number of scallops would yield the maximum tonnage of meat. That is very important and it is something that the fishing industry strongly supports. It could be policed very simply at the processing works and not by chasing every boat around the sea. Processing operators who had in excess of 130 pieces could be prosecuted. That measure, which is supported by the Address in Reply 6 September 1988 493

Queensland Fish Management Authority and the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organization, would be very effective. I implore the Minister to bring it into effect as quickly as possible. In the minute remaining to me, I wish to say that I strongly support a ban on gill netting of mackerel right up the Queensland coast. At present the fish are being overexploited by the use of huge nets, which range from 600 metres to 1 200 metres and even up to 2 kilometres in length. Those nets can catch a whole school and wipe out the fish in an entire area. It is indeed a very serious matter. After having talks with the fishermen, I am very pleased to learn that they support the banning of those nets. Mr Comben: We will make you a greenie yet. Mr HINTON: It is not a question of being a greenie; it is a question of what is best for the industry and what is best for Queensland. It is very important. The ban is also supported strongly by amateur fishermen. Time expired. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.06 p.m.): I wish first of all to record the admiration of the people in my electorate for the work that is done by the Queen's representative in this State, the continued loyalty of the electorate to the Crown and the admiration that the people have for the diligence with which Sir Walter and Lady CampbeU exercise their responsibilities. I wish to turn to one of the most important continuing issues relating to public life in this State, that is, the matters disclosed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. There has been no more traumatic nor important event in the history of the public life of this State in living memory. The inquiry continues to reveal matters of great disquiet. Some of them are clearly matters for Mr Fitzgerald and others are matters upon which responsible and reasonable comment can be made by people in this House, people in the media and people in public life. The issue of whether a particular person is guilty of cormption is a matter for Mr Fitzgerald, if he feels satisfied at the end of the evidence that he can make such a finding. The situation of a person who himself confesses is different. If a person confesses to cormption, so far as his own involvement is concerned, he clearly can be referred to, and his activities can be referred to, without running any danger of contempt or, on a wider scale, any danger of influencing, or being seen to attempt to influence, the matters that are properly before Mr Fitzgerald. Clearly this House has allowed—I say it has quite properly allowed—the canvassing of the public issues that arise out of the disclosures in the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is matters in that public area with which I wish to deal, but before I do I wish to make a couple of comments. It is understandable that the human beings involved in the Fitzgerald inquiry will seek to advance their own causes. Those who claim that they are not guilty will act consistently with such statements. I suppose it is human that people will push their barrows further. Perhaps the most responsible and correct course would be to confine statements to the commission, to deny guilt in front of the commission, if cited, and to leave it as a matter for Mr Fitzgerald. Clearly, some people have not done that. They include members of this House as well as those outside. There clearly have been pitches of emotion. An example of one such pitch of emotion has been seen in articles in women's magazines and on television in the last 24 hours by the wife of the person who has been nominated and who herself has been named. I say this just to put this matter into perspective: we unashamedly have relied on the admitted, sworn testimony of Sir Terence Lewis that he failed to read the Sturgess report. In itself, that was an act of enormous negligence and culpability for which he deserved dismissal on the grounds of maladministration. Leaving aside any of the more recent allegations, that was sufficient. If the Govemment heeded the calls of other parties, it might not have found itself not only in the embarrassing situation of its actions and 494 6 September 1988 Address in Reply response which followed immediately upon allegations of significant cormption, but of the absolute contortions that we saw from the Premier in the last 24 hours in rationalising the decision made by the Queensland Cabinet. I mention the appeal to the public. For each person who might protest at being named in the Fitzgerald inquiry and who is entitled to pursue his innocence, which would be best done within the Fitzgerald inquiry rather than a pitch to the emotions of a wider stage, there are in this State many individuals, police officers—former police officers, serving police officers—and their families who would tell an equally disturbed story about the consequences of them mnning foul of the system. For many years people have made allegations about there being a system and many people have been left wondering as to where the tmth was. But now we have revealed clearly a system of cormption by those people who have confessed to their cormption and, looking at their seniority, there is now some added thmst, importance and concem given to those in the community who have claimed that their careers were forestaUed, their promotions were forestalled and their transfers were made because they were the victims of the system. They mmbled or failed to conform with the system and they were penalised. There has been evidence in the Fitzgerald inquiry by people involved that members of the police force were threatened. Evidence was given that one person had his car bumed, which he related to threats made when he stumbled on the system. Inspector Jeppesen, whose name has been mentioned in the Fitzgerald inquiry, claimed that he received threats and that his dog was killed in his yard. He clearly became disturbed by the treatment that he received in the later part of his career. There were allegations of blackmail and compromises sworn to or attested to by prostitutes. For each person going public claiming a public system, there is a trail of people—officers, their families and wives—who claim that they were victims of the system and have an equal story of personal tragedy and fmstration to tell. If people are going to pitch to the emotions, let other people recall and note that there are people who claim they have been the victims of a cormpt system who can tell an equally sad story, except they were cut down at a far lower level of promotion, advancement and occupation. I will recall for the House some of the background to a couple of questions that I have asked in the House in the last week or so. It is one thing to be met by allegations for which one cannot obtain proof; it is another matter to receive information which is persuasive and authoritative and on which one fails to act. Many people in this House have had mmours and allegations put to them and have been unable to take them any further than mmour and allegation. It is not an act of responsibility to ventilate all the mmours and allegations that one hears. The Lewis diaries would probably indicate that a previous Labor leader dissociated the parliamentary Labor Party from some of the allegations made by Kevin Hooper. The late member's style was theatrical. He was viewed with a certain amount of affection, as long as one was not the victim of what he was saying. He was colourful, humorous Mr Comben: Robust. Mr INNES: He was robust, and he did not carry gmdges. He would tip a bucket on a person and then drink with him afterwards. He did that in a disarming way. On the same day that he tipped a bucket that might have been recalled by the Fitzgerald inquiry in recent times, he played the most elaborate April Fool's Day joke on television by making an announcement that he had decided to resign from this House to be appointed Commissioner of Police. That was superbly done. It was on the same day as he tipped a massive bucket. The whole problem with the Hooper style was that, at the same time as he tipped a bucket which, today, one realises might have had substantial basis, he always did something to take his credibility a bit over the top or made an allegation against a member of Parliament which was clearly jocular and clearly baseless. So there was a problem dealing with the Hooper style. It was a problem that the Labor Party had. The Opposition removed him as Police spokesman. At times members of the Opposition dissociated themselves from his allegations. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 495

I do not throw the responsibility too squarely on people who fail to act on what is pure mmour, if they cannot get somebody to say, "There is something in this. I heard this" or "I did this" or "I have got this concrete information." However, it is quite different to mn a show that is so slack that one does not have the built-in checks and balances requiring performance of people or, worse, if one does get authoritative and weighty information, one does nothing about it. That is why I particularly homed in on the immediate past Minister for Police and the present Minister for Police. The general contention has been that the Govemment did nothing until it faced acute embarrassment. Today the Govemment claims that it is the first to act, that it will pursue fearlessly. That was the response demanded by the politics of the situation. The revelations of the Four Corners inquiry, following the revelations of the Courier- Mail and Mr Dickie's work and that of others, meant that politically there was no altemative to having a thoroughgoing inquiry. It is a matter of record that that was not the unanimous view of the Cabinet, but it was the view of the present Minister for Police, and for that he deserves credit. However, it is also interesting to note and to have recorded that the newspapers of the time indicated that the proposal was to set up an inquiry. In the first instance it was to be a judicial inquiry and Judge Pratt, the chairman of the Police Complaints Tribunal, was to become the chairman. That was the choice of the Govemment, unprompted, unsolicited, unaffected by the benefit, shall we say, of other views. It was to be Judge Pratt. Not only did I read that in newspapers but also I have information myself on which I am prepared to raise this issue in the House and to say that Judge Pratt was the first thought and the first choice of the Government and that Judge Pratt himself approached members of the bar to ask them whether they would be prepared to take briefs as counsel assisting the inquiry. On a television program I gave voice to my objections to Judge Pratt's taking that position. I do not recall many previous occasions on which I have suggested that a judge was unsuitable for a particular position. When I say "unsuitable", I want it to be understood that I am not drawing any conclusion about Judge Pratt or supporting allegations. It was, however, clear that his unsuitability arose out of two circumstances. Firstly, the Police Complaints Tribunal, which until that point in time was the body that was supposed to look after complaints about malpractices or misdeeds in the police force, had not performed satisfactorily and significant numbers of people had a lack of confidence in it. Certainly, I came across instances in which people refused to go to the Police Complaints Tribunal because they did not have confidence in it. Secondly, it was clear from the public record that the Police Minister himself, in an interview which I recalled well at that time, had said that he was a close friend of Judge Pratt and of the Police Commissioner, Sir Terence Lewis. If one was to be seen to have something that appeared to be thoroughgoing, totally objective, beholden to nobody, one could not have a little coterie of people who were friends when it was clear that the responsibilities of at least two of the friends were those directly under investigation. The principle has been adopted by the Victorian legal profession that judges should not be involved in these sorts of inquiries. I agreed. The Bar Association took up the same theme, as did Mr Goss. Adverse publicity, such as, "There is going to be an inquiry, but already the inquiry is in some jeopardy", clearly changed the tack of the Govemment, so it went looking for somebody who was beyond any suggestion of association. Honourable members will note that I am not suggesting any adverse behaviour on the part of Judge Pratt; I am just suggesting that there appeared to be an association, admitted to in public, by the Minister, so that the judge would have been presiding over the activities or allegations in relation to the responsibilities of two of the persons who, on the record, appeared to be his friends—both the Commissioner of Police and the Police Minister. That would have been completely unsatisfactory and would not have led to people who should have come forward coming forward or the sense of fearlessness about the inquiry. 496 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

It is the selection of Mr Fitzgerald, probably above all other things, that has made this inquiry a success. He is a man who so skilfully exercised his powers that in a short period he convinced the public at large, the criminals at large and the criminals within the police force that he was fair dinkum and that he was conducting an inquiry that, if possible, was going to get to the truth. Even in that key and, I say, fundamentally, uhimately important matter, the choice of the right person—the person who gave it the sense of confidence—was not the Government's first instinct. The Govemment had to be shown the way, as it has had to be shown the way on almost all occasions. It does not get it right itself, because its instincts are not tranined or correct; its instincts are political and its view is not of steps down the road. I come back to the question of the responsibility of the present Police Minister, who on the point of starting the inquiry is to be commended but whose first instinct as to the choice of commissioner was flawed. Eventually, through publicity, back to the line he came. However, we can look back at his own responsibility and draw a distinction between the generalised allegations, the scuttle-butt or the mmours that cannot be evidenced. As to those things that can be evidenced, one can find in the public records of this State occasions when the activities of the Licensing Branch of the Queensland police force had been under scrutiny, because it was the Licensing Branch that was involved in the Southport SP betting case in the 1970s. Mr Justice Lucas, together with Mr Becker, the eminent retired policeman, and Mr Sturgess, made certain recommendations and comments following that inquiry. Among those comments was specific focus on the Licensing Branch, where this trouble started. That was a situation of proven verballing and perversion of the course of justice. As he reminded the Government in his report of November 1985, Mr Sturgess pointed out that on the Licensing Branch the Lucas committee had said— "No one ought to be allowed to stay there for very long. This, of course, would mean the posting of men for service there. Upon serving their time they ought to be posted to some form of service that will counterbalance their experience in the Licensing Branch. Control of it should be regarded as one of the most prestigious positions in the entire force and should be reserved for officers of outstanding integrity." Those were the words from the 1977 Lucas inquiry, and those were the words recalled to the Government, the Police Minister and the Justice Minister and the Premier in November 1985. Let me again recapitulate on the origins of the Sturgess committee. He began by saying— "Last year criminal charges were laid separately against 3 men alleging sexual offences with boys." They were serious offences. He went on— "The 3 men were Paul John Breslin, William John Hurrey and David Warren Moore." Moore, of course, was a police officer, very well known as Constable Dave, in the public relations branch of the Queensland police force and therefore on the staff of Commissioner Lewis. He was well known to the commissioner. Constable Moore was a person in whose conduct he would have every reason to be interested. In 1984, the year before. Labor members asked questions in this House in which they suggested that there had been a cover-up to prevent Moore from being brought to justice. The Police Commissioner had very special reasons to look at any report that had been produced by Mr Sturgess. In December 1984, the Government asked Mr Sturgess—its most experienced criminal lawyer—to look into the allegations involving BresUn, Hurrey and Moore. Of course, Moore had been on Lewis' staff and questions had been asked in this House suggesting that there was a cover-up within the Police Department to prevent Moore from coming Address in Reply 6 September 1988 497

to justice. One would have thought that that was an absolutely overwhelming and compelling reason why the Police Commissioner should have followed every step in the inquiry—including the report—with enormous interest. Further on in the report, at page 138 Mr Sturgess speaks about "Removal of Dangers—Tasks for Police" and states— "I was told of nightclubs that do not have licences to sell liquor, but sell it regularly and openly and throughout the night, and of nighclubs that do, but pay little attention to the conditions under which they may sell it." Mr Sturgess spoke about the problem not being limited to Brisbane or the Gold Coast. He said that it constitutes one of the most serious social problems that we have, and said— "I regret to report, I have discovered only token efforts being made by police to deal with it." He related the selling of liquor in those night-clubs to the fact that they were pick-up joints for those people who wished to deprave the young boys and girls who were lured into a life of prostitution. I am quoting from the part of the report that was made public and presented to this Parliament. Mr Sturgess stated that prostitution had been discussed in the interim report, which he had earlier submitted. He stated— "At the state level there is the same ennui on the part of police one sees with respect to the enforcement of the liquor laws. I asked a member of the Licensing Branch why no action had been taken against the male brothels referred to in chapter 4. He said they could not discover evidence for a prosecution. I cannot accept this. Sodomy and attempted sodomy are criminal offences in Queensland as are acts of gross indecency between males and attempts to commit such acts. Here were 2 male brothels, which made no secret of their existence, or the services they were providing, known by police to exist and being visited by them, and no one was ever prosecuted." Mr Sturgess went on— "Men said to be prominently involved in the organisation of prostitution in South East Queensland are"— and he mentioned the numbers 67, 68, 69, 70 and 53. Those were the people who were named in the secret report. My information is that those names featured prominently and centrally in the Fitzgerald inquiry's initial terms of reference. Mr Sturgess continued— "They are regularly in breach of the criminal laws because of their activities, but it will be seen they have not suffered much prosecution in recent years. Details of their criminal histories appear with their names. ... (67) may be the largest operator." Mr Sturgess spoke about telephone inquiries that he had made with escort agencies. One woman spoken to said that there was plenty of alcohol for sale, four girls were working in the parlour and 10 girls were available for outside work. Prostitution was occurring with an openness which Mr Sturgess details in his report. At a later stage Mr Sturgess gave the addresses of the main operators. He referred to the annual reports of the department and to the fact that there appeared to be some prostitution activities. He said— "However, some women who came to see me claimed arrests are made by arrangement and no serious attempt was being made to put the proprietors out of business." Mr Sturgess related that it took his clerk only a couple of hours to obtain the addresses of 14 massage parlours that were carrying on prostitution businesses in Queensland, which the police, with the full services of the Licensing Branch, had not been able to find, apparently, for years. He contrasts the efforts of law-enforcepent agencies—of police officers—against dmgs as being a happy contrast, being one of strenuous efforts compared with prostitution and liquor, the province of the Licensing Branch.

80544—19 498 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

As I said before, he repeated that the Licensing Branch had previously been the source—and may I use my own words—of the only previous occasion when the Lewis administration had been under the spotlight. In the late 1970s, in the Lucas inquiry, the commissioner's administration went under the spotlight. Once again, it is the Licensing Branch which is the source of major embarrassment to the administration of the police force in this State. Again the story is one of failure to act or one of misconduct. Mr Sturgess pointed out that the advice given in the Lucas report should have been taken, but it was not. He said that it should be and that much more attention and better work are required by police who have the responsibility of dealing with the offences that are committed in those areas. He talks about the night-clubs operating all night, the notorious pick-up places of children, which were mentioned earlier in paragraph 4.4, and mn by Nos. 68 and 69. As we now know, in the secret report there was an allegation that the head of the Licensing Branch—this slack, notorious branch of the Queensland police force, detailed in evidence once again—Inspector Allen Bulger, was involved in something that this side of the House—certainly my party—knew nothing about until last week when it was disclosed in the newspaper. In particular, the inspector in charge had been referred to as "lazy, incompetent and probably cormpt". The probability of that cormption arose out of a charge which Bulger beat in the 1970s when he was charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. If the Police Minister had asked or inquired—I think the background to that case was contained in the report—the reason why Bulger escaped prosecution rather than there being any major contest in evidence, he would have discovered that the Criminal Code required absolute strict proof of corroboration of the evidence of an accomphce. The person who confessed to being part of a conspiracy said that his record was not fully given to the court, and that is why he received a light sentence. Technically it was just an absence of corroboration. The evidence was there. The person who benefited from the failure to give the full story to the court pleaded guilty himself and was gaoled. However, there was a lack of corroboration of his evidence, and therefore the case could not be put to the jury. An allegation was made by the Director of Prosecutions that Bulger was probably cormpt. If any basic questions had been asked about the reason for that belief, it could have been related, among other things, back to the technical way in which that prosecution ceased 10 years before. It must be remembered that this is the section of the report in which Mr Justice Lucas states that the position must be for somebody of the highest integrity. So, Mr Glasson reads the report; the Justice Minister reads the report; the Premier reads the report. What happened? No statement has been made in this House suggesting any significant action at all. What we do know is that Mr Jeppesen remained in charge of the Licensing Branch. This is the branch in which officers should be turned over in order to keep it free from cormption. There is a cloud over this person, a cloud placed there by somebody who the Government itself selected to give it a report. Not only does that person stay there, but when Mr Gunn takes over some 18 months later, by March 1987, that person is appointed the officer in charge of the holy of holies, the guardian of the guardians—the intemal investigation unit. He is a man who had a cloud over his head. One of the Ministers suggested that he did not have any proof If proof is not available and if a significant cloud is put over someone by somebody of significant responsibility, a person tmsted by the Govemment itself, that person should not be put in charge of the unit that is supposed to fight the cormption. Commissioner Lewis made an admission that he did not read the Sturgess report. I have great difficulty believing that. It is an admission of gross incompetence. By those statements and by those very objective facts, the two Ministers in this House should resign or be sacked. It is gross incompetence. It is not one of those cases of not being able to glean mmours or not acting on mmours, it is a case of failing to act on persuasive Address in Reply 6 September 1988 499 and authoritative information about a most sensitive part of the Queensland police force. That is why this Govemment bears a special responsibility for its actions. In the eighties, the details are and the evidence is that the gloves were off. The veneer of trying to stay within the law or hiding behind the shopfront or the couches in the massage parlours went away. This conduct became open and blatant. When there was authoritative evidence on which people should have acted, they failed to act. End of case. Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (3.35 p.m.): In rising to speak to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, I am pleased to reaffirm my loyalty and that of the people of my electorate to Her Majesty and to her representative, the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell. Mr Davis interjected. Mr VEIVERS: That is something that the honourable member would not know about. This is the first time that I have had the honour to speak in an Address in Reply debate since becoming the member for Southport in June last year, following the tragic passing of Doug Jennings. It is a pleasure to be a member of the Gold Coast six-pack together with the Honourable the Minister for Transport and member for Albert, Mr Ivan Gibbs; the Honourable the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology and member for Surfers Paradise, Bob Borbidge; the member for Curmmbin—that kind and gentle man—Leo Gatley; the member for Nerang, Tom Hynd; and the new member for South Coast, Judy Gamin. The heavy gentleman from Pimpama has gone to pasture, but I am sure that in the new South Coast representative, Judy Gamin, the National Party has a lady who will be no lightweight as a new member of the Gold Coast six-pack. It is interesting to note that in his launch of Mrs Gamin's successful campaign the Honourable the Premier said that the coast is a winner and a success story. There is no doubt that the National Party helped to make it happen. The Premier went on to say that our party has served the Gold Coast for 80 years; that since 1980 it has been served by a unified, progressive and professional team of National Party parliamentarians. We have influenced Govemment on behalf of the people of the Gold Coast. We have lobbied, pestered and tormented Govemment, fighting for the region as individuals and as the so-called six-pack. I am sure that the Premier and the Governor know and expect that that will continue and that the development in that area will also continue with State Govemment support. The electorate that I represent is part of that development. Historically, Southport is where the Gold Coast began. Although a great deal of attention has been focused on other areas in recent years and the rate of progress may have slowed as a result, the area is bouncing back again. A $3.5m mall development is the focal point of commercial redevelopment in the heart of Southport and is worth an estimated $200m. The maU will be finished soon. Mr Lee: It is pronounced "maU" as in "pal", not "maU" as in "faU". Mr VEIVERS: It all depends on the school one went to. Southport has probably always kept its place as a centre of commerce and admin­ istration, but it is now raising a challenge again as the very heart of the Gold Coast. The State Govemment recognised this development by choosing Southport as the centre for the new regional office for education, which was established this year. Along the coastal strip, the massive development in accommodation and residential complexes is continuing, with recent figures putting the cost of projects under way or in the pipehne at $ 10,000m. Mr Davis: A little bit of joy for the Gold Coast workers. Mr VEIVERS: Spot on. 500 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

At the end of May, the value of all building approvals was 70 per cent higher than in the previous year. House approvals increased 40 per cent; other dwelling units increased by 115 per cent and the value of all new residential building approvals went up 86 per cent to $537.6m. In my electorate, two five-star hotels—Seaworld Nara and Mirage—and the great Seaworld fun park exemplify the value of tourism in the local economy. On the Gold Coast, the number of guest rooms and bed spaces increased about 12 per cent last year, with nearly one million guests arriving in the region, resulting in takings of more than $83m. I must pay tribute to at least one voluntary organisation which has had to be even more on its toes because of the increase in the number of tourists: the surf life-savers. I can say with confidence that these young and old men and women have the support and gratitude not only of the community and this Government, but also of this Parliament for the job that they do. The Gold Coast continues to boom. In the decade to June last year the estimated resident population increased by more than 88 000, or approximately 84 per cent, to almost 200 000, compared with an increase of 25.7 per cent throughout Queensland, which in itself is ahead of the rest of the nation. With 7.5 per cent of Queensland's population, in the 1985-1986 financial year the Gold Coast generated 8 per cent of retail sales, which amounted to $1.1 billion. I say to the honourable member for Brisbane Central that whatever happened in the last 40 years on the Gold Coast, especially in the Southport region, will happen again in the next five to seven years. That is something that he cannot say about his electorate. On the Gold Coast, manufacturing industries are also on the move and my electoral neighbour, the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology, says that this is demonstrated by interest in the new Gold Coast industrial estate at Labrador. Mr Beard interjected. Mr VEIVERS: Already 16 applications have been received for the 35 proposed new sites on the estate and these cover a diversity of industries such as boat-building, shop-fitting, steel fabrication, fibreglassing, household goods and furniture-manufacturing. These industries utilise what is made in the honourable member's electorate of Mount Isa. As the Minister announced recently, Colgate Palmolive will be the first company on the estate, with a multimillion-dollar plant. Nearly 60 companies have established or relocated operations to Queensland since the Honourable Mike Ahern became Premier, which represents an investment in Queensland of $300m. Mr Borbidge: I checked last night and the latest figures show 69 companies have relocated. Mr VEIVERS: Ovemight the Gold Coast has an extra nine companies, and the honourable member cannot beat that in Mount Isa. In Queensland in the nine months up to March this year private new capital expenditure increased by 33 per cent, or more than $2.5 billion. I am giving the House these figures so that the honourable member for Brisbane Central can understand them and write them down. They might only be telephone numbers to him, but they are a reality at the Gold Coast. People who visit the Gold Coast are looked after. Expenditure in the finance, property and business services sector rose 100 per cent on last year and this development, which has been encouraged through the policies of the National Party Govemment, generates spending and jobs for people in my electorate in particular and throughout the State generally. The Gold Coast region, and my electorate in particular, will benefit from the constmction of the $210m Brisbane-Gold Coast railway project linking Beenleigh, Address in Reply 6 September 1988 501

Ormeau, Coomera, Helensvale, Nerang and Robina. It will be tremendous. I will be able to travel to Parliament in the train. The Honourable Minister for Transport has announced that the project will be completed by 1995, and I wiU stUl be in this House at that time. Another Gold Coast industry based in the Southport electorate that attracts increasing national attention is the racing industry. In the Nerang electorate, which is next to my electorate, there is hamess and greyhound-racing. The Gold Coast Turf Club has become one of the leading racing clubs in Australia. Last year it paid out nearly $5m in prize- money, with the bookies turning over $90m and the tote investments amounting to more than $21m. Last year the club ran the first $lm race in Queensland and this year conducted two $lm two-year-old races, one for fillies and the other for colts and geldings. This is amazing stuff. That south-east coast area is practically supporting the whole of Australia. The race club holds 64 meetings per year, featuring events such as the Golden Nugget, the Gold Lager Cup, the Prime Minister's Cup, the Gold Market as well as the Magic MiUions. The industry is a major employer which provides jobs for local people of all ages. Mr Casey: What about the Brisbane Bears? They are down there too, aren't they? Mr VEIVERS: The members of the Opposition say, "What about Carrara?" That is not in my electorate. It is in the electorate of Nerang, Mr Tom Hynd's electorate. The Gold Coast Harness Racing Club paid out close to $609,000 in prize-money last year, with the bookies tuming over nearly $4m and the tote mnning up $3.2m. Nearly $400,000 in prize-money was paid out by the Gold Coast Greyhound Racing Club, with the bookies tuming over $6.5m and the tote, more than $4m. That is why honourable members opposite sent a heap of ratbags down to try to take the South Coast electorate away from us. If ever the Labor and Liberal Parties were going to win anything down there, that was their chance, but they fumbled the ball. They would not have a chance in Hades. I see that the honourable member for Curmmbin has entered the Chamber to support me. Assistance from the Racing Development Fund to these clubs totals more than $4m, and plans are in hand for harness and greyhound racing to move to a new venue at Musgrave Hill later this year. Through the tmstees of the Southport Recreation and Racecourse Reserve, a total of $8.15m has been approved for funding through the Racing Development Fund for the development of this complex. Much of the funding will go towards infrastmcture for the showgrounds. The industry and the community generally owe much to the former Minister for Racing and also to the current Minister and the National Party Govemment overall for this continuing progress. On the subject of horses, I might add that, with the attitude of the Federal Labor Govemment to road-funding, it will not be long before we are back in the horse-and-buggy days. Mr Beard: Billy J. Smith gave him a hard time last night. Mr VEIVERS: I will give you the dmm that this is a lot easier than calling a football match. The June editorial from the RACQ magazine Road Ahead stated— "Given the many obvious benefits which would flow from increased spending on roads, they"— that is motoring organisations— "believe that the 5.5 cents"— that miserable 5.5c— "that Canberra retums in road funding for every 30 cents a litre motorists pay in fuel taxes, should be increased at least a couple of cents." That is all I ask. Mr Beard: I'll back you up on that. 502 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr VEIVERS: I thank the member for Mount Isa. Mr Keating has ignored these important organisations which represent their members and, indirectly, road-users who are not their members—people from all walks of life and with all sorts of voting intentions. Mr CampbeU interjected. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member is such a fool that he does not realise that I am talking about him, too. In Queensland, in real terms, grants from Canberra for roads have declined dis­ gracefully since 1983-84. The shortfall now totals $28 Im. While Mr Keating gloats about the $5.5 biUion surplus he has raked off the ordinary tax-payers and the States in areas such as road-funding, and while he waits for Mr Hawke to walk in front of the proverbial bus or car, the road-users of Queensland and Australia drive around on substandard roads. The most common request in my electorate is: "Fix the roads." Mr Milliner: No. They want to get rid of you. Mr VEIVERS: If the Federal coUeagues of the honourable member would give us the funds, Queensland would have the best roads in Australia, but they do not and they will not. They take the money down there and use it or give it away to homosexuals coming into the country. Despite cuts in revenue assistance from the Commonwealth, this State Government is still meeting the challenges in important areas of Govemment-funding. In welfare housing, the State Govemment lifted the allocation to the Gold Coast by 63 per cent on last year to meet increasing demand. In this financial year 215 new dwellings, costing $14m, will be built in the region, including Southport. A rapidly growing area such as the Gold Coast can provide problems for the Govemment in meeting increasing demand, especially with things such as housing, so I am particularly pleased with the commitment by this Govemment to provide reasonable housing for low and moderate income eamers. As a member of the parliamentary committee on education, youth and sport of the Honourable Brian Littleproud, I have become aware of the complexities of education and funding considerations. In the Southport electorate, principals, staff and p. and c. associations at our State high schools at Benowa and Keebra Park, the non-Government Star of the Sea and The Southport School, and many other schools are continuing to do a great job in helping the development of our young people. The Premier and the Minister are well aware of the concems following tight funding last year, and I am confident these will be looked at in this week's historic first Ahem Budget. We have made very strong representations in that area. The Federal Government is funding a $10m project at the Gold Coast TAFE. I believe that that allocation was earmarked for elsewhere; but, after representations by me, the needs of our region were recognised. Mr Campbell interjected. Mr VEIVERS: That is $10m extra, something that the honourable member could not get in Bundaberg. Of great benefit to Southport and the Gold Coast will be two new institutions of higher education, the Gold Coast CAE and the Bond University. Bond University will mean more than privately funded—possibly 15 per cent by scholarship—qualifications for our local young people; it will also mean a new industry for the area. Bond sees the Gold Coast as a winner. So, I am sure, do many other investors and entrepreneurs. It is a winner—just as will be the Gold Coast Giants in Rugby League, the Gold Coast Cougars in basketball and the Brisbane Bears from Carrara. Watch out for the Gold Coast in 1989! It is going from massive strength to even more massive expansion under the National Party six-pack. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 503

I take this opportunity to speak on something that worries me in my electorate. In 1985, 800 famihes on the Gold Coast had a child suffering from Down's syndrome or spasticity. Because of the percentage increase between then and 1988, honourable members can imagine how many families are being tested sorely. The mothers of those children never receive any respite. They care for their children 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without help. If they require professional help, they must travel to Brisbane. Their voice has not been heard. They have spent hours asldng me for help. I have made representations on their behalf. I hope that something will come of it. I say seriously to the members of this Chamber that I really feel sorry for those people. The Gold Coast Hospital has a floor that is not being used. A golden opportunity exists there to do something about the problem. Shortage of personnel is causing the problem. All types of therapists are required, including physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Mr Gately: That would show a sad lack of understanding from the Federal Govemment. Mr VEIVERS: As the honourable member knows, it is very hard to get funds. However, positions are vacant at the Gold Coast. If the personnel could be employed, it would be marvellous to see the look of relief on the faces of the mothers and wives who attend my office. I might add that the fathers are suffering psychological trauma as well. There is nothing worse for a father than for him to have a child who has Down's syndrome. It affects the marriage. Many broken marriages occur because of added stress. I believe that that stress is unwarranted. The problem should be alleviated. There must be 3 000 or 4 000 people on the Gold Coast alone who really need a good service for those unfortunate children. I hope that the Govemment sees its way clear to do something about the sad problem. As I say to other people quite often, "There but for the grace of God go you or I." Mr CASEY (Mackay) (3.55 p.m.): I wUl canvass a number of matters that affect this great State of Queensland. Most of us who have lived in the bush were not really surprised by the result in last Saturday's referendum. I know that members of the Govemment have been mnning around claiming credit for what has happened, as they have in this Chamber. The simple tmth of the matter is that out in the bush is where the National Party propaganda machine is at its greatest. It has complete control of the media. It will spread its propaganda deviously by word of mouth. The National Party uses innuendo and deceit and tells people that they will be adversely affected when they really will not be. The local govemment question in the referendum was a classic out in bush areas, with local authorities not even following the lead from the head office in Brisbane. It is a tragic indictment of our education system that in this day and age so many people do not know any better. Unfortunately, many more people do not want to know any better and, even worse, many people are apathetic about the whole system. But, of course, the National Party thrives on the apathy of people in the country and provincial areas of this State. It is the consequence of the political cormption that has gone on in this State; the political control of a system that developed over a number of years, particularly under that arch strategist in political cormption, the former Premier of this State, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. It was he who developed this system, who took political control, who manipulated it and would do anything to ensure that it stayed in place. The system was set up by Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen and, of course, the reins have been passed on by Sparkes directly to Mr Ahem, who is fast leaming to do exactly the same—to manipulate the political system and the propaganda machine in order to ensure that the Govemment stays in power. However, it goes further than that. In order to have this cormpt political machine in place, every body has to comprise Govemment appointees. Every body has to have persons deliberately appointed by the Govemment—not by industry, not by producer groups, but people hand-picked by the Govemment. 504 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Of course, most appointments are made on the old Bjelke-Petersen basis of favours granted, favours given. He used that political manipulation all of his political life in this Parliament and, because most of them benefited from it, there would not be one member of the National Party who could deny it. They benefited from the way in which Bjelke- Petersen manipulated the political system, granted favours and sought favours in return. Most local authorities' boundaries are rigged to ensure that the National Party retains power within the divisional system. I cite the example of the westem Queensland town of Longreach, where 3 000 townspeople can never outvote 300 people who are scattered throughout three or four bush divisions and control the council. The electorate of Warrego is another example. In all of the towns in that electorate the townspeople have no real say whatsoever in their local authorities because the divisional system is stmctured to ensure that the National Party lackeys completely control the council. The semi-Government authorities throughout Queensland are absolutely loaded with State Govemment appointees. Now the loading has even extended to bodies such as harbour boards, which, for donkey's years, were kept free of politicisation. Then there are the electricity boards, on which the local authorities provided representatives. But that was not good enough for this politically manipulative Govemment because it had to get additional power and additional control and lock people into its system. They had to be appointed by virtue of the Govemment's say, so that they in turn had to support the Govemment. The Govemment has stacked commodity boards throughout the State Mr Newton interjected. Mr CASEY: The commodity boards are stacked with producer representatives. Let the honourable member for Glass House deny that. Let him prove in this place that he has the power, as a primary producer in this State, to elect his own representatives. They are appointed by the Minister. They receive the approval of the Minister and they remain only at the discretion of the Minister, provided that they do what the Minister wants them to do. The semi-Govemment authorities, the local authorities in the bush and the commodity boards cannot cough, gmnt or wheeze without consulting the Queensland Govemment. It is getting out of hand. If any criticism whatsoever is levelled at those organisations, the Minister is flown into the area immediately to plug the gap and seal off the spot. He has to hold things down and get the authorities back under control again. Mr Davis: Mr Hinton said he had been on all the boards. Mr CASEY: As I said earlier—favours granted, favours given. It is sad to see those who supported the old Country Party in this State going down the gurgler whilst they are still thinking that their own old-style Govemment is looking after them. I will expand on that later. Through the actions of this National Party Govemment, the primary producers of this State have developed a farm-gate philosophy—nothing counts but the price they believe they should receive at the farm gates; that poor-quality food should command top prices as it once used to do with international contracts; and that whatever they produce the system should sell for them. It did not reaUy matter about the workers and the townspeople in the various towns that supported their industry; the transport operators who carted their goods; the railway men who loaded their goods and took them to market; the shearers, the agents and the processors. The Government does not care about the millers, the insurers, the export-brokers and so many other people. The Govemment believes that the primary producers exist only to serve the Govemment. That is why the Government wants to maintain its manipulative system. That is why there was a change in name from "Country Party" to "National Party"— because the primary producers were taken over by the money-manipulators in this community so many, many years ago under Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. That same Address in Reply 6 September 1988 505 system is continuing. It is a system of political cormption. Around this State at the moment there is a familiar ring, but there is no inquiry into this system of political cormption. I will expand on that point later. What has that led to? It has simply led to bad govemment. Let us look at what has happened to Queensland's primary industries under this National Party Govemment. The traditional family farm has gone for ever. Let National Party members deny that. Let them say how their sons and daughters will get on to the land. They are not! Recently my primary industries committee and I travelled to primary industry areas throughout the length and breadth of this State. Wherever we went the cry was the same. Farming groups, pastoralists and agriculturists all said, "How can we get our sons and daughters onto the land? We cannot do it any more under this system." I said to them loudly and clearly, "It is a system that has developed under your particular Govemment." I tum now to the dairying industry. Of the dairy-farmers in this State when this Govemment came into power, only 10 per cent are still in production. The other 90 per cent of dairymen in this State have gone completely out of production during the period that this Govemment has been in command in this State. The dairying industry was the heartland of the National Party. The Govemment would not accept the reality of what happened when Brittain entered the EEC. Members of the Govemment just buried their heads in the sand. They did nothing for dairy-farmers. The dairy-farmers were being manipulated by Hinze and his mob on the Gold Coast. What did the Queensland Govemment do? It set out to shrink the industry by way of legislation. What has happened because of that? In this Parliament last week I outlined what happened. Certainly the people of Warwick were told about it last Monday night in that fair city as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would well know. Warwick is not the first area to be affected, and it will not be the last. Beaudesert was in exactly the same position. Murgon has been forced to sell off its dairying industry to QUF in Brisbane. The Callide, Dawson and Bumett valleys are now only a shadow of what they used to be as far as the dairying industry in this State is concerned. The Govemment has offered no real support for the dairying industry. The Labor Party cannot be blamed for what has happened. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know very well, Warwick has only ever elected one Labor member to Parliament. That was when it was represented by a Labor member between 1935 and 1947. Certainly the representatives of Warwick since then have not been able to save the stmcture of the town or the demise of the dairying industry. The system is now being manipulated so that milk from Warwick goes down throu^ the south coast and across the border to Norco in New South Wales. Milk is being supplied to Norco in New South Wales in preference to Queensland factories. As a result, another Queensland factory in Warwick will be forced to close in the very near future. Two weeks ago I warned the people of Warwick that there would soon be shortages of milk in the State of Queensland. That is now occurring. On forward projections, QUF in Brisbane will be importing New Zealand milk powder for its manufactured milk products. Because milk powder will be imported from New Zealand, people will blame the Federal Govemment. The policies of this State Govemment will force that to occur in approximately two years' time. Let the vociferous back-bench members of the National Party deny that now. Let them say that that is not going to happen. Because of the way in which this Govemment has shmnk the dairying industry, it will happen. I tum now to the sugar industry, which is the greatest agricultural industry in this State. The manufacture of raw sugar crystals from sugar-cane is the greatest secondary industry in this State. This Govemment deliberately waited until the sugar industry collapsed before it was prepared to consider its problems and do something about them. This Govemment was forced into that position by the Federal Govemment, which commissioned the Savage committee report into the sugar industry in 1985. Because it 506 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

did not assist this Govemment's big friends within the industry, this Govemment tumed its back on that report. Because of the situation on world markets, there was a turn-around of prices within the industry, which started to get out of its trouble. As a result, this Govemment sat back lethargically and said, "We will do nothing about it. There is no need to do anything about it as long as we amend some of our legislation." That was done in an endeavour to allow roaming to be introduced. Although it was a reasonable provision, as usual the big manipulators moved in, supported by this National Party Government. A classic example of what happened as a result of that action exists in the Burdekin region. One farmer who got a magnificient land grant from this Government out of the Burdekin land system is the brother of a former National Party member of this House and certainly a friend of the Bjelke-Petersen clique that mled the National Party and this Govemment. He set up an old plantation-type system and is going to send across to the mills in the Burdekin a total of 28 000 tonnes of cane from a 4 000 tonne assignment. He undertook by contract to grow cane for so many other farmers in the district under the roaming provisions. That is a racket and a rort and demonstrates the way in which the industry has been manipulated by that man and this Govemment. That land could have supported another seven or eight family farms. Instead, the rort is on, the racket is under way, the manipulators are there and they have been allowed to do that with the support of this Govemment. CSR, which has moved into the area, is involved in the manipulation. I will mention that aspect a little later. Ministers of this Govemment were not prepared to publicly support the amalgamation of sugar-mills in the Mackay district so that they could become one major co-operative and really take the fight to the two big heavies in the industry, namely, CSR and Bundaberg Sugar Company Ltd which control the milling side of the industry. I am proud to say that I stood with the co-OF>erative from day one, and fought on its behalf to bring about that amalgamation, which has been successful. Mr Randell, the member for Mirani, who later became a Minister, sat on the picket fence. If one pulled down his strides one would still see the marks where he sat on the fence and did nothing. Mr Muntz ran away and hid in the rainforest. However, once the sugar embargo was scrapped, they came out like new-bom moths to shout, roar and perform for their National Party colleagues. They will probably remember that they, together with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Ahern and his Govemment, strongly supported the National Farmers Federation in its campaign against the Federal Govemment. This Government poured financial support into the campaign. What is one of the major policies of the National Farmers Federation? The lifting of tariffs. The cane-growers and this State Govemment strongly supported the National Farmers Federation. The greatest tariff of all is an embargo. When the sugar embargo was lifted the National Farmers Federation jumped for joy. On the other hand, the industry was absolutely dumfounded. I do not agree with what it did, or its timing. I said that publicly. Nonetheless, the lily-whites within the National Party should not be allowed to say that they were the only people who stood up and said that everything the Federal Government had done was naughty and bad, because they supported the National Farmers Federation in its campaign. Within a few weeks, if one can believe what is contained in the newspapers and in the Green Papers put out by the Minister for Primary Industries, legislation will be introduced in this House to do exactly the same thing in relation to the wheat industry. I will say more about that later. Unfortunately, because of the manipulative way in which the Government operates and because of Govemment cormption in this State, a system of fear exists. The cane- growers are not even game to speak out against the Government for fear of retribution. That is what is happening within the industry. That is what is happening at the moment with some of the people in Warwick. The Minister for Primary Industries himself is cranky and jealous because the cane-growers approached the Premier directly rather than him. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 507

Consequently, let me refer to that famous delegation that intended going to Canberra a few months ago to save the life and soul of the sugar industry. Where was the Minister for Primary Industries? He was in America. He could not stay for a few more days to lead that delegation, the one that was supposed to be the most important thing ever to happen within the sugar industry. He was in America. When the announcement about scmbbing the sugar embargo was first made Mr Randell made a big noise. But what was he doing? For some reason or another he had to go home to his electorate. Despite the fact that he announced he was going to Canberra, he did not go. Mr Littleproud went. He is the Minister for Education. He was the acting Minister for Primary Industries. Down in Canberra these days he is called Mick Dundee, because when he went down there he said, "G'day", and that is all they have heard of him ever since. He never said another word at the conference, just, "G'day." That is how much this Govemment really thought of the delegation. Mr Menzel was left behind. Mr Menzel, the member for Mulgrave, was invited to participate, but what happened? Because somebody in the cane-growers' executive was a bit cranky with Mr Menzel following some comments about them in this place, the Govemment left him behind. He was the only Government member who really knew anything about the sugar industry. My bipartisan offer to go as part of the delegation to show that it was a Queensland problem and not just a National Party problem was not accepted. That is how fair dinkum the delegation was. Under those circumstances Mr Ahem could have come out smelling of roses, but he did not bother because he would have upset the old political machine: the cormpt manipulation that has been going on in political circles for so long under this National Party Government. In the event, Mr Ahem watered down the whole scene. When he went to Canberra he made sure that he spoke to Mr Hawke and his advisers about the World Heritage listing of North Queensland rainforests. He wanted to talk about the national coal board and problems within the coal industry. Sugar became a very poor third on the agenda. No wonder the industry is now trying to make its own arrangements with the Federal Government. This Govemment has failed to guide the sugar industry but it has wanted to keep its support just the same and it has continued its manipulation in order to do that. This Govemment has failed to force the sugar industry to follow world trends in the way that the EC has done with the white sugar trade, and also in relation to the export of sugar. Let us look at the great beef industry, which is another of this State's great industries and money-eamers. The problems in that industry go back a long time. I would blame many of the beef industry's problems on this Govemment's original policy of allowing freeholding of land in western and other country areas of Queensland. Under the old leaseholding system most leases were renewed. If a person had troubles, the Labor Government of the day, which implemented this system, and then this Govemment, when it was a Country Party Govemment, used to be able to waive rentals and thus save that person money. What has happened? Freeholding has brought about indebtedness. That brought about min in times of drought and in times of the downtum of prices for beef industry suppliers in the State. Prices have increased and the industry has now recovered, but if one looks again, it will be obvious that so very many of the small, family property-owners have been squeezed out and big companies are in control. The small property-owners are the ones who are frightened of the purchase of Mackay abattoir by Australian Meat Holdings. They are the ones who are frightened that a major beef consortium may be able to take over some of the buying framework. AMH wants Mackay abattoir because it is one of the best abattoirs in Australia. Mackay abattoir is one of the very few that operates on a year-round, high-kill basis for both export and local trading—not just on a seasonal basis—and it makes huge profits. That is why AMH wants Mackay: it is the jewel in the crown of meatworks in North Queensland. 508 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

I tum now to examine National Party policy to redress the beef industry depression. What have members of the National Party done at the Federal and State levels? They set out a policy of spaying female cattle. What was the result? Because of that policy, a huge reduction in the number of beef cattle occurred. A person could go into any of the meatworks in Queensland and see cow after cow lined up to be slaughtered. Many cattle were spayed in the field so that they, too, could be fattened for slaughter. Property- owners were paid to carry out mustering, which is, after all, a routine job. Moreover, some of them had no cattle to muster. The poorer property-owners did not benefit by this policy, but the big property-owner got a cash flow out of it. Instead of doing that, why did the National Party not do something about providing money for property dams, windmills, water-troughs and water supply systems? In other words why did not the policy call for permanent relief that would be in place to help property-owners through the next drought? Oh, no. If that happened, somebody else would probably get a job out of it and the money would not go directly to the grazier. It would, however, have been an asset for future operations. Consequently, the idea was knocked back. What happened? Thousands and thousands of meat-workers and supply operators in the industry lost their jobs. Some meatworks closed—never to be reopened— because the kill was insufficient to maintain them. I turn now to mention the grain-growing industry. This Government is about to embark on one of its greatest follies ever. It is about to give additional powers to the State Wheat Board because the Commonwealth Government is in the process of partly deregulating the grain industry in this nation. I emphasise the words, "partly deregulating". Goodness only knows what will happen as a result of those increased powers. However, the State Govemment has come out in support of the State Wheat Board because, emotionally, it suits the National Party policy of no change. The National Party can sell that policy to the grain-growers of this State. It does not matter what is happening in the rest of the world. The Govemment's attitude is, "Let's not change. We have to keep going the way we have been going. Let's have no changes." Is that not the story of last Saturday's referendum? The National Party attitude is, "Let's not have any change. Keep the country heartland happy. Keep things as they are. Don't rock the boat." The Govemment's PR machine goes to work on those types of ideas. Honourable members know the type of thing I am referring to—"As Queenslanders, we can do it. We can operate and sell our own wheat. We can do it. We are the people who gave you the Commonwealth Games. We gave you Expo. We can beat Canberra at any game it wants to play." What a laugh! What the National Party Government is really saying is that it is not prepared to move with the rest of Australia. Queensland supplies approximately 10 per cent of the grain produced in Australia, so for a start Queensland is moving against 90 per cent of the remaining growers in Australia. Queensland will have to set up its own marketing system overseas. The powers of the State Wheat Board will be greatly increased. Government members have spoken about the powers of the Sugar Board and the lifting of the embargo on the importation of sugar. What about the powers that Mr Harper wants to give to the State Wheat Board? One of the powers will enable the board to buy wheat from overseas to meet shortfalls in contracts within this State. What a hypocritical move that is! On the one hand he lays down the guide-lines about the sugar industry, which meant that the Govemment could not possibly allow sugar to be supplied from overseas; on the other hand, he says that he wants to be able to buy grain from overseas to fulfil contracts. Who are those contracts with? Are they with millers in Queensland? Are they with Japanese feedlots in Queensland so that they will not be short of grain? Heaven forbid that Queensland should have to buy grain from those vicioil'^fiJUates across the border— from our fellow Australians. What a load of mbbish! What a lieap of garbage! How far into the sand has the Government got its head? However, that is the way it goes. At all costs, the Govemment wants to hang onto its manipulative powers. I turn my attention now to the topic of the fmit and vegetable industry. The COD has held onto old ideas for too long. As a result—and because of its "Don't rock the Address in Reply 6 September 1988 509 boat" philosophy—it has created a situation that I will outline in some detail. Although the Minister said, "We can control marketing with legislation", when Bundaberg and Burdekin growers took over from Lockyer and Bowen growers, the Govemment proposed to bring in more manipulative controls. What about the free market forces that this Govemment is supposed to stand for? Dr Alexander has been kicked upstairs to carry out an inquiry because when he was Director-General of the Primary Industries Department he could not get on with the Minister. I believe that there ought to be an inquiry. Two weeks ago I asked a question in this House of the Minister for Primary Industries about the affairs of Orlando Luciano. It is strange how a mysterious Italian suddenly appears in many of the things that are happening today in Queensland. This is akin to the Bellinos and Jack Herbert. Suddenly the COD is entering into agreement with Orlando Luciano, who was one of the manipulators of the Melbourne fmit and vegetable market. I am not talking about gambling dens. I am talking about the gambling that is occurring with the income of the fmit and vegetable growers of Queensland. These people are on very low incomes with the backside out of their strides, yet these manipulators are supported because of the PR machine of the National Party. Without the growers' approval, sanction or knowledge—because of the way the system is locked up—this Government will pay Orlando Luciano another $5m for one contract, which is supposedly for 49 per cent of his goodwill on the Melbourne fmit and vegetable market. That is happening right under the nose and with the approval of the Minister. This money will come off the growers' returns whether they like it or not. In the last 10 years, through the COD, the growers have lost $5m on the Melboume market because of the way in which they have been endeavouring to trade. The Townsville outlet has been closed and I believe that Luciano has already offered $1.5m for that outlet because he wants the Townsville floor. This would give him access to the north Queensland banana trade, which is the source of the most profitable product on the Melbourne market and on other markets throughout Queensland. In addition he wants to have access to the Bowen tomato-growing and Burdekin bean-growing areas, whose products, together with bananas, are the only products that make money year round on the Melbourne market for this State. For the last 3 years Luciano has had the pick of the Melbourne COD floor, but under the quarantine requirements this Minister for Primary Industries can get hold of statements covering seven years and could give Dr Alexander some Fitzgerald-like powers to undertake an inquiry into what has been happening on the Melbourne market. If this happens, another Pandora's box of cormption will be opened. Queensland growers have been playing the "joke"—to use Jack Herbert's term— without any knowledge whatsoever and have merely followed and tmsted their own National Party Government to look after them. The growers never see the real price or how the price is established for their product that is sent to Melboume. It is a racket and all the Govemment is doing is trying to stop anybody else through use of its statutory powers. I could go on and on to describe the plight of many other Queensland primary producers. If ever a shake-up was needed, it is in the marketing of primary products from this State. The Sugar Board has tried, but the Minister has held it down. The board is trying to get away from the tie with the CSR. This will not come about under this Government, because of the network of political cormption which prevails after 30- odd years in Government. This Government puts industry politics before party politics and only a Labor Government has the track record to do something about it. I turn now to the railway relocation in my electorate. This is my twentieth year in this Parliament and this issue was one that I campaigned on during my first election campaign. Over a period of years election promises were made by this Govemment but in 1986 during the election campaign—Mr Ahern and others were there and he cannot say that it was something that occurred before his Govemment—the policy was that this Government would relocate the railway line for the people of Mackay. 510 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

The first route that was picked went through caneland. Mr Randell woke up suddenly and used the strength of the Racecourse mill suppliers to protest about the fact that all the Pleystowe cane would eventually have to come through there to Racecourse and therefore it had to be moved. That has changed and Pleystowe will not close. The railway took the easiest route directly through the Lagoons, a beautiful area of Mackay. A compromise has existed since the 1977 report. Petitions have been sent, but have been lost. One was lost through Mr Gunn's office, and another one simply disappeared because a mug gave it to the honourable member for Toowong to deliver and he does not even know the forms of the House. When he first came into office, I issued an invitation to Mr Ahern tp come and have a look at the position in Mackay. I have now issued him another one, and next week he is coming to Mackay. That will be his last chance to look at what can be done there. The people of Mackay have already thrown out the National Party's gum of the area. Sir Albert Abbott, who received only 35 per cent of the vote. Time expired. Mr NEWTON (Glass House) (4.25 p.m.): I wish to support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply so ably moved by the member for Maryborough, Mr Alison, and seconded by the member for Toowoomba North, Mr McPhie. On behalf of the people of my electorate of Glass House, I reaffirm their allegiance and my own to Her Majesty the Queen and her representative in this State, the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell. How lucky we are to have him as our Govemor. Only a couple of weeks ago Sir Walter opened a new nursing home at the Caboolture RSL War Veterans Home, of which the people of Caboolture are very proud. His presence at the function added to the occasion. I have had the pleasure of Sir Walter's company both as a guest at Government House and at community functions. I admire the skill with which he carries out the duties of his high office. I will mention more about "high office" later on. It may be considered old fashioned by many people, but I am unashamedly for God, Queen and country. If more honourable members opposite realised that these traditional values built this country, we would not be facing many of the problems that exist in our society. I am constantly distressed by the actions of the socialists in Canberra who continue to erode our heritage. They are intent on Australia's becoming a republic. If people had previously suggested that in 1989 Australia would have a Governor- General who is an atheist and who has not previously respected the office of Govemor- General, they would have been deemed to be extreme in their views—such is the hypocrisy of the socialist Government in Canberra. I believe that our system of government is one of the best in the modern world. On Sunday, following the very decisive referendum vote, I would have thought that the question of the so-called gerrymander would have been finally laid to rest. In this State the ALP, the Liberals and the Democrats urged Queenslanders to vote "Yes" to question No. 2. Even with this campaign and the backing of the media, the people of Queensland had their say—55 per cent of them expressed their satisfaction with the present system in Queensland. The ALP and the Liberal Party cannot back away from the fact that they campaigned across the State telling people that a "Yes" vote would ensure the end of the zonal system in Queensland. In our tme democratic system, everyone had a vote. Each vote was of an equal value; that is, one vote, one value. The majority said "No". Therefore, there should be no amendment to the present zonal system. Mr Campbell: If you believe that that was fair enough, why don't you change to one vote, one value? Mr NEWTON: Yes, that was a good case for one vote, one value. The debacle of the referendum should show the ALP that the electorate is satisfied with the Constitution. Our founding fathers would have been horrified at the sloppy attempt by the ALP to hoodwink the nation. Only last week our illustrious Prime Address in Reply 6 September 1988 511

Minister said that the people of Australia are intelligent and that they would see the benefits of a "Yes" vote. Yet, on Sunday moming, the bleating Deputy Prime Minister insisted that the people were not interested enough to participate in the referendum process. I disagree. At the next Federal election the people will be intelligent enough to dismiss the Hawke socialist Govemment. The people have spoken. They are in no doubt. They want the Constitution left alone. During the last week I have listened to the debates in the House, and I have been distressed that personal attacks on Ministers rather than informed debate have been the major component of speeches. Mr Comben interjected. Mr NEWTON: I have seen the benefits of stable representation in my electorate of Glass House. Now we are getting to it, Pat. As honourable members realise, that electorate encompasses some of the fastest-growing areas of the State. Mr Prest: Where? Mr NEWTON: In my great electorate of Glass House. The significance of the rail electrification scheme is beginning to be felt in the north of the electorate where the new timetables are being implemented. Rail electrification has been of great benefit to Caboolture. Now it is continuing to Nambour. Next year, it will proceed to Rockhampton. No-one can deny that that rail electrification will be a great asset to Queensland. It was another great National Party initiative. Commuters and tourists alike are able to travel in modem, fast trains and enjoy the joumey without the hassles of negotiating traffic snarls or of driving in unfamiliar surroundings. Mr Davis interjected. Mr NEWTON: If the honourable member listens, I will tell him some cold, hard facts. This month will see the introduction of the new, ultramodem $6m train that will begin service between Nambour and Brisbane. On 12 September, that train will leave Nambour at 7.15 a.m. to begin a regular weekday service. Mr Davis interjected. Mr NEWTON: It will provide an all-stations service to Caboolture and will then mn express to the city, arriving at 8.50 a.m. That will be a good service for the constituents of the Nambour area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. I also point out that persistent interjections will not be allowed. Mr NEWTON: That train will be the first of a new generation of trains that will provide an efficient intemrban service between Rockhampton and Brisbane. In mid- 1989, the service will be fully operational to Rockhampton. As in other areas of the State, housing constmction is presently experiencing a boom. Bureau of Statistics figures still show an increasing number of people coming to Queensland. Despite the propaganda circulated by many honourable members of the Opposition, this intemal migration can cause some short-term problems within the labour market. The bulk of that migration—that is 72 per cent—comprises working-age migrants and not aged retirees, as the Opposition would have us believe. The report of the special committee on employment in Queensland dated July 1988 details, in one chapter, the effect of this migration and its consequences. I was pleased to see that Cabinet has released this report and endorsed all the recommendations. The recommendations that require additional funding were considered as part of the 1988-89 State Budget. I look forward to that Budget, as I know that it will provide 512 6 September 1988 Address in Reply a blueprint for Queensland to go forward towards the 1990s with confidence and the best interests of Queenslanders at heart. It is through the implementation of sensible State Budgets and the policies of this National Party Govemment that in 1987-88, 25 per cent of jobs created in Australia were generated within Queensland. Unemployment in Queensland fell by a massive 14 per cent, which in real terms means that an additional 16 500 people found employment. Queensland compares very favourably with the other States. Again we can see why people come to Queensland. For those with drive and ambition, there is opportunity for advancement. Over the past 10 years the private sector employment rate has been 10 times that of the rate within the public sector. The Queensland Government's free- enterprise attitude has enabled this growth to be where it should be, that is, within the private sector. Other States have not shown this marked restraint. Another Queensland initiative has been the hosting of Expo 88. Last Saturday I represented the Queensland Govemment at Westem Samoa's national day at Expo. The Westem Samoans certainly added some colour to that day. On that day it was announced that the 10-millionth visitor had attended Expo. Expo has certainly shown the world and the rest of Australia what Queensland can do. Apart from the magnificient spectacle of Expo itself, many visitors have seen for themselves the natural beauty of our coastline, the incredible Great Barrier Reef and the wonders of our interior. Many local caravan parks and motels in my electorate have been fully booked owing to Expo. No doubt many honourable members who represent Brisbane electorates will know numerous people who have had visitors to Expo staying with them. In my area the number of people staying with relatives and friends has increased the demand for basic food items. Shop-keepers have told me that there has been an increased turn-over owing to the demand for such things as bread, milk, meat and vegetables. That shows a steady increase in the number of visitors to the area. It is great to see commuters using the rail system to travel to Expo. I have noticed many cars at the Caboolture Railway Station that have interstate registration plates. I have even seen overseas registration plates on some of the cars parked at that railway station. Large numbers of interstate visitors are not uncommon in my area, and I am pleased to play host in a small way to these very welcome visitors. Every visitor to this State spends money, which is great for the business people. While I am on the subject of Expo, I must congratulate those people who first conceived the idea of Brisbane hosting a World Exposition. In the years to come, Queensland will continue to reap the benefits of Expo in the form of return visits from overseas and interstate tourists. Many businesses have made valuable contacts through the Expo Visitors Business Program. Recently I was talking to the man responsible for that program. He told me that he has written 12 000 contracts as a result of it. Expo will ensure the continuing growth of this State's industrial sector. Only two weeks ago I had friends from Western Australia staying with me. They planned their holiday to coincide with Expo. My friends have never before visited this side of Australia, and they have been more than pleased with their trip. I was able to show them some of the many attractions of this corner of the State. Mr Casey: What was their favourite pavilion? Mr NEWTON: I must say that the Queensland pavilion ran second to the Chinese pavilion. My friends said that the Chinese pavilion was very good. People can see the whole world at Expo. The whole world is at our fingertips across the river from Parliament House. Mr Prest: What's wrong with the indigenous people's pavilion? Mr NEWTON: Nothing. I admire all of the people who have an exhibit at Expo. I showed my visitors the beauty spots of my area of Queensland. They saw the awe-inspiring Glass House Mountains. They are a wonder of the world which many Address in Reply 6 September 1988 513 people have not seen. I took them to beautiful Maleny and, naturally, the Big Pineapple. I also took them to the coastal township of Kawana, where they saw the development of the boat harbour, Mooloolaba, Caloundra and the great Corbould Park race-track, which is of great interest. Mr Davis interjected. Mr NEWTON: I was too busy working in my electorate. Another project that will benefit residents and tourists is the present beach enrichment project currently under way on Bribie Island. Through the co-operation of the State Govemment, the port authority and the Caboolture Shire Council, Woorim Beach has been the recipient of dredged sand from the sea lanes of Moreton Bay. The council has now undertaken to continue that program and the barge the Sir Thomas Hiley, which is working this week, will again be seen pumping sand previously dredged from the bay directly onto the beach. It is always pleasing to see the various levels of govemment working towards a common goal for the people of this State. That is one of the major differences between honourable members on the Govern­ ment side and members of the Opposition. Govemment members do not have blinkers focused on some ideological theory. Instead, this Government believes that its duty is to provide the building blocks for the people to enable them to take advantage of their opportunities. That is what the Government did on Bribie Island. The Government started a program on Bribie Island. The council could see the benefits of it, and it has taken up the program. Mr Lingard: They've all gone quiet. Mr NEWTON: Yes, all the members of the Opposition have gone quiet. The Government is providing this program, and'jt is good stuff. The Government also believes in providing for future generations. Locking away great tracts of land is not the answer; nor is World Heritage legislation. Perhaps the Federal Government may realise that the Australian people do not want the heavy- handed approach. I think that will become evident at the next Federal election. Last month, I was very pleased to be at the press conference when the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism announced the gazettal of Stage 1 of the national park on Bribie Island. This Govemment has been steadily increasing its register of national parks in our State. National parks do not simply appear overnight—the National Parks and Wildlife Service has to ensure firstly that the area is of significant value. Then come the tasks of establishing boundaries and the assessment of current land use or future plans for the area. National parks have to be accessible to the general public, and we should enable this great natural resource to be fully utilised by residents and visitors whUst ensuring its preservation for future generations. Those areas should not just be locked up. Much work has been done to create the park on Bribie Island and much work still has to be done. I am proud to have had a part in bringing parties together to assist in the establishment of Stage 1 of the national park and I look forward to participating in further negotiations. The conservation society has not given the Government credit. It said that the negotiations should have taken place long ago. Bribie Island is separated from the mainland by Pumicestone Passage. The area's wildlife habitat is precious. The viability of many communities is dependent on the recreational fishermen and the tourists who visit the area. All of this is located at the doorstep of our State's most populous area, which was the reason why the Government established a committee to study the area. In 1983 the water quality and land-use study of the Pumicestone Passage was completed. After careful consideration. Cabinet adopted that report and its recommendations. The national park is in keeping with those recommendations. Mr Davis: Then shelved it. 514 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr NEWTON: It has not been shelved. The Pumicestone Passage marine park has also been gazetted and provision made for different zonings within that area. Also, in the near future the environmental park on Bribie Island will be gazetted. Another area worthy of mention is the beautiful Conondale Range area. The area once boasted a great gold mine, which produced a lot of riches for this country. Last week, I spoke in the House of the benefits of the Q-Park concept and the value of such recreational areas to both residents and tourists. I hope that that type of planning can be implemented in the beautiful Bribie Island area because it should be protected whilst providing the community with a useful learning resource. Mr Casey: Do you support the carting of ore to the Kenilworth mine? Mr NEWTON: That is past history now. Honourable members opposite have also hounded the Government to explain its reforestation program. Despite many very detailed statements from the Minister and his department, some honourable members involved in the accounting profession fail to see the basic concepts. The Beerburmm State forest, one of the largest in Queensland, is located in my electorate. The Imbil State forest is also located in my electorate. Through careful planning and management, the recovery of profits from the reforestation program is just beginning. The sawmill located in Caboolture, which was devastated by a massive fire in 1983, is now one of the most modem in Australia. It is now processing clear fell and thinnings, and it is marketing an increased range of products. The laminated beams produced at the mill are a credit to the company concemed. This Government has had the foresight to plan, and now the people of Queensland, especially the residents of the Glass House electorate, benefit from that planning. I can honestly say that during the almost five years that I have been a member of this Parliament, I have not lost my faith in our democratic processes. Mr Beard: Do you believe in fair elections? Mr NEWTON: Yes, I do believe in fair elections. I represent the people of the State electorate of Glass House—not a certain selection, but everyone. It is my job to assist people wherever I can, but as a member of several ministerial committees, I can do something else as well, namely, participate in the policy­ making decisions of this Government. I tum now to education, which has received good coverage in my electorate. Large increases have occurred in enrolments in both private and State schools, which is putting a strain on secondary schools. A problem exists with the number of students at the Caboolture State High School, which has approximately 1 560 enrolled students. This week the local press in my electorate stated that nothing has been done for the agricultural course, which has approximately 650 enrolments. It is proposed to acquire an additional 11 hectares of land to assist with that course. The first high school on Bribie Island which will be opened next year at a cost of $9m, will involve a new concept and design that will be used throughout the State. Hopefully that will relieve some of the problems with secondary education. The need exists in my electorate for a TAFE program. During the next week or so I hope to have a meeting with Mr Lester and a representative of his Federal counterpart in relation to the commencement of a TAFE program in my electorate. Mr Veivers: You're not going to take my $10m? Mr NEWTON: No, I wUl not take the honourable member's $10m. Many electorates should consider the introduction of a TAFE program so that people can be trained to enter the work-force. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 515

The National Party Govemment has provided this State with stable and effective representation. The current fashion seems to be to knock the political parties, but it is this system that brings tme democracy to the people. As an elected member, I can have my say through the party system as to the formulation of Government policy. People must be made aware of what is happening. The silent majority no longer can afford to be silent. I would encourage voters to join a political party and participate so that they can better understand our political system and strengthen their say in how this great State is mn. The parliamentary program as outlined by the Governor will assist the people of Queensland to ensure that this State's future is in stable hands. I guarantee the residents of the Glass House electorate that I will continue to provide effective representation for my electorate. Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (4.48 p.m.): I wish to speak on a scandal that has reached major proportions in this State. I refer to the Govemment's decision to proceed with the building of the Wolffdene dam and the misinformation that has been associated with that proposal. In this House last week, the Minister for Water Resources accused me of being ill- advised on this subject. I now accuse that very same Minister of being completely incompetent to an extreme, and I wish to point out why the decision to build the dam must be reviewed immediately by this Government. This whole issue is clouded with unanswered questions which must be answered in this House. We have been told that one of the main reasons for the siting of that dam in that particular area is the economic advantages. That may have been the case in 1970 but I do not believe that it is the case now. I wish to support my claim with facts. Mr Carl Robertson, the Chairman of the Brisbane and Area Water Board, Mr David Evans, the secretary of that body, and the Minister, Mr Don Neal, have stated publicly that no secrecy surrounds the Wolffdene project. On 26 July 1988 in the Gold Coast Bulletin it was stated— "Mr Robertson denied the dam proposal had been kept quiet to encourage land sales in the area. He said the initial declaration of the Wolffdene Dam and site had been made in 1969 and there has never been any secrecy associated with the Wolffdene Project. In fact, the Board has been most meticulous to ensure that residents and associated resident groups have been fully informed on each and every development associated with progressing the future of the dam." Last week, in a statement to this House, the Minister, Mr Don Neal, said that "the board was also doing its best to answer questions regarding the dam and its effects." Mr Neal said that the dam "was the only cost-effective reliable source of water to cater for the area's future needs." How he could come to that conclusion has me completely baffled, particularly when consideration is given to the figures that I will quote later in this speech. In the Beaudesert Times of 27 July 1988 the secretary of the Brisbane and Area Water Board, Mr Evans, said that after the project had been reviewed over a long period, the Wolffdene site was by far the most economical. Alternative sites that were looked at by the board included the Logan, Mary and Coomera Rivers and the Stradbroke area. Those statements are typical of the misinformation that has been spread on this matter. 1 could go into that a lot more. They are a cross-section of the type of statements that are coming out of the Government. In fact, the tme situation is that the 16 resolutions prepared by the BAWB and approved by Cabinet on 4 July are based on incorrect data. Secrecy has been rife and the withholding of information has been constant and, in some cases, even devious. The economics are tragically incorrect and the statistics are hopelessly out of date, resulting in a massive undisclosed escalation of the tme costs of this project. 516 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Despite assurances given by Mr David Evans, the secretary of the water board, on 27 and 28 July at public meetings with residents in the area that is to be inundated, that all property-owners affected by acquisition and resumption would be advised in writing within three to four weeks, a number of residents still have not been notified. The reason for this is quite clear, of course. The water board simply does not know how many people will be affected, because it has not done its homework. This veil of secrecy and misinformation must be lifted now. People have rung me and told me that many letters have been written asking for questions to be answered by the water board, and they remain unanswered. Requests have also been made for a number of documents that are pertinent to this whole question. Fortunately, I have a list of documents that have come into my possession but are unavailable to most people who have inquired after them. I will not refer to them in this speech as I do not have sufficient time. However, those documents and reports pertinent to the whole question have been refused to the people in that area. The claim by the water board and the Minister that there is no secrecy surrounding this question is not tme. One of the most important documents that came into my possession was the Cossins report, and later in my speech I will refer to some of the figures contained in it that I believe need to be answered by this Minister and this Government. I propose to go back into history a little bit, as I believe it must be done to put the whole question in perspective. In 1969, two major dam sites were identified: Wivenhoe and Wolffdene. In September 1967 a comprehensive study was completed by the Department of Local Government and a report titled Report on Proposed Dam on Albert River was released. On 8 November 1971, the Queensland Cabinet resolved to build Wolffdene dam as the next major source of water after Wivenhoe was constructed. This was reconfirmed on at least three later occasions: 8 August 1985, 23 November 1987 and subsequently on 4 July 1988. Cabinet has not deviated from this decision taken some 17 years ago. Possibly if it had been proceeded with at that time, the problems that are faced now would not be there. Unfortunately, that was not done. This Government has taken no action on a number of points, and I will refer to them. Surely, for a development of this size, elementary preparation should have been carried out. Firstly, rural residential subdivision was allowed to commence and continue, thus dramatically escalating the resumption costs. Building permits are still being issued today by both Beaudesert and Albert Shires in the proposed dam and buffer zone areas, further leaving the costs of future acquisition possibly uncontrollable. The Beaudesert Shire Council had not been informed that the dam was definitely proceeding. I wish to quote from an article in the Sunday Sun of 28 August 1988. It reads as follows— "Beaudesert Shire Council building surveyor Trevor Watts said the council 'had no right to deny anyone the right to build' on land which could be under water when the dam is finished. The council had had 'nothing positive' from the Brisbane and Area Water Board to indicate that the dam was definitely proceeding, he said." It still had nothing positive at that time to stop people buying and developing land in the area surrounding the dam. Roads and services are still being upgraded in the area. Moreover, businesses such as mushroom farms, nurseries, crayfish farms and horse stud farms are being encouraged to develop. Since September 1970, no further detailed studies appear to have been conducted but several later reports have been produced that were based on earlier studies in which major costings had been manipulated. Environmental reports are non-existent, although in excess of 19 000 hectares, or 47 500 acres, of mral land is affected. Nobody has seen an environmental study. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 517

No downstream safety studies have been initiated. I point out that people will have to live on land that is below the wall of the dam, which will be 55 metres high. No study on the effects on communities of Windaroo, Beenleigh, Yatala, Logan Village and Loganlea have been initiated. The only design for a dam was carried out in 1970. On that occasion, the design was for a single-purpose dam with no subsequent revision of the design for flood mitigation. The cost of the dam that was submitted to Cabinet in July 1988 by the water board was based on the 1970 design. Mr G. Cossins, who was consulting engineer to the water board, stated at two public meetings held on 27 and 28 July 1988 that the final design of the dam was not yet known. Yet his estimate of $72m for constmction of the dam was accurate to plus or minus 5 per cent. The man must be quite a genius. Although the statement, "We will get to those later", was made at those public meetings referred to earlier in relation to social impact studies, those studies have never been carried out. Mr Evans made that statement. Regardless of the fact that the lives of more than 2 000 residents will be uprooted and many thousands of people will be affected one way or the other—at least by the constmction of the dam—the reply, "We will get to that later" was the answer given to the question, "Has any social impact study been carried out?" The water board has stated publicly that 750 properties will be acquired or resumed. Mr Evans also stated that 40 per cent of the 750 properties contained homes and that that percentage represented 300 families. He was presented with statistical evidence and a map outlining the area of the dam and the buffer zones. The citizens who live in the area had already formed protest groups to resist the constmction of the dam and immediately disputed his assessment. The very same residents have organised a subcommittee of professional people who have broken the total area of proposed resumption—the area of the dam and buffer zones—into 42 sections so that accurate and up-to-date statistics could be obtained by using 50 volunteers who worked in their spare time and week-ends to do it. I am told that the study they are undertaking will be completed in a couple of weeks' time. When it is complete, the group will proceed to do a complete analysis of the information. It is interesting to read the figures that have been taken from preliminary counts that have been carried out to date. Preliminary counts indicate numbers that conflict dramatically with those published by the water board on which Cabinet's decision of 4 July was based. Figures supplied by the Brisbane and Area Water Board for parcels of land were shown as 750. The subcommittee's count for parcels of land to date was 1 107, and the difference between the two is 48 per cent. The same subcommittee of residents put forward 676 as the number of homes that will be affected in the area, whereas the figure presented by the water board was 300. The difference between the two figures was 125 per cent. Why do the figures presented by the subcommittee vary so greatly from the figures provided by the Govemment? I ask the Minister: what has the Government to hide? What has the water board to hide by not producing tme and accurate figures? If one looks at the economic inaccuracies that I referred to earlier, which are quite blatant, one finds that if the resumption cost of $70m to $80m—which is the figure quoted by the Minister and the water board in all their press releases—was based on 750 parcels of land and 300 homes, then the cost of resumption or acquisition must increase by approximately 48 per cent on vacant land and 125 per cent on developed properties. The preliminary count also shows that the 1 107 parcels of land comprise 824, or 74 per cent, of parcels of 10 hectares and less and 283, or 26 per cent, of parcels greater than 10 hectares. These parcels contain 676 dwellings. The $70m to $80m resumption cost was based on the values quoted in the Cossins report dated 7 April 1988. For example, 4-hectare blocks of vacant land had an average price of $25,000. Can any member present be honest and state that he could go to an area such as that and buy a 10-acre or 4-hectare block of land for $25,000? Here is an area situated halfway between 518 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Brisbane and the Gold Coast and it is said 10-acre blocks of land can be bought there for $25,000. I would like Mr Cossins to be my buyer if I was purchasing real estate. In the report Mr Cossins stated that 4-hectare blocks of developed land with dwellings were an average price of $80,000, with the average dwelling being valued at $55,000. Once again, if one drives around those areas one would not see too many homes in the $55,000 category. Further in his report Mr Cossins stated that recorded sales of larger parcels of 42 hectares and 216 hectares of land averaged $1,600 per hectare or $640 per acre. The current investigation by these people—and anyone else who has taken the time to do so—indicates that these values for land and houses are just as inaccurate as the property and house count by the board. The Minister was quoted in the Gold Coast Bulletin dated 26 August 1988, and in many others papers which I have seen. The article in the Gold Coast Bulletin states— "The Government will not accept anything less than fair compensation for property owners affected by the Wolffdene dam. The value of properties to be acquired would be based on the value of comparable ones in the vicinity of the lake, not values affected by the dam." In addition, other people from the water board and the Govemment side have made that statement on a number of occasions. Investigations show that current relative values in the vicinity of this area are nearer to the following figures: a vacant block of land of 10 hectares and under is valued at $48,000—and if I am erring it is on the conservative side—and not $25,000 as shown in the water board's document and Mr Cossins' report. The $48,000 is almost double the price that the water board is considering at this time. Larger acreage is selling between $1,500 and $4,000 per acre, an average of $2,750 per acre or $6,875 per hectare, and the average replacement cost of dwellings would be $80,000—which is very close to the true value of housing in that area. A good example is a recent offer of $3,765 per acre for a 850-acre property which was rejected by the owner. This land is within the proposed dam area. Based on these values the costs should be updated as follows: allotments of 10 hectares and under, that is 824 lots at $48,000 each, total $39,552,000. Taking 283 allotments over 10 hectares, estimated to have an average area of 120 hectares, at $6,875 per hectare totals a massive $233,475,000. That is very much higher than the quoted amount of between $70m and $80m. The total cost of the acquisition of houses is gained by multiplying 676 by $80,000, which gives $54,080,000. If the acquisitions were expressed in real and honest terms, the total would be $327,107,000. How can the Minister say on the one hand that the Government will not accept anything less than fair compensation and yet on the other hand say that resumption costs will come to only $70m or $80m? The figures that I have given are conservative; they are not an exaggeration. My total is $327,107,000. The Cossins report stated that it was not known what type of constmction would be used on the dam wall but went on to state that the cost of construction would be $72m, give or take 5 per cent. The same report said that the provision of services would cost $ 15m. According to the October 1987 reference from the Queensland Water Resources Commission, in 1985 dollar terms the distribution network, which is a most necessary feature of any dam, will cost $162m. So the grand total of resumption, dam waU constmction, services and the distribution network comes to $576,107,000. The Queensland Water Resources Commission report of October 1987 titled "Progress Report on Water Supplies in South East Queensland" states that in 1985 dollar terms the costs for the Wolffdene dam for resumptions, dam constmction and services is $132m and the distribution network, $162m, giving a total of $294m. I ask the Minister and the Cabinet: why was the board's submission to Cabinet only $167m? I cannot understand that. The people of Queensland ought to be told why the figure of $167m was in the submission from the water board to the Cabinet when the decision to proceed Address in Reply 6 September 1988 519 with this project was made. Cabinet should not have made a decision on the misleading figures supplied to it. The figure for resumptions, dam constmction and services was revised in the water board's paper of 27 May 1988 which was titled "The Wolffdene Dam Proposed Long Term Program". That paper was the basis of the submission to Cabinet. The $ 132m cost was revised to $167m, an increase of 26.5 per cent. That is quite reasonable as the lower figure was in 1985 dollar terms and had to be converted into 1988 dollars. However, why was the distribution network not similarly adjusted? The same factors must have applied. The increase should also be applied to the suppressed figure of $ 162m for the distribution network. If that increase was applied, that figure would become $205m. It appears that Cabinet and the public were never advised that the distribution network was an essential part of the dam project, as was stated in the October 1987 report of the Water Resources Commission. Therefore, the total cost in 1988 dollar terms is gained by the addition of $ 167m and $205m, which gives $372m. If the real costs are examined, in 1988 dollar terms they should be: resumptions, $327,107,000; dam wall cost, $72m, give or take 5 per cent; services, $15m; and distribution $205m. That gives a grand total of $619,107,000. On that basis alone, the costs submitted to Cabinet have been understated by 370 per cent, or a shortfall of a mere $450m. That brings me back to the ministerial statement and the statement of the people from the Brisbane and Area Water Board that this is the most economical site. On those figures alone—I challenge the Minister and the Govemment to deny that they are not correct—this project should be reviewed. Now is the time to consider some of the alternative sites. If those figures are correct, that is not the most economical site on which to buUd the dam. Furthermore, that figure does not include any accurate or up-to-date assessment of Main Roads, SEQEB or Telecom relocation costs. It also fails to contain any social impact costs, environmental costs, relocation of historical sites costs, relocation of cemetries costs, costs and acquisitions related to downstream safety and acquisition and road costs for access to current and future rim developments already being advertised. The projected acquisition costs of $327m are based on fair compensation values, as continually stated publicly by the Brisbane and Area Water Board and the Government. If the Govemment is going to live up to those promises, the figures that I have produced must be considered very closely. Mr Neal: Where did you get the figures from? Mr McLEAN: The Minister should check them out. He has the resources to do it. The public should not have to do that. Mr Neal: I'd rather have my figures than yours. Mr McLEAN: We will see. History will prove who is right. It is up to the Minister to check out the figures. I am citing them in the House, and I stand by them. Every aspect of this debate raises urgent and embarrassing questions that the Government must answer in accordance with the Premier's vision of excellence and the new Government's open and accountable policy for the people. Those questions that must be answered are: why was the Cabinet decision of 4 July taken without proper assessment of all the costs of the Wolffdene project? Has the Brisbane and Area Water Board misled the State Cabinet, or is the Cabinet a party to that decision? What vested interests stand to gain from that decision? Will the Govemment investigate all land sales and ownership in the surrounds of the proposed dam site? If the property-owners are to receive fair compensation as promised, when and how will fair market values be established? Not by the water board figures, obviously. The public has been advised that the total cost of the Wolffdene project is $167m. Who funds the massive overruns? What about the alternatives? Have they been assessed in the same inept manner and should they not be reassessed on today's figures? 520 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Neal: Where does the extra water come from if we do not build Wolffdene? Mr McLEAN: There are four or five altematives that have not been checked for a long period. Mr Neal: Where from? Mr McLEAN: The Mary River. The figures on the Mary River suggested in the Cossins report were most inaccurate. Mr Neal: Is that right? Mr McLEAN: That is right. They have been assessed in the same inept manner and they should be reassessed. If the Minister is going to do his job properly, that inquiry should be held immediately. I call on the Premier to immediately halt that project until the figures that I have given today are checked by his Treasury officials before we see once again a major blunder with public expenditure in this State. Mr FRASER (Springwood) (5.13 p.m.): This afternoon, I rise to supply the House with a few facts on Logan City, the second city of Queensland. During late 1987, Logan's population exceeded that of the Gold Coast. As at 31 March, its population was 130 592. Logan has an area of 241 square kilometres. At this point I would like to support the motion of my colleague the honourable member for Maryborough. Mr Beard: I bet you don't mention the referendum. Mr FRASER: I wUl mention the referendum in a minute. I support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply moved by my colleague the honourable member for Maryborough and so ably seconded by the honourable member for Toowoomba North. At this point I wish to pledge my allegiance and that of my constituents in the electorate of Springwood to Our Most Gracious Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, and to her worthy representative in Queensland, His Excellency the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell, who with his gracious wife Lady Campbell has visited all parts of Queensland during his term of office. At this point I will reply to the interjection by the member for Mount Isa, Mr Beard. On behalf of the National Party, I represent one of the large urban electorates of Queensland. I feared nothing in the referendum. If the gentlemen opposite, including Mr Beard and Mr Palaszczuk, had read the Sunday Mail, they would have noticed that Fadden was one of the only Federal urban electorates in Queensland where there was about a 50 to 80 vote difference between the "Yes" and "No" vote. That is what the urban people in that area of Queensland think of one vote, one value. Mr Beard: Do your people deserve a fair go? Mr FRASER: My constituents deserve a fair go, and they had their say at the ballot-box. Mr Beard: So your people are only worth one-third of the people in Roma? Mr FRASER: The honourable member represents the electorate of Mount Isa. If I were him, I would not make those sorts of statements. Mr Beard: I represent it honestly. Mr FRASER: The honourable member has lost that argument. Mr Sherrin: How many Liberals were handing out those mixed up how-to-vote cards in your electorate on Saturday? Mr FRASER: The Liberals could not get enough support to have them handed out. There was not one Liberal on a booth on Saturday in the Springwood electorate. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 521

Mr Henderson interjected. Mr FRASER: They went on strike. I might add that the Labor Party was flat out getting people to man the booths in my electorate. At one booth where I was working the Labor Party had two people—one worthy man and one worthy woman—working all day, handing out how-to-vote cards. I will retum to my speech. As I have said, Logan City covers an area of 241 square kilometres. There are 41 000 rateable properties within the local authority area. The city has approximately 54 256 registered vehicles. I notice that the Minister responsible for Main Roads is present in the Chamber. He would agree with me that there are probably many more than 54 000 vehicles on the road in that city, because some people forget to pay their registration. Mr Ardill: You are casting a slur on the people of Logan City. Mr FRASER: I am not putting a slur on anyone in Logan City. There are 269 manufacturing establishments operating in Logan City, as well as 463 retaU outlets which, collectively, have a total turn-over of $ 165.1m. The city is well serviced by schools. There are 42 pre-schools, 33 Government schools and 10 private schools within the city. Six thousand children attend the pre-schools, 13 000 students attend the State primary schools and 7 300 students attend State high schools in the city. In addition, 4 000 students are attending the non-Government schools that service the city area. Within the boundaries of Logan City are the State electorates of Springwood, Woodridge and Logan and portions of the State electorates of Albert and Fassifem. The city is covered by the Federal electorates of Fadden, Forde and Rankin. Presently within my electorate at Loganlea, Leader Limited, a very large development company based in Sydney, is constmcting what will eventually be the largest shopping centre in the southern hemisphere. It is proposed to constmct that centre in three stages. The first stage will involve expenditure of approximately $130m. The executives of Leader Limited tell me that it will probably be the last shopping centre of that type ever to be built in Australia because it is very hard to aggregate the amount of land that that company has at its Loganholme site. It has 132 acres. The first stage, as I have said, will involve expenditure of $130m. It will have as its major tenants a Myer department store at one end and a Super K mart at the other end. Those two major stores will be connected. Mr De Lacy: Do you mention this monstrosity with pride or with regret? Mr FRASER: I mention this shopping centre development—I do not call it a monstrosity—in the context of the growth that is taking place in the city of Logan, which is the second-largest city in Queensland. Growth comes from a free-enterprise Government, which is what we have in Queensland. Major Sydney developers are prepared to commit massive amounts of money to projects in Queensland. That is what it is all about. As I said before the honourable member's interjection, the shopping centre will have two major tenants at either end, connected by 460 metres of shopping mall in which 132 specialty stores will operate. Mr Palaszczuk: You mentioned all this last week. Mr FRASER: I am enlarging on what I said. I would now like to touch on the attitude of the State Grants Commission towards Logan City. Almost since its inception, Logan City has had a grievance with the administration of the local government revenue-sharing grants on the grounds that it felt that the methodology used by the Grants Commission did not adequately recognise the disabilities suffered by the local authority as a result of the unique circumstances of 522 6 September 1988 Address in Reply its creation and the inordinate growth encountered in its early years. I inform honourable members that it was created on 9 June 1978. The pressures on the city's management have been great, the backlog of services has been immense and the socio-economic balance of its residents has been unable to support the very large capital works program which was needed for the massive growth of the city. The city began with little assistance from other Govemment instmmentalities and, because it started with no civic growth area whatsoever, it faced an enormous task of constmction and development of civic facUities. At that time, it encountered a major revision of the State Capital Works Program subsidy scheme, which acted to the considerable detriment of its pressing works needs. A high rates arrears problem has plagued the city for the past 10 years. Unemployment levels are inordinately high. At the moment, approximately 9V2 thousand persons are registered as unemployed at the two CES offices in Logan City. Some of those persons reside just outside Logan City, but they are registered at the Logan City CES offices. Mr Campbell: You make us the Government and we will fix it up. Mr FRASER: I would hate to think what would happen if the honourable member's party was in power. Mr Beard: For the first time today I am on side with you. Mr FRASER: I thank the honourable member. I am glad that we agree on something. If the number of unemployed with the National Party Government in office is 9'/2 thousand, with Mr Campbell's party in office the number of unemployed persons would be easUy 19V2 thousand. Despite the obstacles, the council has worked hard at overcoming the lack of work and community facilities and has striven to meet the criteria of the Grants Commission in relation to rating effort and self-help expenditure. When it was indicated by the Chairman of the Grants Commission that Logan's rating stmcture was low in comparison with the State average, the council bit the bullet and raised the average rate biU by $50 a year in two consecutive years. I can verify that because I was the chairman of the finance committee that took that unpalatable action. However, we did it because we believed that somehow or other we had to convince the Grants Commission that we were acting responsibly. When it became obvious that the Grants Commission formula favoured higher per capita expenditures and that local authorities spending large amounts on people services were benefiting under the Grants Commission methodology, the council began directing large amounts to those functions—that is, to people services. Despite all those actions, the council's share of grant moneys failed to increase by any great amount. The council made a number of submissions to the Grants Commission on what it saw as flaws in the methodology of giving tme cognisance to Logan City's problems. The Grants Commission appears to have given little weight to Logan's argument on that matter. It was not until the Commonwealth Department of Local Govemment began its own research into the operation of the methodology used by the various States that the problems facing Logan were brought to the attention of the Commonwealth. The studies by the Department of Local Government revealed that the methodology originally conceived by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and developed over time had not been applied uniformly by the States and that, if applied by the Grants Commission in Queensland in the same way as it was applied in the other States, the problems and disabilities faced by Logan would have been given more recognition. Consequently, the revised distribution, which was devised by the Commonwealth in the 1987-88 financial year, resulted in a significant improvement in the allocation to Logan. If the State Grants Commission reverts to its former formula, once again Logan will be disadvantaged in the distribution of grants to local authorities in Queensland. The commission cannot justify the reduction of $800,000 in the grant that is proposed for Logan. From my experience on the council, I strenuously ask the Government to Address in Reply 6 September 1988 523 study the formula that is used by the Grants Commission, because more recognition must be given to the per capita basis. Mr ArdiU: It is a totally unfair allocation. Mr FRASER: I do not agree that it is totally unfair. I would be one of the only members of this House who has lived in both mral and urban areas of Queensland. I pay rates to various local authorities within the State. Because of Grants Commission allocations within the past couple of years, some local authorities in Queensland have not raised their rates by a percentage point, apart from the normal cost-of-living expenses, yet they are increasing their works programs. Because I have served on councils in other parts of Queensland, I am aware that local authorities are using Grants Commission funding to carry their rate base, which is totally against the concept upon which it was introduced. Mr Palaszczuk: Name them. Mr FRASER: Because I pay rates to those councils, I would probably be penalised if I named them. Mr Palaszczuk: Go ahead, anyway. Mr FRASER: No. The Grants Commission must look at the formula and recognise the per capita component. Three of the major-growth local authorities in Queensland that are really suffering are Logan, Pine Rivers and Albert. If recognition was given to the per capita component, their problems would be diluted in a small way. One needs only to read the Sunday Mail to realise the problems that are faced by Logan. Neither the State Govemment nor the Commonwealth Govemment can do much about those problems; the local authority must remedy them. A great injection of funding from one Govemment department will not remedy the situation. A continuing increase in the allocation of revenue-sharing grants is needed so that the council can fix the problems. The Logan City Council is appreciative of the assistance that has been provided by both the State and Federal Govemments. Many joint projects that are of great benefit to the residents of the local authority area have been undertaken. At the same time the council has faced a number of disappointments in the support that it has received from the State and Federal Govemments. One of the major problems facing Logan City is the lack of police strength at stations within the district. I am very confident that this Govemment will do something about that in the forthcoming Budget. Another problem is the lack of adequate hospital facilities for a population of over 130 000. I am sure that the Minister for Health is considering that problem. I hope that work on the public hospital will commence by the end of November. I am confident that by October next year, the National Party Govemment will have that hospital open. Mr Beard: You are a real optimist, and I wish you well. Mr FRASER: It is not a matter of being an optimist; it is a matter of having confidence and being a member of the Government. That is what it is all about. Mr Davis: Would it be fair to say that there is no hospital in Logan City? Mr FRASER: It would be tmthful to say that there is no hospital in Logan City. However, one will be constmcted in the near future. Mr Davis interjected. Mr FRASER: If the honourable member had listened to my speech he would know that Logan City has a population of over 130 000. 524 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Elliott: He is not paying attention again. Mr FRASER: No, he is not. For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, I point out that a hospital is about to be constmcted in Logan City. The fact that the electorate did not have enough representatives in this Parliament to put forward a case for a hospital is probably the reason why Logan City does not have one. Mr ArdiU: The city hasn't even got a cemetery. Mr FRASER: I will take the honourable member's interjection. He made a very valid statement that the city does not have a cemetery. When I was a member of the council, one of the aldermen moved that a cemetery be established. The facts and figures were considered. During that year, 20 deaths occurred within the city and the council did not believe that it was economical to provide a cemetery. That is the sort of young city than Logan is. Mr Ardill: They should all go to Parkinson. Mr FRASER: It is very opportune that the honourable member raises that point because, as the deputy mayor of Brisbane city, he was responsible for building one of the greatest white elephants on Logan City's boundary—the Parkinson Crematorium. It is the greatest white elephant I have ever seen. Mr Sherrin: Len's pride and joy. Mr FRASER: Mr Sherrin has just informed me—and I agree with him—that it is known widely in the area as Len's pride and joy. Mr Ardill: It had nothing to do with me. Mr FRASER: The honourable member was the deputy mayor at the time. Mr ArdiU: I am in favour of it. Mr FRASER: The honourable member is in favour of it? Is it going to be a ghost town? Logan City is faced with a very serious problem that started 30 years ago, before the city took on local authority status. It relates to a toxic waste problem in the Diamond Street area of Kingston. I feel very strongly for the people in that area. I was a member of the council when it took the decision to buy the homes of the people who were immediately affected by that problem. I would like to inform honourable members that it is a very serious problem. I have made quite strong representations to the Premier about this matter, and after the Budget has been introduced he intends coming down to look at the problem, and I am very hopeful that, in conjunction with the councU, the Govemment will be able to do something to alleviate it. Because of the massive growth within the city, a serious backlog in roadworks has arisen. That is another reason why the Grants Commission should look at funding on a per capita basis. The continuing submissions by Logan City to the State and Com­ monwealth Governments are not merely complaining for complaining's sake. For a long time the city has been trying to bring before other levels of government the tme nature of the difficulties faced by the community there. It is a very serious difficulty. It is not merely a matter of an elected council's wanting to spend more money; it is a matter of providing for an urban community of 130 000, almost 40 per cent of whom are children. That is an inordinately young population. If something is not done about those difficulties, that area will end up in a very, very sorry state of affairs. Because of inadequate support for the local authority by other levels of govemment, the area is being deprived of the level of service and facilities expected in a modem society. I do not think that the Federal Government and also the State Government realise the seriousness of the problem in that area. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 525

At this point I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the reasons why I believe the State Grants Commission is not using the correct formula for Logan City. According to a list of the per capita grants for the seven years from 1982 to 1988 inclusive, in 1982 Logan received a per capita grant of $9.56. In 1988 it is proposed that it will receive $16.62. In 1982, Townsville—it should be borne in mind that Townsville's population is less than that of Logan—received $20.95, and in 1988 it is proposed that it will receive $41.32 per head of population. In 1982, Pine Rivers, which has a problem similar to that of Logan, received $11.15, and in 1988 it is proposed that it will receive $17.07. In 1988, of aU the local authorities, the only ones expected to receive less than $20 are Pine Rivers and Logan, and Albert is very close to that level, with $20.82. Those figures cleariy iUustrate why the Grants Commission in Queensland must look at its formula for handing out grants and give more recognition to the per capita grant component. In saying that, I fully realise that that will tend to pull some money back from the larger western local authorities, but other formulas can be used to help them come up to their level. Under a Grants Commission formula, no local authority should receive a per capita grant that is less than it received the year before. There is a way to redress the situation. Ms Warner: You don't even want them recognised, do you—local authorities in the Constitution? You said "No" to that question. Mr FRASER: Local authorities will be recognised by the State Govemment. I did not want them recognised by the Federal Government. Ms Warner: Why not? Mr FRASER: Because immediately the Federal Government recognised them, the Federal Govemment would have regionalised local authorities, which is not good. Ms Warner: That is drawing the longbow. Mr FRASER: No, it is not. That is the fact of the matter, and that is why the ALP was roundly defeated on Saturday. Ms Warner: Misinformation. Mr FRASER: The Labor Party was roundly defeated. The people of Queensland and the people of other parts of Australia clearly said that they did not want more power given to the Canberra Government. Mr Ardill: They didn't understand it. Mr FRASER: They understood it, all right. I stood at a booth and handed out cards. The people understood it and they knew what they were doing. Mr ArdUl: You conned them. Mr FRASER: I did not help to con them; I advised them. Mr ArdiU: The Commonwealth Grants Commission would have been able to fund local authorities on a per capita basis under a new formula. Mr FRASER: I take the honourable member's point. There is nothing to stop the Commonwealth Grants Commission doing that, but it would have been funding eight or nine councils as one local authority area. That is what the people of Queensland and other States of Australia did not want. They proved that on Saturday. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr FRASER: It would not matter whether it was on a per capita basis or not. The Federal Govemment would have regionalised councils and it would have been the downfall of local government throughout Australia. Have you served in local government, Mr Palaszczuk? 526 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Palaszczuk: Don't have to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The honourable member should address the Chair. Mr Davis interjected. Mr FRASER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was being led astray. The member for Brisbane Central said that he has not served in local government, but he came close. His wife nearly got a few votes as an aspirant to the office of Lord Mayor of the city of Brisbane. Mr Davis: I had a second cousin in the Cambooya Shire Council once. Mr FRASER: That is a very good local authority area, as my colleague Mr Elliott would no doubt confirm. Mr Elliott: He was quite a notable councillor, unlike his counterpart here. Mr FRASER: I thank the honourable member for informing the House. Mr Randell: He was a grandson of Steele Rudd. Mr FRASER: Then he is a person of note! It is no wonder that the honourable member always has so much to say. I believe I have made the point that I wanted to make. I believe that the Queensland Local Govemment Grants Commission must give greater recognition to the per capita component of the grants formula. Ms WARNER (South Brisbane) (5.37 p.m.): I rise in this Address in Reply debate to draw to the attention of the House a number of features of Queensland society that honourable members have reason to dwell on at this time because of the revelations that have come to light in the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is timely for honourable members to reflect on what type of society enables an inquiry to uncover large-scale cormption, or maladministration—if that is what honourable members wish to call it—that has gone on for so many years. It is interesting that that type of activity has been occurring while simultaneously Queenslanders have been disadvantaged in ways that either directly or indirectly relate to cormption. Queenslanders have the lowest standard of living of all Australians. Queenslanders have the lowest average wages and the lowest standard of services, particularly in vital fields such as education, health and welfare, and community development. Queenslanders also have fewer basic rights than other Australians, particularly as regards civil liberties that were constantly eroded by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, which Queenslanders suffered for so many years. For many years, everybody knew that the whole system of government in Queensland was cormpt. It has been based on cronyism and favouritism. Time and time again, that information was published in the newspapers over the last 30 years, particularly during the last 10 or 12 years. Only now through the Fitzgerald inquiry are the detaUs of how that system works coming into public view. It seems regrettable that nobody throughout this whole period was able to put a stop to this massive cormption. Mr Randell interjected. Ms WARNER: It does not matter who started what. Two wrongs do not make a right. I suggest to the Minister that 30 years in Govemment is ample time to fix up any problems that might have occurred under a previous administration. If the Minister is saying, "Give us a little more time to fix it up because 30 years is not enough", I think this Government has major problems. Finally, it was the efforts of a few investigative joumalists that forced the establish­ ment of the current inquiry. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the role of the police was Address in Reply 6 September 1988 527 seen by the Government, and by any members of the public who cared to argue, as being beyond public criticism and scmtiny. The police argued that they needed more powers in the execution of their duties. As a result. Government legislation implementing draconian powers of arrest and detention was dutifully brought into the House during the Commonwealth Games. When the SEQEB dispute occurred the Government intro­ duced even more draconian legislation which exceeded even the broad powers of the existing Traffic Act. Again the police were used as a weapon in the Govemment's Mr Palaszczuk: Go back to the Springboks' tour. Ms WARNER: Yes, the Springboks' tour. Queensland politics has always been regarded as a little bizarre, extreme and strange, almost like the Marcos policies. The police in Queensland have consistently been used by the Govemment as a weapon to assist in stifling any opposition. It is significant that powerful elements within the police force have a vested interest in squashing the opponents of the Government, because if those opponents were squashed, it would ensure that the Government in power was the one that had previously been bought by the police. It is no use spending extra money trying to buy a new Govemment, because the police force had already bought one. The police force was used in a highly political way. This has been demonstrated and underlined in the diaries of Sir Terence Lewis in which he pointed out his involvement as Police Commissioner in what essentially was political decision-making; matters such as the form of the redistribution. Government appointments and appointments to the top echelons of the judiciary. Mr Prest: Do you reckon he was under the instmctions of the Minister? Ms WARNER: He may very well have been, but at this point in time in Queensland's history there is very little distinction between Ministers in the Govemment and people in charge of the police force. The Queensland police were used as little more than the private army of the Govemment and the Government retumed the favour by turning a consistently blind eye to accusations of graft and cormption within the police force. Honourable members will be aware of all the accusations that occurred in this House and elsewhere. The present Government can take no credit for the public exposure which is taking place. Rather it stands condemned for its complicity and silence during the long years of the Bjelke-Petersen twilight. The present Premier was hardly an innocent bystander. He, like every other member of the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment, has to accept collective Cabinet responsibility for the level of cormption which invaded every level of admin­ istration. Nor can the present Minister for Land Management feel at ease with his conscience, because he was Police Minister at a critical time. Nor can the present Deputy Premier feel very comfortable, because he was also a Police Minister at a critical time in the development of the cormption that is unfolding at the Fitzgerald inquiry. The immediate past Minister for Main Roads, Mr Russell Hinze, was inspired to confirm recently for the public of Queensland his involvement in electoral boundary rigging. He pointed out that none of the Govemment members opposite would be able to retain their seats, and asked, "Who will do the rigging for you now?" He has gone and he will not do it. The Govemment has blotted its copybook with Mr Hinze, because it has no- one to rig the boundaries for it. The members of the whole Cabinet who were in office at that time—with the possible exception of the Minister sitting opposite who was not in that Cabinet but who was a member of the Government that allowed this sort of thing to continue—have to take responsibility under the Westminster system for the political mistakes of the Cabinet when they were members of it. That is called collective responsibility and is something that is sadly amiss in Queensland and has been for a very long time. Not only do National Party members have to take collective responsibility for the actions of the then coalition Govemment, but so also do Liberal Party members who were part of that Government. It is no good the Liberal Party members trying to abdicate 528 6 September 1988 Address in Reply their responsibility by doing a sort of Pontius Pilate ceremonial washing of their hands. They allowed their numerical strength to create the monster of the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment. Therefore, under the Westminster system of Cabinet responsibility, the Liberal Party is equally to blame. Remember that Don Lane was a member of the Liberal Party and a Government Minister when the Government was working hand in glove with the police force to deprive citizens of their rights and to mthlessly squash any opposition at a time when public policy was—perhaps it still is; we are not certain—determined by the interests of a small group of cormpt operators. Whilst we had on the legal level a public policy of the public purse funding the extravagant life-styles of the rich, famous and powerful, creating a haven for multinationals such as Comalco, with its preferential electricity prices, enacting special legislation to allow Iwasaki to "develop"—perhaps I should say "change"—Yeppoon, and providing a special loan for supercrony Mike Gore, Government policy was also hypocritically denouncing gambling and prostitution, yet simultaneously allowing the cormpt elements within the police force to regulate these flourishing industries for their own benefit. If, for instance, the Government had legalised poker machines, as has been done in virtually every other State, there would have been no opportunity for graft and corruption. Obviously it was in the interests of sections of the Government and sections of the police force to maintain the illegahty of poker machines and prostitution so that the empire that was based on their illegality could continue to flourish. Mr Palaszczuk: That "lousy" loan was no joke. Ms WARNER: It was a "lousy" $140,000. Yes, I remember it well. So one wonders at the basic pohcy-making capacities and priorities of a Government that has been unable, or unwilling, to debate policies on their merits. It has been interested only in who benefits from policies, not in the intrinsic worth of those policies to the people of Queensland. It has been interested in what vested interests will be served by policies such as the legalisation or otherwise of poker machines, the regulation of prostitution and the various land rezonings that have gone on. How can Queenslanders tmst such a Government? It is now no use for the Nationals or the Liberals to say, "That all happened in the bad old days." I see no significant difference in the policies and positions of members opposite. They have failed in the past and, in terms of putting right all the wrongs that the Bjelke-Petersen regime created, they have not delivered a single thing. WhUe the Queensland Government is involved in its self-serving cormpt admin­ istration, let me look at the sort of administration that was occurring at the public level of the delivery of services and facilities. The fact of life is that, with a Govemment that is inward-looking and self-serving and that looks only at the interests of a few friends or cronies, Queenslanders have been denied money on services. Underspending on services in Queensland has been a feature of the National Party and coalition Govern­ ments in this State for 20 years or more. In the last financial year, education spending was $ 113 per capita less than the average for all Australian States; health spending was $128 less; and welfare spending was somewhere between $16 and $20 less. If all the other areas of Government services are included, the total underspending on services comes to $360 less for every Queenslander than for the average Australian. That is outrageous. It is an absolute abdication of responsibility in terms of delivery of services. Mr Randell: The fact is that the rest of the States get $226 per head for health and Queensland gets only $86 per head. Is that fair? Ms WARNER: I say to the Minister that the fact of life is that Queenslanders are $360 less well off than Australians in other States. It is nothing to do with Commonwealth grants. It is concemed with the policy priorities of the Government. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 529

In terms of services, Queenslanders have been doubly disadvantaged. They are disadvantaged not only by the fact that they have the lowest average wage in Australia, but also in terms of facilities that the Government provides as some sort of a back-up for the low living standards that already exist. In other words, across a wide range of indicators, Queenslanders are worse off than people living in other States. Honourable members opposite must be acutely aware that, when constituents come in and ask for Government services, they have to tum around and scratch their heads because they cannot remember where they are—unless they have been able to obtain services for their constituents that are different from the services that I have been able to obtain for mine. I know that the Queensland Housing Commission has about 11 000 people on its waiting-list and there is no way in which anybody who is not in an emergency situation can get a house quickly. It might be different for Govemment members; I do not know. However, that is certainly the case for me. There has been massive underspending. Last year, because of the maladministration of the Govemment, $30m was not spent on the building of houses in this State. That maladministration is to be found in the provision of welfare services, including child welfare, the relief of the aged and the infirm and emergency welfare relief On those services Queensland spends less than any other State. It is a low-service State. As a community, we do not care as much for our people as communities in other Australian States do. Mr ArdiU: They boast about it. They are proud of it. Ms WARNER: They certainly do. They boast about it because they are quite proud of their insensitivities and their lack of compassion. They think that it looks good and tough and that people will vote for them—38 per cent, perhaps. It is immoral, unjust and unworthy to swindle the people of Queensland in the way that the Govemment is doing. The people of Queensland pay taxes which go to Canberra and which are retumed to the State absolutely, and then the money is frittered away on Govemment projects and capital expenditure and not on the services that the ordinary people who are living in poverty-stricken circumstances need. There is no point in the Minister's attempting to wriggle out of the responsibility for the underspending and gross negligence that is taking place in the welfare area, just as the Govemment is attempting to wriggle out of its responsibilities in terms of its own policy failures that have led to the cormption that has existed in this State for so long. I will examine the specific area of welfare spending. Queensland's spending is the lowest of that in all the Australian States. A frightening statistic available in the Queensland Govemment's submission to the Grants Commission is in respect of staff ratios in the welfare area. Toowoomba has one welfare services officer per 19 038 people; Bundaberg has one welfare services officer per 19 840 people; Rockhampton has one welfare services officer per 13 278 people; Mackay, which is doing relatively well, has one welfare services officer per 4 603 people; Townsville has one welfare services officer per 7 650 people; and Brisbane has one welfare services officer per 13 344 people. Those are the staffing ratios of the welfare officers. They are appallingly low staffing levels. In 1986, a Government review into staffing levels in the Children's Services Department found that at least 136 more staff were required to meet the statutory requirements of the department. In the same year, 40 new staff members were employed in that year's Budget. That was the last occasion on which any increase in staff occurred within the children's services and family services area. In December 1986, Graham Zerk, the Director of the then Children's Services Department, stated that because of understaffing, his department could not even meet its own statutory responsibilities to protect children. Staffing levels have not improved. In fact, they have deteriorated in real terms since that point in time.

80544—20 530 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Another aspect of the review was the recommendation that there be more field officers and fewer staff in head office involved in administration. However, in the Children's Services Department the reverse is tme. The number of field officers has actually reduced in comparison with the number of officers who are employed in the central administration. Consequently, in real terms, the children of this State are at risk. At total of 33 additional case workers are required to fill immediate vacancies. That shows the level of understaffing. That is apart from the industrial problems that already exist in the department because the rates of pay are so low. The workers are so overworked and underpaid that there is a case before the Industrial Commission at present. Naturally enough, the Govemment is opposing any increase in wages. So there is a deterioration in the service—a deterioration at a time when notification of child abuse is increasing by a factor of about 50 per cent or more. More and more notifications are being made. In the instances when child abuse has already occurred, aU that the field officers from the Children's Services Department can do is see how bad it is and try to fix it up. There is no way that those field officers have the time to investigate families and consider preventive measures before the problem emerges. Those are the conditions that these people are suffering under. In order to bring Queensland up to the basic average standards of Australia, the Queensland Govemment needs to spend $66m on welfare services alone. That would barely bring Queensland up to the national average, and I would argue that the national average, in OECD terms, is an appallingly low figure anyway. It is a bleak picture of a Govemment that is interested in the heights of development, large consortiums, various land-grabs and, quietly, without very much publicity, funding for the pohce force of a particular and different nature—but, nevertheless, funding for the police force. In the meantime, just to bring Queensland up to the national average stmcturally, this State needs $66m for welfare services. The only conclusion that can be drawn about the poor levels of service is that the Queensland Govemment simply does not care. It is not one of this Govemment's priorities to improve the poor level of service that Queenslanders receive. This Govemment is only interested in sectional groups such as the already rich and powerful. Queensland families are being denied services. Recently the Minister for FamUy Services decided to hive off the Sexual Abuse Treatment Unit, which is currently under the control of his department. That unit has four staff members and has a pretty good record in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse and the problems of the whole family that flow from it. That unit is able to intervene in those people's lives and to prevent recidivism in that area. The Govemment magically hit upon a program that works. It has employed four people to implement it. So what is the Govemment going to do? It will sell it off to the non-Govemment sector. When this Govemment finds something that works it says, "We must sell it off to the non-Govemment sector. We can't possibly implement it. We'U tum a blind eye to that." That is what the Minister intends to do. It is a very successful service employing four people. Improved funding should be granted. The funding should be enhanced. It is to be hived off to a non-Govemment sector where funding will not be regular; where funding will not be certain from year to year; where planning within the unit will not be possible because of the problems and the rigors of the non-Govemment welfare sector in this State which, in general, suffers from major funding-deprivation and, certainly, from, uncertain funding. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Ms WARNER: Before the dinner recess, I referred to the exceedingly low levels of State Govemment spending on welfare. In New South Wales, $68 per capita is spent on welfare; in Victoria, $74.51; South Australia, $87.70; Westem Australia, $93.83; and Tasmania, $80.90. Queensland spends a miserable $53.92 per capita on welfare. The Address in Reply 6 September 1988 531 situation has deteriorated even under the present Govemment. Its spending on welfare has always been low and it has been worse than the spending in other States. In 1979-80, 2.5 per cent of the State Budget was spent on welfare. In 1986-87, the percentage of the State Budget spent on welfare dropped to a mere 1.1 per cent. One can see the level of priority the Queensland Govemment places on welfare. Welfare is very low down on the Govemment's list of priorities. As I said, expenditure on welfare has decreased during a time when increasing numbers of cases of children at risk because of sexual abuse are being reported. Mechanisms within the existing Department of Family Services include the SCAN team, which has been established by the Govemment. It is doing an excellent job. It is an interdisciplinary cross-departmental program that works, and works weU. Similarly, the child sexual abuse treatment unit works, and works weU; yet the Govemment, instead of putting more money into schemes that do work well, is actually diverting funds away from them. The department is actually talking about hiving-off the child sexual abuse treatment unit to the non-Govemment sector so that the Govemment can wash its hands of all responsibility for that area. A number of problems result from that policy of hiving-off departmental respon­ sibilities to the non-Govemment sector. Another activity that the Govemment wants to get rid of is the Warilda residential centre for the care and protection of children. At the moment, because the staff have been left uninformed about the decisions that the Govemment is making, the centre is not working well. Rumours are mnning rife. A huge amount of uncertainty exists as to the staffs future. Rumour has it that the centre will very shortly be sold to the Uniting Church. The Govemment's policy of privatisation of basic welfare facilities is an absolute disgrace. The idea of the Govemment's trying to make money out of selling its own welfare facilities is an obscenity. In response to a press release that I issued recently on the subject, Mr McKechnie said that it was better for the delivery of service in the area of child sexual abuse to go to the non-Govemment sector. If one looks at the Queensland Govemment's record in funding the non-Govemment sector, one sees that that practice leads basically to a situation in which the non-Govemment welfare agencies are in a constant state of uncertainty about their funding. They find it very difficult to make plans from one year to another or to organise their activities in any streamlined way. Whilst it may very well be the case that a number of very well-meaning people within churches and other charitable organisations are very interested in that matter and want to do their best by it, I believe that there is an attrition of skilled professional advice. Because the Govemment leaves them uncertain about funding, the Govemment makes it very difficult for non-Govemment welfare agencies to do their job. However well-meaning those agencies are, they cannot develop the same level of skill, commitment and ongoing service as a Govemment department can. The Govemment's record in welfare amounts to a national scandal. Kathryn Bemard, a young Aboriginal girl with some level of inteUectual incapacity, was found dead after she had escaped last week from the Basil Stafford Training Centre. Apparently there was some uncertainty about the time that she actually escaped, whether or not there was a proper response to her leaving and a proper understanding that she was at considerable risk on her own in the community. As all honourable members are aware, her escape ended in a dreadful tragedy when she was found drowned, I think. There is yet to be an inquest into the cause of her death. Problems of that type indicate that there are inadequate staffing levels within our welfare institutions. How many tragedies must there be before this Govemment understands that the funding of welfare services is not just a simple do-gooding exercise? For many people who are at risk within the community, it is a matter of life and death. The Kathryn Bemard tragedy is an example. I am talking about people's hves and the statutory responsibilities of Govemments to protect children. Kathryn Bemard was 532 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

a child. Perhaps the Government did not feel responsible for her because she was black, retarded and had a difficult family situation. If that is the case, that is a disgrace. Problems are caused by staffing levels, and in that regard Queensland faces a real disadvantage. As I said before, this Govemment is interested in supporting its mates— the cronies, the Mike Gores, the Iwasakis and the Ted Lyonses. Yet Queenslanders receive the lowest level of service delivery of any State in Australia, which is an absolute disgrace. Because this Govemment's policies are targeted to specific interest groups that are hand in glove with it in the making of money for personal gain or the gain of a particular group, one cannot tmst this Govemment to make policies objectively about the things that all Queenslanders need. Queenslanders deserve an understanding and sympathetic Govemment that will try to provide the community with a basic infrastmcture of services that is at least equivalent to the level at which they are provided in other States. We do not get that in Queensland, which is outrageous. The real message that has come from the Fitzgerald inquiry is that Queensland has suffered maladministration at every level of service delivery; whether it be at the level of rezoning, the level of delivery of services or the level of who is in control, who understands and who knows what is going on in the police force. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (7.39 p.m.): I have pleasure in rising to speak to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, which was moved by my coUeague the member for Maryborough and seconded most ably by another colleague of mine, the honourable member for Toowoomba North. I endorse the support that those gentlemen gave to the Govemment, the Queen, the Govemor and the operation of this Govemment generally. All Government members are proud to affirm their allegiance to the Queen. On behalf of my electorate and my constituents, who are most assuredly right behind our constitutional monarchy and, of course. Her Majesty, whom we were so pleased to welcome to Queensland this year, I pledge my allegiance to the Crown.

I also pay tribute to the work of Her Majesty's representative in Queensland, Sir Walter CampbeU, and Lady Campbell. I thank them for the wonderful job that they are doing throughout this State and pray that their good health and work continue for many years to come. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to congratulate the newest member on the Government side, our new colleague, Mrs Judy Gamin, the member for South Coast. I do not think that any fair and reasonable person in this State could honestly say that Judy Gamin has not eamed her place in the Parliament. In spite of almost insurmountable odds she gained a place with dignity, and she will maintain that position as long as she desires to serve the people of South Coast. They can be proud of the support that they gave her and she can be proud of the way in which she came into this House. In my opening remarks I also take the opportunity to refer to one or two voting pattems that apphed in that by-election. A great deal of misinformation has been put abroad in respect of the problems, in the normal sense, that Judy Gamin had to overcome, as well as those problems that she had to overcome by innuendo. For instance, as I said, her win was quite magnificent. In fact, when the three-party position was assessed—in this State I think that is the way in which assessments should always be made—she received in excess of 36 per cent of the vote. Much was made about the tremendous drop-off of 19 per cent to the National Party. Quite frankly, that was hog- wash and a very selective use of figures. Mr Austin: What vote did Mr Hinze get in 1980?

Mr STONEMAN: In 1980 he received 44.12 per cent. I wiU go back further than that to the time when Mr Hinze had five candidates in opposition, whereas in this by- election Mrs Gamin had nine. That was in 1966, when he first stood. He followed the Address in Reply 6 September 1988 533 then Country Party member, Mr Gaven, who had a 77.48 per cent primary vote. The following year, with five candidates—therefore one has to be careful about making strict comparisons—Mr Hinze's primary vote fell by 47 per cent. That is the nature of by- elections. It is the nature of change from one member of long standing, who has an identity with an electorate, to a new member. Therefore, it is quite reasonable that the primary vote of Mrs Gamin would fall away. In fact, in those days, Mr Hinze ran second to the Liberal Party candidate, who received about 38 per cent of the vote and still could not win the seat. It is interesting that in the intervening period of some 22 years the Liberal Party vote fell from 37 per cent of the primary vote to something like 34 per cent or 35 per cent the next time that it tried to win the seat. That was when three parties contested the seat. I do not think that the Liberal Party has anything to crow about; nor do I think it has anything to be proud of However, as I indicated, Mrs Gamin certainly does. The National Party not only whole-heartedly supports her but looks forward to her being in this House for many, many years to come. There is no way in the world that anyone will shift her now. I point out that it is also worth noting from the figures that, with the exception of the notorious Whitlam years, that seat has always been decided on preferences. I will be brave enough to say that it will not be decided on preferences again for many years. Mr Austin: Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for the Leader of the Labor Party? Mr STONEMAN: Yes, but I think it is a fiery furnace. It is not a very pleasant light. The buzzards are starting to circle and the grave has been opened up even more by last week-end's result, which I will refer to in a moment. Mr Randell interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I cannot even spell their name. I think they have ceased to exist in terms of the community generally. I will discuss that matter a little later on. I wish to touch briefly on the referendum that was held on Saturday. Obviously, I am not unique in wanting to do that, because a number of Govemment members have already spoken about it today. I think that is reasonable, but it is our duty to place on the record of this Parliament what really happened and the assessment made by National Party members of the malicious attempt to tinker with the charter that guides Australia as a nation. It is interesting that not one single member of the opposition parties— either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party—wanted to talk about the referendum. They were not only absent today in every sense but also on Saturday. The absence in my electorate was quite remarkable. Mr Vaughan: What happened to your booth-workers? Mr STONEMAN: Let me tell the honourable member for Nudgee about the booth- workers. The honourable member would have been proud of members of the Labor Party who saw the writing on the wall in Burdekin at lunch-time and went home. However, I will grant them that, out of loyalty to the party that they support—and I do not take away their right to do that—at least they tumed up. They certainly had a difficult time getting the numbers and making sure that at least the main booths were manned. I suppose that approximately 50 per cent of the booths in Burdekin were manned by members of the Labor Party in the morning, but in the afternoon the people just drifted away. I must say, however, that those who claim to be upholders of States' rights, justice, goodness and free enterprise—all the things that Australians hold so dear—were nowhere to be seen at any stage. Of course, I am referring to members of the Liberal Party. I have been informed by my colleagues who represent areas right throughout the State that that was the pattem. Certainly, some members of the Liberal Party were at booths in the Brisbane area—it would have been devastating if they had not been—but in 534 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Townsville only four booths at the most were manned. Honourable members should not hold me to that figure as it is merely my understanding but the Liberal Party was not represented at all in the tougher electorates. People were coming up to National Party booth-workers and remarking about the absence. The honourable member for Nudgee will be pleased to know that the National Party had every booth manned, with the exception of perhaps one or two booths in outlying areas where the people said, "Look, don't worry. We know how to vote regardless of our political allegiance", and did so resoundingly. Mr Randell: Liberal Party members in Mackay found it very perplexing. They did not know which one of the three to hand out. Mr STONEMAN: Of course, that was the problem. Members of the Liberal Party did not know whether to be city of Brisbane Liberals, parliamentary Liberals, State party Liberals, or whether to be none of those. In most instances, they elected to be none of those. I think that that is a sad reflection on the Liberal Party because the stage has been reached in Queensland at which people who are interested in politics are not game to stand up and be counted. Even if they are wrong, they should have the courage of their convictions to follow through, so that the community knows where they stand. It is unfortunately the case that people know where the Liberals stood on Saturday—well behind the door, and a locked door at that, all day. Particularly as the performance of the Liberal Party relates to States' rights, I feel that that is a sad reflection on the policy deficiencies of the Liberal Party and on the alliance that the Liberal Party has formed with the Labor Party. I suppose that the honourable member for Nudgee is very worried about that, too. The point I wish to make is that no-one can take away Saturday's victory from the State Premier, Mr Mike Ahern, in the work that he has done. He threw himself totally behind supporting Judy Gamin in the by-election of South Coast. He won that by- election magnificently, and he won even more magnificently on Saturday. Having said that, I hasten to add that a win is a win, irrespective of whether it is by a nose in horse- racing, by one mn in cricket, or by one point in football. The Premier won two elections in a row, probably under the most difficult circumstances that any leader has had to face. He won with dignity and calmness. He has consolidated support for the Govemment because the people of this State know they are dealing with a man who is able to grapple with difficult circumstances and come through with dignity and calmness. They are the qualities that people look for in a leader. The unholy alliance has failed, and failed miserably. The referendum votes counted in the Brisbane city area show that question No. 2 was supported, which was a point made eariier by the member for Wolston. The honourable member said that the Brisbane area was totally supportive of question No. 2. On the face of it, that is reasonable comment because the votes indicated support in percentage terms. When one looks at that vote, one must remember that there was an alliance between the Labor and Liberal Parties right across the board—the Brisbane City Council, the Queensland Liberal Party and the Queensland parliamentary Labor Party—in respect of question No. 2. Together these two great bastions of free enterprise who represent the people of this State were only able to gain overall a 3.86 per cent margin in the highly populated area of Brisbane. The people of this city have said, "Hang on. There is another side to this story. We do not believe this." Both of those votes should have been of the order of 65 or 70 per cent across the board; yet in seats such as Petrie the Labor Party, together with its Liberal colleagues, went Ijack almost 1.5 per cent in total on the two-party preferred position in 1987. In Lilley the vote fell by 4 per cent and in Ryan—the electorate of the leader of the Liberal Party organisational wing in this State, Mr John Moore—the Labor two-party vote increased by only 11 per cent. That is a blue-ribbon Liberal seat. The conclusion that I draw is that when it comes down to tin tacks the Liberal Party really does not have the support. It has support by default. I will not go through the other seats in the city, but there were more minuses than pluses. However, in electorates such as Groom the Labor/Liberal combined vote decreased. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 535

Mr Milliner: You're got to remember that if you translate that vote in the metropolitan area to your colleague Mrs Nelson and others they are dead ducks. Mr STONEMAN: I will accept that interjection, because my initial reaction was that there was a problem. However, when one analyses it, as I suggest the honourable member should one finds that the opposite is in fact the case. I am comfortable with the fact that generally the people of Brisbane have said that they accept the need to recognise the varied requirements within the State. They believe that their country cousins deserve their support and they are not prepared to give away the treasured and valued processes of the last 40 years for political expediency. Forty years ago Ned Hanlon and his colleagues recognised the position. The Queensland Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has his base, albeit a very short-term base, in the electorate of Kennedy. He has aligned himself with members of the Opposition against States' rights and balanced representation. I am unable to say whether there were any Liberal Party booth workers in Mount Isa. This Govemment will check and make the people of this State aware of what happened in the electorate of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. In the electorate of Kennedy the Labor primary vote decreased by more than 10 per cent. This is a shocking indictment in an area which should have seen a resounding victory for the Labor/Liberal alliance, had it been realistic. That position prevails right across the far-flung areas of the State. The people have walked away from the proposals put forward in the referendum. The referendum was seen for what it was: a sham and political opportunism. The Federal Govemment was using the euphoria of the bicen­ tennial year in the most despicable way. The people recognised that and there is a great deal of common sense out in the electorate. Fortunately the people recognise the drift of the Liberal Party towards the Left and their vote is a strong indication of the recognition of these socialist central views. I move on from that enlightening but unsavoury position created by the referendum to one or two local matters which particularly relate to my electorate. First and foremost I refer to the areas of local govemment that overlap in parts of my electorate. The Burdekin Shire is a major part of my electorate. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new members of that shire council. Councillors Woods and Davies in Home Hill, and Treena List—honourable members will be pleased to know that the Burdekin has lady councillors—in Division I. I am sure she will do a marvellous job there, as will Councillor Les Searle in Division III, who is also well known as one of the hierarchy of the cane-growers in this State. He is a man with a great deal of perception in that industry. In Thuringowa City, Councillor Dan Gleeson was again supported. In the area in which I live, which is Division III, we have a new councUlor, Ennio Gazziola. I wish him all the best. In addition, I wish to pay tribute to former Councillor Pat Meehan, who unfortunately during the course of the council election was in Brisbane undergoing major heart surgery. Because of complications from that operation, he was unable to present himself properly to the people and was unfortunately defeated. In paying tribute to Pat Meehan, who, I am also proud to say, is a very close neighbour and friend of mine, I say that he epitomised the basic decency that I beheve is found throughout local govemment across this State. He is a gentleman of the first order. I can pay no other accolade that would place him on a higher pedestal. I sincerely pay that tribute to him and to his family. The Dalrymple Shire is probably the largest land mass in my electorate. There was no particular change in the personalities there. However, while I am speaking of the Dalrymple Shire, I take the opportunity to mention that the last 12 months has seen the opening of a major tourist resort, one that is probably the largest tourist resort not located right on the coast in this State. The Wilderness Lodge at the Burdekin Falls Dam is approximately 220 kilometres south west of Townsville, located right on the banks of Lake Dalrymple, the lake which is formed by the Burdekin Falls Dam. That resort has been constmcted by those entrepreneurs of increasing fame, the Coutts brothers 536 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

of Ayr. The Coutts brothers own the Queensland Station Structure, a chain of hotels and other business operations such as grocery stores and all sorts of other retail outlets right throughout north Queensland. I am proud to be associated with them, as are all the people who know them, for the simple reason that they put their money where their mouth is. They support the local district and they put everything they earn back into the district. In fact, I guess they could be said to be entrepreneurs and supporters of north Queensland in the ultimate sense. I certainly wish them well in all their endeavours, but particularly with Wilderness Lodge. Because Wilderness Lodge is a long way inland and at the end of the road, its development will be very difficult. It is a new concept in tourism accommodation and stmctures. I believe it has a great deal to commend it. Those who were fortunate enough to have been at the opening or to have visited there since could not be other than most impressed with the way in which it has been developed. Some of the buildings that were surplus after the constmction of the Burdekin Falls Dam have been used. The area has been made extremely attractive with a great deal of quite expensive beautification. It is an outstanding concept. Mr Vaughan: What is the main activity out there? Mr STONEMAN: The main activity is the support of free enterprise. Mr Vaughan: No. If I went there, what would I do? Mr STONEMAN: The honourable member could do virtually anything, such as water-ski, swim, just sit back and have a drink with his famUy—it is a family resort— play tennis or even ride a camel. Mr Vaughan: Is there any fishing? Mr STONEMAN: Yes. I hope that before not too long there will be fishing. In fact, I am proud to be part of the processes that are looking at the stocking of that dam. Concem has been expressed that the dam wall will preclude barramundi from moving up the river. That is a fact of life. Consideration is being given to stocking the waters upstream from the wall with barramundi or with a species of fish that can breed in its own right. Mr Vaughan: What sort is that? Mr STONEMAN: I am a great believer in trying yellow belly. Most people who have a knowledge of inland rivers suggest that that is an appropriate fish. Whether a trial will work on the coastal side of the Great Dividing Range—yellow belly is largely an inland fish—I am not too sure. However, that is something for the future. The Coutts brothers are placing great emphasis on the need for the Govemment and everyone else to support that sort of entrepreneurial activity. I am sure that Mr Vaughan will be most delighted when he goes up there. He is welcome at any time. Mr Smith: How would the yellow belly go up there? Mr STONEMAN: We will deal with that at another time. We have discussed the yellow belly. It is a pity you were not Mr Vaughan: It's all right, I'll brief him. Mr STONEMAN: I thank the honourable member for Nudgee. My aim for the balance of my term is to broaden the economic base of the Burdekin electorate generally and thus to broaden the economic base of north Queensland. It is not only commendable but also necessary for all members to try to achieve that goal, given that Queensland is largely dependent on primary industry and will continue to be dependent on primary industry over the years, including mining. Tourism plays a major part in our economy, but not to the degree that it should in the Townsville region, which is the region of my electorate area. That economic base Address in Reply 6 September 1988 537 needs to be broadened to ensure that tourism continues to grow, along with agriculture, which will be there for ever, and the manufacturing industry. Not only will the manufacturing industry grow in the Townsville and Thuringowa city areas, but, as a result of the Queensland Government's initiative with the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone, it will be supported in so many other ways. The declaration in itself does not necessarily automatically mean that overnight there will be huge new industries. However, it provides a catalyst so that, if it is at all possible, that development will take place. Certainly it has the capacity to assist developments in my electorate, in which there are large sugar-milling operations which have the capacity to tum to things such as paper-pulping. The service industry and the growth of Govemment departments need to be contained. I am pleased and proud to be a part of a Govemment that is doing just that. There is no progress without pain, and there is no reduction in service personnel without pain. However, it is being done in a businesslike manner. I congratulate the Finance Minister for the great work that he is doing in that area, along with all the other Ministers under the leadership of Mike Ahern. I am concemed in a specific sense that somehow or other public facilities should be built for the people of Alligator Creek, which is just outside Townsville. The difficulty is that it is an area without a heart in the sense that it is attached to Townsville because that is where the people work. It is an area of five-acre blocks to which people move for a different type of environment to raise their families. Alligator Creek needs a centre at which the people can gather. Whether that be in the form of a facility, such as a school, I see that as being the major need for the area. Those people have no facility to come home to or to gather at in the general sense. I am very supportive of any initiatives that move towards that. In any development such as the Burdekin Dam project, we should make sure that the water is secured and the processes are secured for existing farmers. I instance in particular the farmers in my own settlement area of Gim and Rita Island, which have been two major problem areas during the past drought years. Dialogue is continuing with the Minister for Water Resources and his department in that respect. I tum now to the Townsville city and region. In any development it is vital that the area be promoted as a region, not merely as Townsville or Thuringowa; that it be the Townsville general region. Reference has been made to the Magnetic North region. However, Caims is to the north with its reef and its rainforests; Mackay is to the south with its islands. I have referred in this House previously to what I believe could be justifiably called the Townsville 100-mile wonderland. That takes in the area north of Cardwell, west to Charters Towers, south to Bowen and, of course, east out to the reef When one considers the potential attractions that are contained within that area, one realises that it is probably one of the most diverse tourism areas anywhere in the world. TownsviUe has an administration that, unfortunately, at times seems to think that Townsville is the be-all and end-all of the world. Townsville is a very large city, and it is growing. However, it has to be recognised that Townsville takes in the Burdekin area, Ayr, Home Hill, Gim, Charters Towers, the Burdekin Falls Dam, Cardwell, Hinchinbrook, Ingham and, of course, Doug Tarca's floating hotel and so on. Unless the administration of Townsville realises that and promotes the region, or takes the lead in promoting the region generally, Townsville will never grow to the extent that it should. I know that that growth will be enhanced considerably by the new system that will supply water to Townsville and, hopefully, green it up. I congratulate the Queensland Govemment on that move. I am sure that, on behalf of his constituents, the member for Townsville East is grateful for the support that the Queensland Govemment has given to the constmction of that pipeline from the Haughton River. I know that the member for TownsviUe East, along with the Mayor of Townsville and, undoubtedly, his colleague the member for Thuringowa, will be devastated by the way in which the Federal member for Herbert, Mr Ted Lindsay, has let the community 538 6 September 1988 Address in Reply down. Quite frankly, there are no other words for it. The Mayor of Townsville is on record as saying that he is devastated. In fact, as has been suggested, I think that Mayor Reynolds scents blood, and it is Ted Lindsay's blood. Unfortunately, he will be out of luck even if he gets endorsement over Ted Lindsay's body because as has been seen over the week-end, the National Party is quite frankly going to sweep all before it. Mr Mackenroth: You can't translate that mbbish into votes at elections. You must be smoking some of that funny weed. Mr STONEMAN: I have stmck a very sensitive chord. The two-party preferred vote in Townsville dropped by 11.23 per cent. Mr Sherrin: You'd think they would be used to losing by now, wouldn't you? Mr Mackenroth: Mr Sherrin, if you believe what he is saying, you would lose on Saturday's results. Mr STONEMAN: No. In fact, the figures show that the National Party and free enterprise is in the ascendency in this State. It is certainly a very touchy subject with the Opposition. I believe that Ted Lindsay has let the people of north Queensland down badly. He has shown that he obviously does not have the support of Prime Minister Hawke, because Mr Hawke has written him off. In fact, Ted Lindsay's obituary was almost written at the opening of the Burdekin Falls Dam when the Prime Minister waxed eloquent about him and then went home without giving him a single extra dollar. The Burdekin area generally is facing an exciting future. There will be a gradual extension of farms. The support that the area has received from this Govemment is gratifying to all north Queenslanders. I conclude by congratulating all those involved in bring to fmition the magnificent Burdekin Falls Dam project. I wish the Govemment, Premier Mike Ahem, His Excellency and all of those involved the very best for the remainder of the year. Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (8.09 p.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my personal loyalty and that of the people of Ashgrove to the Crown in the person of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty is represented with distinction by the Govemor of Queensland, the Honourable Sir Walter Campbell, who is supported by a gracious lady. Many of the residents of my electorate are greatly encouraged by the recent decision to celebrate Australia Day on the historic date of 26 January. We pledge our loyalty to this great country. In the course of my speech I will canvass a number of matters of interest and concern to my electorate of Ashgrove and also touch upon matters concerning my shadow responsibilities. Since my election to office I have been impressed with the work of many community agencies in Mitchelton, Keperra, Enoggera, The Gap and Ashgrove. I refer not only to clubs such as Rotary, Lions and Apex, but also to the Retumed Services League and services clubs located at Gaythome, which is one of the largest in the State, Ashgrove and The Gap. Their social welfare committees act not only in support of returned servicemen and women and their families but also in the broader community. Time does not permit me to mention the names of all those involved as they are far too numerous. However, I mention the former president of the Gaythome RSL, the late Bert White, and the late Mr Ron Farrell, who died recently. The tireless work of both those gentlemen is sadly missed. The work of the churches in Ashgrove is also exemplary. The Sisters of Charity are well known for their work at Mount Olivet Hospital. This year they celebrate 150 years of service in Australia. They were the first Catholic nuns to come to the young Australian colonies last century. They have served the community in public and private hospitals. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 539 in hospices for the dying, in schools, in conducting orphanages and in caring for the sufferers of contemporary social ills such as alcoholism and AIDS. On 8 October they celebrate a special mass at St Peter Chanel Church at The Gap. The Catholic Church's Centre Care Program and the Anglican Family Care Program provide counselling and much-needed help to needy families. The community care committee of the Ashgrove West and Ashgrove/Alderley parish of the Uniting Church is a great example of a small group of dedicated workers who each week provide a program for elderly folk who are confined to home, offering welcomed respite to those who care for them. The Open Door at St John's Anglican parish provides a similar service. The senior citizens groups at Ashgrove and Mitchelton, together with the Mitchelton Pensioners Club, provide valuable services. The Ashgrove Baptist Church is a wonderful example of Christian outreach. Established in 1934 in Ashgrove, the church is growing in stature in the community. Last Saturday I was very privUeged to open a new worship centre and youth complex at Ashgrove. This is a wonderful example of the church's relating to the contemporary community needs. Parking has been provided for 163 cars. Child-care facilities, a place where young people can meet and call their own and facilities for high-tech audio and visual techniques have been provided. The new church is estimated to cost $l'/2m and was built by project management and the local parish support for a mere $940,000. My electorate includes Enoggera army barracks, which is the principal army establishment in Queensland and headquarters of Australia's First Military Division. In addition, many service personnel live in defence forces accommodation at Mitchelton, Keperra, Enoggera and The Gap, whilst an increasing number of defence forces families have purchased their own homes in nearby suburbs. It is well known that in recent times defence forces throughout Australia have suffered severe cut-backs in Federal Government spending. Defence is an issue that I will not pursue here, but history has demonstrated that a lack of military preparedness is fundamentally unsound. However, the cut-backs to which I referred make life extremely difficult for defence forces personnel, making service conditions unattractive to large numbers and, for some people in the services, intolerable. So we see an increasing number of military personnel leaving the services—personnel of all ranks from private soldiers to quite senior officers. I will not go into the conditions of service in terms of salaries and opportunities for promotion, the lack of essential equipment, adequate budgets for exercises and so on, but I will take the opportunity to canvass some of the problems experienced by army families. First and foremost, the Federal Labor Govemment's tight budgetary policies have resulted in a large number of translocations. Defence forces personnel of all ranks are moved, on average, at intervals of less than two years. Families are uprooted. It is not uncommon for a soldier serving 20 years to have 10 or 12 moves during that time. Goodness knows what enormous cost is involved in the removal and re-establishment, but there are expenses that are of a more sensitive nature. Let me focus, for example, on education for families. It is quite ridiculous that a syllabus in schools should vary from State to State. The National Consultative Group of Service Spouses has a very active south-east Queensland regional group and area groups at Enoggera, Keperra, Ashgrove and The Gap. They have strongly lobbied the Queensland Minister for Education and the Federal Minister for Education, drawing to their attention the problems faced by families—I might add that it is not restricted solely to the defence forces—who are required to move interstate during years of their children's prime-time education. Army families are seeking a curriculum of core subjects and a national standard of assessment, which will require a great deal of consultation and ideally should be overseen by the Australian Education Council—that body of State Ministers of Education coming together. It is important that the establishment of that core curriculum and standard of assessment be arrived at by negotiation rather than by edict from Canberra. 540 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

I note that the Queensland Teachers Union supports the view of army families for centrally issued Junior certificates to be retained, which would assist teenage children in their transitional education at secondary level from State to State. Let me give a simple example of the difficulties that have been experienced by a young service family with twin boys which moved from Melbourne to Queensland earlier this year. In Victoria the twins attended a State school in Year 1. As active children they quickly leamed to do simple sums, write sentences and read simple books. In fact, their schools records list the books that they have been able to read in a few months. In Queensland, in July of this year they were assessed by our Education Department to be pre-school children. When the mother inquired as to the curriculum for pre­ schoolers, she was told that they leam simple art, colours, shapes and sizes. The mother quickly realised that her children had gone far beyond that standard. However, she was advised that the twins would still have to start school in Queensland next year all over again. The department was completely unsympathetic to her problems. The principal of the school, who is familiar with the problems confronting army personnel, was prepared to accept the children but contended that that was not feasible because his decision would be overturned by the Education Department. That service mother has no alternative but to start her children again at school next year, which is not good for their social and educational development. At a later time when that mother finds that she has been posted interstate, once again her children will be behind the eight ball in that State. I place on record my acknowledgement of the excellent work that is done in the community by the Enoggera Army Progress Association, which was incorporated in Febmary of this year. The aims of that association, which was formally created at a public meeting in July 1987, may be summarised as foUows— • to provide early child-care facilities not adequately provided in the wider community; • to encourage participation in community activities by army families; • to provide a fomm of communication between representatives of the Australian Defence Families Information Liaison Staff, commonly known as ADFILS, and family groups within the defence force network; and • to provide a vehicle for contact with local. State and Federal Government agencies. In the period of a little more than a year the major success of the Enoggera Army Progress Association has been the establishment earlier this year of a kindergarten and occasional-care centre known as Rainbow Corner. That project had a difficult gestation which arose from the non-provision of funds. The association realised that funds would not be available from Government sources until the kindergarten and pre-school were up and mnning. As a result, initially the centre charged fees and received a large amount of financial support from various units in all arms of the defence forces. Whereas the Commonwealth Government has indicated that it cannot fund the project, since May it has appointed a full-time public servant to manage the facility on a trial basis. An approach has been made to the Education Department for funding for the pre-school part of the centre. I draw to the attention of the Minister for Education the needs of army families. The pre-school and occasional-care centre was created from two existing married quarters by converting them with the assistance of army units, which contributed a sum of $20,000 towards the project. I pay tribute to the work of various army personnel at all levels of the service and to their spouses who, of their own volition, got that project up and mnning in an extremely short period. I strongly support Education Department assistance for the pre­ school part of the centre. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 541

Other aspects of army needs include Australiawide consultation between State Transport Ministers to enable service personnel to facilitate the transfer of registration of their domestic vehicles interstate and to gain easy access to the issue of drivers' licences throughout Australia. Let me tum now to the question of defence force housing, which is a Federal responsibility but reflects very poorly indeed on the Hawke/Keating Govemment and its approach to the defence forces, forcing their families to live in substandard housing conditions—almost welfare-type conditions. A working party of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses recently undertook an inspection of a group of houses in my electorate in Enoggera. The findings of that group indicate appalling insensitivity to the needs of army families. The floors in 90 per cent of those houses are covered with poor quality linoleum; the ceihngs sag; the kitchens are substandard, with little or non-existent shelving; many laundries are located outside the house; many of the houses are infested with cockroaches; and security grilles and so on are non-existent. The generaUy neglected houses are a factor of major concern to soldiers and their families. For many young soldiers, such houses are their introduction to army married quarters and are certainly not conducive to longevity of service. Houses in that part of Enoggera are the same age as houses at Wacol but in far worse condition. All the houses at Wacol have been disposed of The inspection party concluded that the houses in the Enoggera area are substandard and have been maintained in such a poor state of disrepair that they are unable to be upgraded. The party contends that the houses should be disposed of as a matter of urgency, and the land, which is in close proximity to Enoggera barracks, should be redeveloped with housing of more appropriate design and landscaped with open space for children to play. I tum now to one of the major main roads that goes through the electorate of Ashgrove, and I refer to Route 20. Members will recall that last year in the debate of the Estimates of the Department of Main Roads I called upon the Govemment to build a ring road west of Mount Coot-tha and Enoggera reservoir and to urgently address a plan to take traffic out of the quiet residential suburbs. It is of fundamental importance that the value of properties and the life-styles of the residents of Ashgrove, Dorrington and Enoggera be maintained and that safe access to residential properties is achieved consistent with safe traffic flow. It is important that the views of the whole community are reflected, and this is the aim of the current environmental and social impact study that is being undertaken. That study was announced in Febmary by the Minister—I might add after he had been approached by me and my Liberal colleagues in this House and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane City. The cloud of confusion that exists about Route 20 was caused initially by the failure of the Govemment to reveal its plans, and was added to during the city council elections in March by some hysterical campaigning, primarily by the Labor Party, in which much misinformation was distributed. This hysteria caused an enormous amount of emotional distress to residents not only on the route but in the streets nearby. It was blatant pre­ election hype. Route 20 was clearly not a city council issue; it is a State matter. The Minister for Main Roads is the only Minister with authority over Route 20. However, it is too important an issue to be bogged down by political wrangles. I personally welcome the current halt in planning while the long-overdue environmental and social impact study is undertaken. I am strongly encouraging my constituents to take part in it. The Govemor's Opening Speech to Parliament refers to a major hospital-building program worth $95m. We see the continuance of the crane mentaUty that pervades this National Party Govemment. It develops more and more real estate while the real health care services are not improved. 542 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

The cardiac intensive care wing at Prince Charles Hospital, opened with a fanfare prior to the 1986 general election, has a throughput of patients now that is only a little higher than its level two years ago, when that new centre was opened. The Gold Coast Hospital stands with wards still unopened. Both hospitals are very clear examples of funding not being available for staff and essential equipment. We are familiar with the example of the Kirwan Women's Hospital in Townsville, which stood unopened for 12 months because of lack of staff. Today Kirwan Women's Hospital has just over 40 patients and an operating budget of $7m. It is a very fine matemity hospital with a very high standard of neonatal care. However, it is located some 5 or 6 kilometres from the Townsville General Hospital, built on its present site because of a political decision. It is estimated that the same hospital, with the same number of patients, could operate at the Townsville General Hospital on a budget of half that amount, approximately $3m. The nearby Mater Private Hospital operates with the same level of funding as Kirwan—$7m—but treats 100 patients, which is twice the number treated at Kirwan. Let me tum now to address health issues at Hervey Bay. Hervey Bay has a 40-bed hospital that is only half used. In 1984, the cottage hospital was extended at a cost of $4.5m. At that time, the population was 13 000 but it has since doubled. At that time also, a new operating theatre was built. To this date, the theatre has not been equipped and it stands unused, as do the labour wards. The hospital has one medical officer only and nursing and ancillary staff to support 20 beds. The other 20 beds are empty, although waiting-lists exist for people to get into hospital. Patients who require ancillary services, such as physiotherapy, use a coach service provided by the ambulance brigade to attend Maryborough Hospital. The round trip takes from four to six hours. By the time the people have had their physiotherapy treatment and get home, they need treatment again. Twenty-two per cent of the population in Hervey Bay is over the age of 55. Many of the people are retired. All of the surgical work for the area is done at Maryborough Hospital. Nothing is done in the brand-spanking-new hospital theatre in Hervey Bay Hospital that was opened in 1984. The creation of tmly autonomous hospital boards, operating on a block grant system of funding, should be encouraged so that hospital boards can maintain their own affairs and put an accent on health-care services for the community. If such a course were adopted, it would do much to redress the imbalance. These boards must have the ability to be entrepreneurial, to provide more effective management, to take into account local conditions, and to have local input. There is a need to provide a suitable environment for private and public hospitals to co-exist in a complementary and competitive environment. However, it is also entirely desirable that State hospitals throughout Queensland should eventually be accredited by a process that is similar to the discipline that private hospitals must subject themselves to. The regulations that apply to private hospitals should be recognised in State hospitals, but they are not. I acknowledge that that recognition could be a costly exercise. However, if the Govemment is to lift the quality of health care provided in this State commensurate with what is required, it must commit itself to that aim. In the meantime, quality assurance programs should be implemented in State hospitals to ensure high standards of treatment and care for patients. Adequate staff resources and facilities that are commensurate with the needs of a particular region should be provided. It is absolutely vital that people from the local community should have input into regional health-care services and should be represented on hospital boards. It is time that politics was taken out of hospital boards in Queensland. Let me turn now to discuss mental health services which, historically, have failed to enjoy Govemment or private support that is comparable to mainstream health-care facilities. A need exists for an overall increase in the public awareness of mental illness and to provide better community education on mental health. There is a need to review the allocation of funding for mental health on a planned, continuous basis rather than in an ad hoc crisis environment. The people of Queensland have seen examples of that Address in Reply 6 September 1988 543 in recent times—for example, the staffing crisis in the psychiatric ward at Toowoomba hospital, which led to the resignation of the director of that unit, Dr David Lyness. The problems of that ward are still not resolved. $20,000 spent on new paint has not improved the lot of psychiatric patients who are still in need of a director of psychiatric services and StiU in need of sufficient psychiatrists to control a reasonable caseload. Again the ad hoc stop-gap reaction was evident when the highly qualified Health Department team was sent to the psychiatric unit at Townsville hospital in response to what can only be described as appalling conditions in the ward. The need exists to consider the status of all Queensland's major psychiatric hospitals and whether that needs to be progressively changed so that they offer a more efficient and effective service. Consideration should be given to the integration of Statewide management of mental health services with other health services by the restmcturing of hospital boards. Enlightened, effective management and the involvement of local expertise and local knowledge in decision-making and policy development are also needed. Australian mental health statistics are a cause of real concem because one person in four in this country will suffer a mental iUness during his or her hfe-time. Three miUion Australians suffer from a mental Ulness that wiU interfere in some way with their daily lives. Each year there are 20 000 new cases of mental illness in this country and the cost of mental illness Australiawide is estimated to be $3.5 biUion annually; $2 billion is spent on formal medical services and the remaining $1.5 biUion is lost as a result of absenteeism from work and subsequent loss of production. More importantly, there are the social costs created by mental illness, including the stress on families, dismption of marriage, child abuse, crime, violence, attempted suicide and other accidents. These costs are impossible to estimate in dollar terms and impossible to comprehend in human terms. Currently, 1.2 miUion AustraUans have a mental illness for which they receive prescribed dmgs. It is estimated that a further one miUion Australians are using non­ prescription medication, and a further 800 000 are estimated to be either coping with their illness by suffering in silence or abusing alcohol or some other dmg in an attempt to cope. Mental illness accounts for about 10 per cent of the total cost of Australia's formal health system—about $12 biUion. However, only 4 per cent of the National Health and Medical Research Council's budget for 1987 was directed towards mental health, that is, $2.45m out of a total budget of $63m, or a mere 15c per Australian. That is the amount of money that the Federal Labor Govemment gives AustraUans to deal with the mental health issue in this country. Many indirect costs are applicable to those who are directly or indirectly affected by mental iUness. The families of the sufferer frequently endure great hardship due to supporting relatives who are ill and need moral and financial support themselves. Approximately one in 160 people in Australia are treated in hospital annually for mental illness. Mentally ill patients are estimated to occupy almost a quarter of aU public hospital bed days. Approximately 35 per cent of aU public psychiatric patients and 50 per cent of all private psychiatric patients are aged between 25 and 44 years. It must be recognised that this age group is the major economic and social force in the community and therefore there is an urgent need for Govemments, health care workers and the community in general to take more effective mental health promotion and mental ill- health preventative programs more seriously. In addition to the steady ageing of Australia's population, the number of people suffering from dementia wiU increase by 75 per cent by the end of this century and by 150 per cent by the year 2020. There is much to be done in the areas of awareness and understanding of mental health and mental illness in regard to research, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and care of patients. Funding arrangements for mental health care must be addressed and generally the same procedures must be used as those for physical health care. The policies of the State Govemment must encourage the provision and expansion of private mental health facilities and services to complement those provided by the State. In terms of legislation, there is a need to provide an appropriate balance between the medical needs 544 6 September 1988 Address in Reply of patients and their civil liberties, at the same time paying proper regard to the interests of their families and the community. It is important to have legislation in place that will both protect patients and also provide appropriate care and treatment. With reference to examples such as the alleged high dosage regimens in the psychiatric ward of the Townsville Hospital and the allegations about the Chelmsford institution in New South Wales, the introduction of a patients complaints unit must be considered. This is necessary not only in the area of mental health, but also across the whole health spectmm in order that the rights of people who feel that they have been disadvantaged can be protected. It is important that this unit be made up of investigators rather than advocates so that it becomes a filtering mechanism for legitimate claims where those who feel disadvantaged can be assessed. I turn now to my profession, pharmacy. I have some 30 years' experience in the practice of pharmacy. I have no doubt that private practice pharmacists in local communities deliver the most effective and consumer responsive service. The local chemist provides a wealth of professional advice, acts as a source of information on the availability of a wide range of health resources and services and provides a mechanism for the distribution of health education and information in local areas. In Queensland there is a long-supported philosophy that pharmacies should be owned and controlled only by pharmacists. I wam about the practice now appearing that seeks to have non-pharmacists and public companies owning and operating pharmacies, particularly in large shopping centres. Not only would this be detrimental to the profession, which has rigorously maintained its own standards, but also there is the danger that the introduction of ownership of a profession by a non-professional may lead to the employment of the wrong motives and even to exploitation centred on the profit motive. This is not to say that any businessman, any professional, worth his salt will not strive to make his business or profession profitable, but that should not be the central driving force. The pharmacy profession is concerned about the tendency towards ownership by non-pharmacists and will strongly resist these moves. The medical profession faces similar threats. This State has developers who now seek to incorporate ownership of medical practices in the hands of entrepreneurs. Companies are naturally keen to make a profit; their motives are profit driven. Indeed, they have a responsibility to share-holders to make a profit. Many of these establishments of the Edelsten type are attractive on the outside. They bulk bill, a mechanism made easy by the current spendthrift Federal Government with its costly and wasteful Medicare program. Burgeoning costs have to be supported, so over-servicing results. If clinics owned by entrepreneurial companies rather than by medical practitioners are allowed to proliferate, they will seriously undermine the practice of community-based medicine by general practitioners. In conclusion, let me make clear the voting record of the Liberal Party in this House, which has been alluded to by some in this debate. Let me make clear that in the first session of this Forty-fifth Parliament, voting took place in this House on 2 814 occasions and on 2 712 of those occasions the Liberal Party voted with the Govemment. In divisions, on 92 occasions the Liberal Party voted with the ALP and on 58 with the Govemment. However, let me remind the House that on 11 occasions the Liberal Party voted alone against major legisaltion, the National Party voting with the ALP. In the last week of the first session of this Parliament in April, on four occasions the National Party and the ALP got together. The Liberal Party stood alone when voting on the Stamp Act Amendment Bill, a dreadful piece of legislation about which we wamed the House—legislation that has been damned by the business community and the legal profession in this State. Let me remind the House that on 24 occasions this Government has gagged debate on major legislation or procedures in this place, including such far-reaching legislation as the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and Another Act Amendment BiU, the Dmgs Misuse Act Amendment Bill and the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act Amendment Bill. Public servants should take note that on 20 April, in Address in Reply 6 September 1988 545 the last week and towards the end of the session, the Government gagged debate on the Public Officers' Retirements Bill, the Public Service Management and Employment Bill and the Financial Administration and Audit Act and Another Act Amendment Bill, all in the same day. Only the Liberals have demonstrated that we are credible. Only the Liberals have demonstrated that we are stable, jesponsible and accountable. We stand on that in this place and stand on that in the State of Queensland. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (8.38 p.m.): I join with my colleagues who have previously paid tribute to the Governor and offered their allegiance to the Govemor and our Sovereign. In doing so I also join with my colleagues in commending the Govemor on the dignified way in which he has carried out his duties on his travels through the State and the manner in which he handles his responsibUities. I also have pleasure in welcoming to the Parliament and to the parliamentary National Party Judy Gamin, who was the best candidate in the South Coast electorate— something which was recognised by the electors of South Coast. In the last few weeks two major events have often been mentioned in this House. One is the South Coast by-election and the other is the referendum. Basically that is covering old ground, but some lessons must come out of the South Coast by-election. One lesson is that there was no joy in the result for Labor and another is that the Independents found no joy in the result, either. Another lesson was that it was a triumph for Mike Ahern as our leader. Another observation that can be made about the South Coast by-election is that, when I spent a day campaigning in that area, I noticed that many traditional Liberal voters had come from interstate. In those circumstances, one would expect the Liberal vote on the South Coast to increase. It is easy for Liberal Party members to say that the National Party was returned in the South Coast because of Labor preferences. However, they must remember that our primary vote was better than the Liberal Party vote in that by-election. That is a fact of hfe that they cannot deny. I tum now to the referendum. The result showed the common sense of the people throughout this State and throughout Australia. It indicated to me that equality of representation is what it is all about. My electorate is 10 750 square kilometres in area. It adjoins the Bundaberg electorate—Mr Campbell's electorate—which is 30 square kilometres in area. I acknowledge that there is a disparity in voting numbers in that Mr Campbell's electorate has approximately 19 000 voters and I have approximately 14 000. However, in my area I have several shire councils, several show societies, several organisations, 32 primary schools and two high schools to represent. It takes me two hours to get from one side of my electorate to the other side. Mr Campbell can virtually walk around his electorate. If the present system were altered, the area of Bundaberg would be split. Would that be in the interests of Mr Campbell electorally? I cannot understand how he could support the referendum in his own interests. The other aspect is that the city would be divided, the media would be divided and the people would be confused with representation. In my electorate, the result of the referendum was a triumph for equality of representation. It was a scandalous waste of over $40m by the Federal Labor Govemment. The people of Queensland and the rest of Australia rejected it on the basis that they did not want to give more power to a centralist Government in Canberra. The Labor Government in Canberra is said to be giving good, sound economic management. However I suggest that the sound economic management is basically derived from an unprecedented rise in commodity prices—strong commodity prices; in other words, luck and not management. Imports are still flooding into this country at an horrific rate. Australia's balance of trade deficit last month was $1.6 billion—a blow­ out. Yet what is happening in society? Under a Labor Federal Government, the rich are getting richer, the middle classes are getting poorer, and we are seeing a situation in which the Govemment is surviving economically on a surge in commodity prices. Yet 546 6 September 1988 Address in Reply even despite that surge in commodity prices, Australia has a blow-out in its international trading position. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr CampbeU interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! There are too many interjections. It is obvious that the member who is speaking does not wish to take any interjections. Mr SLACK: I am representing basically a country electorate. Under this Federal Govemment, that country electorate has been stripped continually of benefits that go through to the country people. Over a period, the country people have had an erosion of their depreciation benefits. Recently, in the last Budget, the Austudy allowance was tied to a means test, as is the pension. The sum of $300,000 sounds like a lot of money. The person who owns a business or a farm is aUowed another $150,000, or 50 per cent of the $300,000, which makes a total of $450,000. That person is allowed to exclude his home. Although applicants have not been advised properly, I am informed by the Social Security Department and the Taxation Department that the home exemption is worked out on the sale value of a house of a similar type in the nearest country town. Mr Davis interjected. Mr SLACK: Houses do not sell very well. At present one could add $30,000 or $40,000 for the home. That comes to a figure of under $500,000. I suggest to members of this Parliament and to the members of the Federal Labor Govemment who introduced this provision that that is not a living area in a country situation. Mr Davis interjected. Mr SLACK: The honourable member should listen to this. That is not a living area. An examination of any economic report on mral living would reveal that return on capital ranges between 2 and 4 per cent. Four per cent is $20,000 a year; 2 per cent is $10,000 a year. These people wUl be denied Austudy for their children. I tum to the removal of the embargo on sugar and the wheat stabilisation situation where deregulation is making the position very unsure for people living in country areas. I do not speak against imports from New Zealand on the basis that Australia has close trade links with New Zealand, but deregulation will cause a major problem for the dairy industry. That is a problem that this Govemment has got to come to terms with, but it is not a problem of the Govemment's making. Earlier in this debate the member for Toowoomba North referred to the Russian fishing vessels working off the Australian coastline. Honourable members know that in the area along the coast there is some conflict of interest between professional fishermen and amateur fishermen. It is claimed that there are not enough fish to go around. Yet the Federal Govemment suggests that Russian fishing vessels be allowed to come in. Less money is being made available for water resources Mr De Lacy: You don't know what you're talking about. Mr SLACK: I suggest to the member for Caims that I do know what I am talking about. To suggest that I do not know what I am talking about indicates that he does not know what he is talking about. Recently the Queensland Govemment committed $5m extra to the Bumett/Isis irrigation scheme. What did the Federal Govemment do? It made a big song and dance in the local press in my area about a supposed commitment by it to the scheme. That money was already committed under an Act in 1981, yet the Federal Government made Address in Reply 6 September 1988 547

a big announcement to make it appear that it had just been generous in giving a certain sum of money. The State Govemment is putting in almost $100m compared with less than half that amount from the Commonwealth. Queensland is receiving less funding for roads. A reading of the Govemor's Opening Speech reveals that in real terms $21m less is coming to this State for road-funding this year. Let us not forget the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and, of course, the high interest rates to maintain the dollar at the moment. I think it is fair for country people to ask whether the Federal Labor Govemment really wants country people on the land at all. It really wants low food prices. It does not care about mral people because they do not vote for the ALP, anyway. A couple of months ago a Federal Labor task force investigating the effects of the drought visited our mral area. The task force talked at lot. It blamed the State Govemment for charging 4 per cent interest on loans given to farmers in drought conditions. The members of the task force said that the Queensland Govemment should remove that charge, yet the State Govemment was expected to pick up the bad debts that may accme as a result of lending that money. Recently the Federal Government, in its Budget, imposed on the Queensland Govemment a 4 per cent cost on the money that the Federal Govemment gives to the State for drought aid. The State Government contributes the first $14m in drought situations, anyway. An Opposition member: You have not said anything important in this Parliament since 1985. Mr SLACK: I am pleased to inform the honourable member that it appears that the drought may have broken in the Burnett area. Good rains have been received. Mr Campbell: That's good. Mr SLACK: That is good. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I come from a town called Gayndah, which has just celebrated 125 years of education. It is 125 years since the first school was built in Gayndah. It is still there. It is a good, solid, little brick budding. The Minister for Education opened our celebration day. At the end of this month and at the beginning of next month the 75th anniversary of the Binjour school will be held. I mention the Binjour school because it is a school in a little area in which about 50 to 100 farmers are stmggling to survive. They have not had a decent crop for the last seven years. They are good, solid, hard-working people. They were immigrants to this country. They live on small areas of rich, fertile land. Those people are stmggling to survive, yet a callous attitude has been adopted towards them relative to drought relief and relief from a severe social problem with which they are faced. Recently an offer of $25,000 was made for them to leave the land. Mr Mackenroth: What has the fact that the school is 75 years old got to do with that? I canot see the relevance in it. Mr SLACK: Does the honourable member want me to explain it in simpler terms? I am saying that there is a little country area that was settled 75 years ago. People came out to Australia, they stmggled and they worked their guts out. They always stmggled. They refused to take social security benefits. Over the last 75 years they have survived, but it appears now that they may not survive. I have used that term of 75 years as the time that has elapsed since the area was settled. I take it that the honourable member understands that. Because the population is shifting from country areas to the coastal areas, because the incentives that used to be provided are no longer being provided, because allowances are being abolished houses are becoming harder to sell, because it is harder to get people on transfer into the area because they cannot buy a house and sell it, because jobs are becoming harder to find and because it is harder for young people to find work, our services are deteriorating. Medical services are not what they could be. 548 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr CampbeU: Who provides the medical services? Mr SLACK: Sure! The population is dwindling in country areas and the services are also dwindling away from country areas. That is a major problem. Mr Scott: You can't blame the Feds for that. Mr SLACK: Did I just do that? Indirectly, I did. Could I change the subject a little now? While I am talking about history, I point out that during the parliamentary recess the death occurred of Winifred Cobbo. She was an old Aboriginal lady. I offer this information to the House out of respect for this lady. No-one could really determine her age. She was bom on a property called Ban Ban station. It is thought that she was born prior to 1890, probably in the 1880s. That woman was very dignified. She was reputed to be a princess of the Wokka Wokka tribe. She could speak fluent Wokka Wokka. She could sing the songs of the Wokka Wokka. I raise this matter because I am talking about some of the people of my area. I pay my respects to this person who was a tme princess of her people. This case highlights one of the problems that can arise. Many of that lady's family have pre-deceased her. Her descendants—her sons and daughters and grandchildren—are quite lost. They do not have her culture or the ability to speak her language and sing her songs. In other words, they have no real link with their culture. Unfortunately, as yet they do not have a great deal in common with our culture. They are lost. I ask people to understand the predicament in which many Aboriginal people find themselves. As yet they have not been able to make the transition between the culture that they had and our culture. White people have been in this country for 200 years, which is not a very long period during which to expect Aboriginal people to make the transition to our culture. The reality is that they will have to integrate into our society, but we must be very understanding and appreciative of the problems that they will experience in trying to achieve that. Hopefully the next generation will be able to make the transition. After all, we are all Australians. I would be remiss if I did not mention the Fitzgerald inquiry, which affects many of us indirectly simply because it is of major concern to our constituents. It is no good blaming the Government for what may be occurring. Cormption is a fact of life in most States of Australia. It would be naive of us to believe that cormption does not exist. I am sure that the majority of the population was quite astounded at the level of corruption that exists in this State; but that is for the courts to determine. I commend the Cabinet and pay tribute to the Premier for the way in which he has handled the situation. He has not been mshed into making premature decisions. He and the Cabinet have been prepared to seek and accept the best possible legal advice and react to the circumstances. The Premier has the full support of all Government members. This Government has introduced legislation that wUl enable it to recover from those people who are found before a judge to have been corrupt its contributions to superannuation schemes. Not only will the legislation relate to public servants but it will also relate to members of Parliament. I pay tribute to the honest, decent policemen in the community and their wives and families. There are a lot of honest, decent policemen in the community who need our support. Their morale is low, they are not receiving the support that they should be receiving within the community as, under the present circumstances, they are under a cloud. A suggestion has been made that the maximum speed limit be raised to 110 kilometres per hour. It is about time. Some of our roads are four-lane highways. Motor vehicles are now capable of exceeding 100 kilometres an hour quite safely. All motor vehicles are subject to machinery tests. It is ridiculous for a 100 kilometres an hour Address in Reply 6 September 1988 549 speed limit to be set for all roads. On specially designated roads I see no reason why the speed limit should not be raised. It is ridiculous to see police hiding behind trees on perfect highways in westem Queensland—on highways in my electorate—and on double-lane highways elsewhere trying to maintain a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour. I look forward to a higher speed limit being introduced by this Government at some stage. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. Mr SMITH (Townsville East) (9.01 p.m.): It is always interesting to hear the members who represent the country electorates. Although I certainly accept that they do have their economic hardships from time to time, those things are cyclic, and although we hear about people who are supposedly on the bone of the backside one year, they seem to have the ability to come back and be driving Mercedes and BMWs the next. So I take a little bit of convincing about the long-term effects of some of the problems that they speak of Mr Austin: You are not going to make a speech without whining and whinging, are you? Mr SMITH: I never do that. I regard the Address in Reply debate as a ritual largely ignored by the media and the Govemment which, in my view, is not really interested in improving its administration or service by taking account of matters raised by members of both sides of the House. Mr Austin: If we chopped it out you would whinge like anything. Mr SMITH: Once upon a time. Ministers who were diligent would read members' speeches and pick out the items that they would respond to. That no longer seems to happen. Queensland is mled by a blinkered administration incapable of rapid or selective response to situations as they arise. The very fact that through a range of mechanisms Ministers collectively and effectively are able to limit their exposure to valid questions in the House from the Opposition demonstrates that to a large extent the Government has lost its way, has little confidence in itself and overall has a narrow spectmm with respect to its objectives. I believe that this Government now sets its standards by looking in the rear-vision mirror. I believe that is a fairly good description of its performance. Notwithstanding those comments, it is recognised that the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell, although he certainly would not be excited, attempts to put on a reasonable face when presenting the Government's program. He is loyal to the Govemment of the day, and that of course is the correct position. After the next election, we in the Opposition certainly look forward to working as the Government with Sir Walter Campbell. Some Government members introduce their speeches in this debate with pledges of undying loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. That of course is quite unnecessary, because when entering this place every member gives that commitment. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary and it is really ritualistic to stand up every 18 months or so and go through the same procedure. Mr De Lacy: It is insufferably boring when they do that. Mr SMITH: I certainly agree. What I would like to see from some Government members is greater expression of commitment to the nation of Australia. Far too many members rise in Parliament and effectively mbbish their own country, yet give succour to individuals and countries that are direct trade and economic rivals of Australia. The only qualification that is required is that those individuals have to be opposed to the Federal Govemment of the day. If they are, they get the support of the Queensland Government. That is a fairly poor 550 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

show. I simply suggest that when honourable members push the barrow for Queensland— a practice that I support—they should give more attention to the effect that their remarks or actions may have on the national interest. I say that for the simple reason that each honourable member is an Australian, which is a factor that is either lost on or not understood by far too many members on the opposite benches. The principal recreational task of some honourable members opposite seems to be to bag the Federal Govemment. However, I noticed in a report that is published by a department under the portfolio of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs that reference is made to employment opportunities. A point made is that one of the necessary ingredients for improving employment opportunities in Queensland is better co-operation with the Federal Govemment. I will go into that matter in greater detail at a later stage in my address. Mr Veivers: You can tell us now. Mr SMITH: All right, I wiU. I have acknowledged that the present Govemment offers a change in style. However, the vision of excellence that was portrayed by the Premier when he took up office is now a bit frayed around the edges. I will mention the five new Ministers. I will not name them; I will leave their identity to the imagination of honourable members. One of the Ministers is on top of his portfolio, and I give him credit for that. Another fellow seems to be doing all right, but I will judge him on Budget day. The third member is probably a good Minister, but he has been given the wrong portfolio. The fourth Minister is ineffective, but he has not really upset anyone yet. Of course, the remaining Minister is quite hopeless and holds the position in the Ministry merely because of the geographic position of that Minister's electorate. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr SMITH: I am not going to discriminate. I will leave that to the imagination of honourable members. However, a few blots are noticeable on this so-called vision of excellence. I can name a few of them: first of all, there was the saga that went on for ever of the world's tallest building; there was the row over the Expo site; there was the gas pipeline; and there was the handling of the Fitzgerald inquiry, which is likely to dominate this Parliament for a considerable period. With respect to the last item, I believe that the Government has blotted its copy­ book in respect of the handling of matters involving former Ministers and people who have been close to the Government. Working people—particularly Government employ­ ees—compare the harsh treatment that they receive with the kid-gloves approach and the very favourable treatment that other people have received. They realise that this Government is quite inequitable in the treatment of its workers compared with its treatment of people who have influence. Previous speakers have pointed to many instances in which the Govemment's actions have bordered on cormption. The important fact to be realised is that few Governments throughout the world have fallen because of cormption within their ranks. Govemments usually fall because of their general handling of the economy. I believe that that will be the fate of this Government. Even if the Fitzgerald inquiry's report does not get this Government, it will be defeated because of its economic performance. This Govemment has failed to broaden Queensland's economic base and has mismanaged the huge financial resources that have been available throughout good years. At present Queensland has the lowest wages of any State in Australia and, except for primary industry and minerals, it has recorded the lowest levels of production. Moreover, it has registered the highest, or almost the highest, unemployment rate and it provides the poorest level of basic services. It has a debt of $12 billion, which amounts to approximately $5,000 per capita. Interest payable on that amount is $1.6 billion per year, which amounts to $610 per person per year. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 551

I have here a document titled Summary Report of the Special Committee on Employment. I understand that this report was approved by Cabinet in Febmary. Although the Minister has had a major involvement in this report, it surprises me that the contributors to this report are not named. The report contains some very pertinent facts and I wonder if perhaps the contributors were not game to put their names to it. I will quote selectively from some of the points made in the report. On page 1 it states— "Since October 1987, there has been a consistent rise in the underlying trend in Queensland's employment, at a rate equal to or greater than the Australian average. The labour force and employment growth in recent months has confirmed this trend." That is fair enough. On page 2 the report states— "The unemployment rate in Queensland has been consistently higher than the national average since early 1984." The Govemment is very slow to admit that fact. Mr Wells: It is disgraceful. Mr SMITH: It is disgraceful. These points in the report are the ones that must be remembered. The next point on page 2 number 4 states— "Queensland's manufacturing industy comprised a high proportion of basic processing of mral and extractive industry output and a low proportion of the more highly protected manufacturing industries which characterise New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia." On page 3 at 5(d) the report states— "In the context of an economic policy based on market facilitation and the need for smaller govemmemt, there are circumstances, nevertheless, in which it may be appropriate for the State Govemment to play a direct role in economic development, especially in relation to the provision of industrial infrastmcture." The Opposition has said that for years and this is certainly part of a decentralisation policy. If this Govemment does something with the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone, that will be the first concrete evidence of any effective performance by it in that area. Another damning statistic is shown in the report where it states— "Participation rates in education and training for those aged 15 to 24 years are significantly lower for Queensland than for Australia overall." The report continues— ". . . an interactive relationship between apprentice training and economic con­ ditions. Queensland's share of total apprenticeship employment has declined from an average of 16.8 per cent during the resources boom period of 1981-84 to 13.9 per cent in 1987. . ." Mr Veivers: Who wrote that? Mr SMITH: The honourable member's own people wrote it. I believe that that report is a good document and do not believe that it would have seen the light of day under the previous Premier. I do not want to to abuse it, because these kinds of documents ought to be forthcoming in order to give people a clear insight into exactly what is happening in the State. I have confidence in Queensland and I believe that every member in this Chamber has confidence in Queensland. Mr Prest: Not under this Govemment. 552 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr SMITH: Queenslanders do not know where they are going. Essentially they want to find out where they are going and put it into realistic terms. The Opposition is not interested in pipe-dreams or phantom projects floated around by the Government. Those days have gone. The opportunities pertaining to Queensland's natural assets must be seized, whether they relate to this State's climate, its ability to produce a particular product, its geographic position in respect of the space station or its natural attraction in terms of the tourist industry. They are the things that Queensland has to move towards. I have another document, which I wUl give this Government some credit for. This report is the eighth edition of the Department of Industry Development report titled Major Development Projects and Proposals. This is the first time this document has been produced in a usable form. In my view, all previous documents have been publicity instmments and it was quite impossible to work out which projects were going ahead, which had failed and which were the phantom projects. On this particular occasion, and I hope it will be the case in the future, the document identifies the projects completed during 1987, the committed projects and the projects under study. Of course, those under study are the ones that we must focus our attention on because they are the ones for the future. It deals with a number of categories: manufacturing and mineral-processing, gold- mining, coal-mining, other mining infrastmcture and energy. Because of the absolute need to broaden the industrial base, the one I will look at is manufacturing and mineral- processing. The document shows only about eight or nine projects, of which more than half are actually related purely to our primary or extractive industry and are an extension of those industries. There is practically nothing that one could say represents a tme example of some great move forward in secondary or tertiary industry. That has to be looked at, because as long as this State is dependent on world commodity prices it will be at the mercy of the world. Not very long ago Queensland was the No. 1 exporter in Australia. I have some figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that show that, for the last financial year, Westem Australian exports were worth $4,445 per capita, compared with $2,889 for Queensland. As I said before, in 1985-86, Queensland was first, with 23.8 per cent of all exports. Now Queensland follows not only Western Australia but also New South Wales and Victoria. In addition, its recent growth rate has been listed at 1.8 per cent, which is the lowest in the country. Very clearly, some of these things have to be considered. I found it most interesting that no mention was made of the Cape York space facility in the Department of Industry Development report. I wondered whether that was because of the timing or because the report dealt exclusively with matters in the previous financial year. However, it seems to me that that project is one of the biggest things around, and I was disappointed to find no mention of it, particularly as it is occurring in the part of the country from which I come. That facility certainly has the capacity to generate massive income. I admit that many people were sceptical until the realisation that there was a chance to establish that facility. This State has industries that can support that operation, if it gets under way. The University of Queensland is well to the fore in technology, particularly in the study of ramjet propulsion, which would be needed for hypersonic space travel. Another bonus is the recent announcement that Weipa will have a large airport capable of handling 747s. All those things must be tremendously attractive to possible users of that space facility. My concern with the role of the Government is that it is not presently handling the project correctly. Two organisations are competing to develop the role of presenting proposals to the world's operators of space launch vehicles. Contrary to what most people think, although Cape York presents an excellent opportunity, Queensland has to compete with a number of other sites around the world. We dealing with experienced Address in Reply 6 September 1988 553 competitors? The longer it takes the Govemment to get its act together and to work out its preferred developer, the longer it will inhibit the proposals. The only thing that the Government has done in respect of the Cape York space station is to hold a couple of seminars, which is fine, and to open an international business centre staffed by the magnificent number of seven people. I cannot see that to be very significant in terms of getting that proposal off the ground. I will come to matters that are perhaps closer to home—to some people, anyway. The decision to impose a tobacco tax will certainly have its supporters as well as those people who will be totally opposed to it. Mr Comben: You wouldn't know who! Mr SMITH: Well, there it is. I am not so much interested in that. I am interested in where the massive revenue that will be collected from the 35 per cent tax will be applied. All honourable members know that the tobacco industry is a major supporter of sport. Obviously, if sales decrease, which they inevitably must—I would like to see a reduction in the sale of tobacco—moneys available to sporting organisations will certainly be reduced. At the same time, clubs throughout the State have built up a dependence— some people might say an overdependence—on in-line machines in obtaining the necessary revenue to carry on. Any club could be excused for thinking that the Government was giving full countenance to that operation, because it has been known for years that those machines were operating in clubs as a direct substitute for poker machines. Now the Government has stepped in and banned the in-line machines. Those machines were in clubs throughout the State, including your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the areas of all other members in this Chamber. I would like to know what the Government will do to address the problem. The sporting organisations to which I have spoken have no idea at present where the money will come from. It may well be that it is time for the Government to bite the bullet and look at a proposal to give the clubs the opportunity of eaming that revenue by the introduction of poker machines or something simUar. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue. Another point of concem to me as a representative of a north Queensland electorate is the proposal that has been put forward by the State Govemment for the training of nurses at James Cook University. Time and time again in this Chamber honourable members hear claims that Queensland is not receiving its fair proportion of student places and that the Federal Government is not doing the right thing by Queensland in that matter. Now we find that north Queensland, with an estimated population of 481 000, or 19 per cent of the population of the State, is being offered 150 places for nurse entrants for 1990 and 1991 by the Queensland Government. That amounts to approximately 12.6 per cent of the State's total allocation. North Queensland would need to receive 225 places—a 50 per cent increase—for James Cook University to have any hope of replacing the present number of nurses who have been trained in north Queensland. After wastage, approximately 386 trained nurses are being tumed out. The Govemment's proposal means that, after the initial period of two years, we would have 169 trained nurses fewer than we would have had under the existing scheme. Mr Wells: Why does this Govemment hate nurses? Mr SMITH: It has certainly been giving the nurses a hard time. On this occasion, north Queensland has been more severely disadvantaged because of the Queensland Govemment's attitude. I want to raise a couple of other matters. The Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone, in respect of which the Minister recently tabled a paper, leads on to 554 6 September 1988 Address in Reply what the Labor Party proposed in 1986 and which the Govemment picked up for the State election. The Government called its proposal a trade development zone. Recently there has been a considerable splurge of publicity by the Minister. I can tell the Minister that the people of north Queensland will be looking for some indication that that project will proceed, that the Govemment is serious, and the only way in which that can be demonstrated is by the provision of a suitable allocation in Thursday's Budget. If the necessary funds are not contained in the Budget, it will be a very clear message to the people of north Queensland that this is just another phantom proposal. Even if that proposal does get under way, many people will be dissatisfied because it has identified two areas, one near Townsville and one near Cairns. It is based on Cairns and Townsville. However, most people in north Queensland see the Cape York- North Queensland Enterprise Zone as an entity in its own right and they would expect that the whole north Queensland area would be put in the same category as the development zone. There is no reason whatsoever for the Govemment not to handle it in that way. I believe that pressure, if not from me, from the Govemment's own supporters, will ensure that that will happen. I have only a couple of minutes left. The member for Townsville would obviously be very disappointed if I did not respond to a couple of comments that he made recently. In leading into that, I want to say that it is fortunate that only two members of this Parliament—the member for Townsville and the member for Mulgrave—bring the squabbles of their local areas into this place and argue them on the floor of the Pariiament. The members for Bundaberg, Mackay and other electorates do not come into this Chamber and talk about their arguments with councils. It bores everyone to tears and it is counter-productive. Quite frankly, the interests of the member for Townsville would be better served if he tried to co-operate with the members of the council. The fact is that the honourable member is paranoid about the council Mr Casey: They tell me he would be much better off if they painted a spider on his head, because it would keep the flies away. Mr SMITH: He certainly could not be worse. The simple facts are that in spite of the best efforts of the member for Townsville, the city is doing well. I am pleased at the confidence that has been expressed in the city by the Avcorp organisation, which has taken over the Hayles organisation. The Avcorp organisation has expressed massive confidence in the city of TownsviUe. That organisation has taken the long-term view, as have other hard-nosed business interests. All the knocking that goes on wiU not make any difference because, in the end, the good planning that has occurred in Townsville and the hard-nosed business sense and expectations of those organisations will prevail and their investments will bear fmit. Through the efforts of the member for Townsville, Mr Burreket, local government has been put in the position of losing its representation on the harbour board. Basically, the member for Townsville has taken the water board out of control of the city. Mr BURREKET: I rise to a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 119, I ask that the member for Townsville East withdraw those statements. They are irrelevant; they are untme. The decision to change the port authority was made by the Minister Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Alison): Order! There is no point of order. Mr BURREKET: I take exception to those remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr SMITH: Not only has the member for Townsville done that, but also he has brought about a situation in which the council is denied any representation on the electricity board. Ross Creek is a major waterway in the city and its is essential that the Address in Reply 6 September 1988 555 council have a big input into the development that occurs. I think that the same thing has occurred with some of the other boards. Recently the honourable member for Townsville claimed personal credit for the Nathan Street roadworks. I would like Mr Burreket to know that before he entered Parliament I represented Townsville West and that the Nathan Street roadworks were in my area. I knew precisely the state of planning and what funds were being applied to that area. I think that I know a lot more about the area than the honourable member does. I will cite a few facts. Because of the time limit, I will have to abbreviate them. For the information of the member for Townsville, I point out that the Townsville City Council has spent $2,300,000 in providing drainage and other associated works without any funds being applied to the road. Last week the honourable member said that the Federal Govemment had not applied any money. I can point out to him that Stage 1, which cost $1.2m, was a total Federal commitment. $270,000 was applied from the council. In the two subsequent stages. Stage 2 and Stage 3, the council applied in excess of $556,000. For the honourable member for Townsville to say that the TownsvUle City Council and the Commonwealth Government had not pulled their weight shows that the honourable member has no real idea of the funding. I suggest to him that the council and the Federal Govemment have more than pulled their weight. Time expired. Mr MILLINER (Everton) (9.32 p.m.): In rising to speak to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, I firstly pay tribute to His Excellency the Govemor and Lady Campbell on the way in which they are carrying out their duties in a very dignified manner. In this Chamber today honourable members have heard a lot of crowing about the results of the referendum that was held last Saturday. It was interesting to hear the rhetoric of National Party members. If one listened to that rhetoric, one would think that the results of the referendum were the greatest thing since shced bread. Massive amounts of public money were spent by the National Party on its referendum campaign. The referendum results show that in Queensland the fair election question received the highest "Yes" vote throughout the nation. Queensland is the only State in which a political party spent tax-payers' funds campaigning on that issue. It was very interesting to hear the contributions today from National Party members. What the member for Burnett said was nonsensical. He said that the electorate of Bumett could not be included in the electorate of Bundaberg because somehow the people there would not understand what was going on. That would have to be the greatest insult to the people living in that area that I have ever heard. A most ridiculous statement being made throughout the referendum campaign was that the National Party needed gerrymandered electorates so that members could be accessible to their constitutents. An argument put forward was that the electorate of Roma needed to have only 8 000 voters so that they could be accessible to their member. One would wonder why the member for Roma would take on the role of a Cabinet Minister, because it is quite obvious that a Cabinet Minister spends most of his time in Brisbane—all honourable members acknowledge that—and therefore would not be accessible to his constitutents. That blows that argument right out the window. Mr Mackenroth: Tell us about the National Party person who came out of a booth on Saturday and asked you where the National Party preferences were going. Mr MILLINER: The honourable member is right. That is an indication of the thinking of supporters of the National Party. It is disappointing that party politics has entered the area of constitutional reform. It will be very difficult to achieve constitutional reform. It is certainly something that needs to be examined on an ongoing basis, T do not know how a referendum will ever be successful Mr Davis: They are small-minded; that's the trouble. 556 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr MILLINER: The honourable member is right. They are too small-minded. A serious attempt has been made to reform the Constitution by way of constitutional conventions. When the Queensland Government turned those conventions into political bun-fights, a constitutional committee was formed to consider ways and means of reforming the Constitution. It was disappointing that a political campaign was waged during the lead-up to the referendum. It is quite obvious that until such time as a bipartisan approach is taken to the proposals that are being put forward, no referendum will ever be passed in this nation. As Senator Macklin indicated, even the Magna Carta would not have been passed under the circumstances of the recent referendum. We should try to get a bit of maturity into the subject of constitutional reform and at least be a little serious about it. I was staggered to hear the contribution that was made by the honourable member for Ashgrove, who spoke about the housing problem in the Enoggera army barracks. Unfortunately, the honourable member failed to tell the whole story. It is acknowledged that much of the housing in the Enoggera area is substandard. The Federal Labor Govemment has been considering that problem. The honourable member for Ashgrove failed to admit that the Federal Labor Govemment has taken action on housing within the Enoggera area. Recently a number of substandard houses for defence service personnel were demolished in Wardell and Lloyd Streets at Enoggera. Very modern, appropriate townhouses have been constmcted on that site. At present further constmction is being undertaken on the site where those substandard houses were. It is disappointing that the honourable member for Ashgrove did not acknowledge that. The honourable member failed to acknowledge that the Liberal Party, which was in Government in the Federal sphere for many more years than the Labor Party has been, failed to do anything about the army housing problem in Enoggera. Because of the presence of such a large military establishment as the Enoggera army barracks, there is a constant movement of heavy equipment by armoured personnel carriers and semitrailers, which causes a number of problems in the area. Future Federal Govemments will have to address the problem caused by the mixture of a defence establishment in a suburban area. I take this opportunity to address some of my remarks to the Everton electorate. I place on record my appreciation of the people who are involved in the Brisbane Tramway Museum at Ferny Grove. Mr Davis: They do a good job. Mr MILLINER: They do a very good job. Obviously tourism plays a very important role in the development of this State. Unfortunately, not enough emphasis has been placed on the development of a tourist strategy in the metropolitan area. A planned approach to tourism was adopted in Sydney, where a great deal of development has occurred, particularly around The Rocks. It is unfortunate that no such planned approach has been adopted to tourism in the metro­ politan area of Brisbane. The Australian Woolshed in my electorate was constmcted to bring the country to the city. That establishment is becoming very popular with intemational tourists. A tremendous potential exists to incorporate a visit to the Tramway Museum. As I have indicated, the Brisbane Tramway Museum is being operated by very dedicated volunteers who do what they can on week-ends to maintain some of the history of this city. I admit that the Brisbane City Council has made a contribution to the museum by supplying tramcars, buses and associated equipment. However, the museum is in desperate need of financial assistance. Because the necessary funds have not been forthcoming, the work that is carried out at that museum is undertaken piecemeal. A very comprehensive system of tramway tracks is envisaged. With the existing facilities, that museum could become a very pleasant tourist destination for Address in Reply 6 September 1988 557

visitors to our city of Brisbane. I repeat that a plan needs to be devised to develop tourist facilities within the Brisbane metropolitan area. A cause of some concem at a number of schools in my electorate relates to school crossings. Recently the Ferny Grove State School experienced a problem with a developer who developed a block of shops some years ago fulfilling his obligations to install traffic lights that are not appreciated by the parents and citizens association of that school. I hope that the appropriate action is taken to ensure that those traffic lights are not commissioned at the location for which they were designed. If they are, the lollipop lady who now controls the crossing in the area will no longer be required. The parents and citizens association of that school is very concerned about the prospect of losing the crossing supervisor. The crossing at the Grovely State School is causing some problems. There is a nasty intersection at the corner of Madsen Street and Dawson Parade. A suggestion has been made that the traffic lights operating at the school crossing should be moved to that intersection. I certainly endorse the endeavours of the school's p. and c. organisation to have that set of traffic lights removed to the more appropriate location. The Grovely College of TAFE provides a very worthwhile service to young people in the area, particularly in the field of horticulture. I was very pleased to attend an open day at the college recently and to see the contribution that it is making. The courses that the college offers have proven so successful that the college is mnning out of space to accommodate the students. The college is very keen to purchase a block of land that is in close proximity. I hope that the Govemment takes the appropriate action to purchase it, as it will allow for the expansion of the college and provide more places for young people to attend. Mr Austin: I give Nambour a big chance. Mr MILLINER: The Minister for Finance gives Nambour a big chance. That just goes to show what happens, doesn't it? The Minister for Employment announced a $35m job-creation scheme. Recently I attended a function of the Pine Rivers Shire Council at which the Federal Minister for Employment and the State Minister launched a very worthwhile scheme to employ young people and offer them apprenticeships in the trades area, to create a pool of apprentices and to put them out to employers on a contractual basis. I sincerely hope that that scheme is very successful. Mr Davis interjected. Mr MILLINER: I am pleased that Mr Davis raised the matter about the Work Skill Olympics, because in the Minister's contribution at the launching of that scheme he raised the matter of the world Work Skill Olympics. I know that Mr Davis is very, very keen on the Work Skill Olympics and that he follows them with great interest. I am very pleased that he does. Mr Davis interjected. Mr MILLINER: That is right; they probably will. Close to my electorate is a CYSS—a Community Youth Support Scheme—and I am very pleased that I am the chairperson of that. It is operating very successfully. Recently the Federal Govemment undertook a review of the programs being offered to unemployed people. It has revamped those programs and called them skill share. As the CYSS was primarily associated with young unemployed people, its scope has now been widened so that many other people who do not fall into the category of being young are able to participate in the many courses that are being offered by CYSS. Much has been heard about the police of recent times. I certainly will not canvass the events that are taking place up at the other end of George Street. However, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the local police at Mitchelton. They have 558 6 September 1988 Address in Reply been very co-operative and they are doing everything they possibly can to bring down the crime rate in our area. Some time ago, the police tried to encourage people to establish Neighbourhood Watch schemes. They did that before the scheme was launched officially. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be as successful as it should have been. Much more work needs to be done to promote the Neighbourhood Watch scheme because it is a very worthwhile program and the community should be involved in it. The local police in my electorate have also undertaken a campaign to make the public aware of police activities. They have been quite prepared to attend meetings of local organisations to give addresses on reducing the incidence of crime. Unfortunately, public response to campaigns engaged in by the police has been very disappointing. After all, members of the public are the ones who suffer as a result of crime. I accept that all honourable members would like to have more police in their electorates; I know that I certainly would. I would also like to see an improvement in equipment that is offered to assist police in their fight against crime. It is ridiculous to have a policeman typing in a police station by using two fingers on an "old banger" typewriter. Police officers do not even have electric typewriters in police stations. A very urgent need exists for police officers to be provided with tape recorders so that they can dictate records of interviews that can later be typed. If my suggestion was adopted, I believe that that would make more police available to carry out the work that honourable members want them to do, that is, police work. The matter of taping interviews with suspects has been raised today. I believe that the tape recording of interviews is long overdue. I do not believe, however, that the Police Department should confine itself to audiotaping. 1 believe that a desperate need exists to implement videotaping. I say that because of the evidence given by Mr Herbert at the Fitzgerald inquiry in which he indicated quite clearly that verballing has been taking place on a widespread basis. Everybody would like to see a situation in which it is impossible for that to take place in future. From all the documentaries I have seen, I have no doubt that the videotaping of evidence is the desirable course to adopt. Mr Casey: The Police Complaints Tribunal has been doing that for ages. If it can do that, why can't the police? Mr MILLINER: That is absolutely right. It is ridiculous that police officers do not have those facilities. I was interested to hear that the Minister for Police intends to embark on an overseas trip to retrace the steps of the Minister for Justice and inspect police videotaping that takes place in other countries. It is an absolute joke. Mr Casey: I have heard that the Minister for Tourism is going along to help him. Mr MILLINER: That is right. The Minister for Tourism is undertaking another magical mystery tour. One of the greatest problems facing Queensland society today is the tragic road toll. Not enough is being done to combat the ever-increasing road toll. Previously, a ridiculous situation arose when every responsible organisation quite clearly indicated that random breath-testing was an effective weapon with which to fight the road toll. What did the Queensland Govemment do? It introduced a half-baked scheme called RID. Although the RID teams were initially very active throughout the metropolitan area, I have not seen much activity lately. I do not blame the police for that. I blame the Govemment for not providing the necessary minimum resources to aUow random breath-testing or the RID campaign to achieve optimum results. Mr Casey: You have frightened the Minister for Police into coming back into the Chamber. He has given up his smoko to come in. Mr MILLINER: I noticed that. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 559

I believe that action taken on the road toll should be non-political. A bipartisan approach should be adopted to the issue. Moreover, I have always advocated that a select committee of this Parliament should be constituted to continuously monitor the road toll and suggest ways and means of curbing the number of deaths caused by road accidents. In view of the present road toll, 1 firmly believe that a review of penalties needs to be undertaken. I would go so far as to charge the passengers in some motor vehicles. Two or three weeks ago, there was a very serious accident at Gaythome involving a head-on collision between a heavy vehicle and another vehicle. A seven-year-old boy was critically injured in that accident and when the police arrived the driver of the heavy vehicle was charged with drink-driving and a number of other serious offences. The four occupants of the vehicle were so dmnk that they could not stand up. I strongly believe that passengers in vehicles have a responsibility as well as the driver and in a number of instances passengers should also be held responsible for some of the actions of the driver. There is an obvious need for driver education. The Driver Education Centre at Gympie is making a tremendous contribution towards driver education. People are allowed to obtain a driver's licence, but that does not necessarily mean that they are skilled in driving a motor vehicle. They are able to fulfil the requirements in order to receive the licence, but it does not necessarily mean that they are able to handle a vehicle at high speed. There is a need to embark upon a very extensive driver education course so that it can be assured that drivers who receive licences are able to handle a motor vehicle. The Traffic Accident Appreciation Squad carries out investigations into accidents, but I have not seen many of the reports of that squad. I have no doubt that they contain valuable information regarding traffic accidents. A select committee established by this Parliament would be able to look at reports from the Traffic Accident Appreciation Squad and make some recommendations to improve road safety. Much has been said about bicycle helmets. There is no doubt that bicycle helmets will play a significant role in reducing the number of serious injuries to young people in particular who ride bicycles. It frightens me when I drive around the streets and see young people riding cycles who quite obviously cannot handle them. Mr Davis: Will you ask the Minister for Finance to take his cycle helmet off when he comes into the House? Mr MILLINER: Is that what it is? I always wondered what he was wearing. There is a need to educate not only young people but also their parents as to the suitability of clothing wom whUst riding bicycles, particularly helmets, and the abUity of very young children to ride bicycles. Expo has been an outstanding success, and there is no doubt that all those associated with it are to be congratulated. It goes to show that co-operation between organisations such as the Expo Authority and trade unions can occur, and Expo has been relatively free of industrial disputes. I can only recall a couple of industrial disputes, and they have been settled very quickly. A maturity is developing in industrial relations in this State and, with goodwill and co-operation on both sides, Queensland can stage world events which are not intermpted by the problem of industrial disputation. One of the grave problems faced by junior sporting organisations at the moment is the loss of revenue that they have suffered due to the actions of this State Govemment. There is no doubt that junior sporting organisations were making a great deal of money out of in-line machines. No-one would deny that fact or that it was illegal. Mr Prest: Apparently there's another couple who made a bit of money out of them, too. 560 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr MILLINER: That is correct. There have been a couple of other people who have made money out of them. A number of clubs have been placed in a very difficult position. In my electorate a couple of sporting clubs will lose revenue of between $40,000 and $50,000 this year. That is a considerable amount of money for them to lose. The Govemment knew what was happening with the use of in-line machines but refused to act. In fact, its only action was to increase registration fees on the machines from something like $70 to $900. The Govemment should address this issue. So far it has made only half-baked attempts to solve the problem. The Government should consider assistance to those clubs that have lost revenue. Mr Davis: They'll put poker machines in tomorrow. Mr MILLINER: The Govemment has to look either at putting in poker machines or at diverting some of the funds from the TAB into junior sporting organisations. On many occasions I have said that far too much money goes into the racing industry. Some country racecourses that hold a couple of picnic race-meetings a year have been provided with grandstands and other facilities. I thought the idea of a picnic race-meeting was for people to go along to a social gathering. Mr Prest: They had a picnic up north. Mr MILLINER: I know they had a picnic up there. A large amount of funds has been diverted into the racing industry. It is about time that some of the funds received by the TAB were diverted into other sporting areas. The banning of in-line machines has caused clubs to lose a tremendous amount of money and a means of revenue-raising. Without an injection of funds, junior sport will suffer. The tragedy of it all is that it is the juniors who will suffer. As the member for Chatsworth, Mr Mackenroth, pointed out, junior sport should be funded on a participation rate. At present, some of the sports with large participation are getting the worst end of the deal. Mr Mackenroth: The ones who don't rort the Government scheme. Mr MILLINER: That is right. That is one of the problems with the subsidy scheme. The provision of housing is another problem that confronts our society. On many occasions I have said that the Govemment should provide welfare housing and pensioner units in close proximity to the city. I know that the acquisition of land in such areas is a problem, but it must be considered. I am very pleased that a number of pensioner units have been built in my electorate, because quite a number of elderly people in the electorate are quite prepared to go into pensioner units but do not want to leave the locality because they have become used to the local doctors and the other facilities that they use. Although they find it difficult to maintain their houses, they do not want to leave the area. Consequently, they will not move to pensioner units in other areas. The Govemment should consider the provision of more of those pensioner units. The provision of rental housing faces similar difficulties. Most of the available stocks are in the outer suburbs. Many are further out than that, in Beenleigh and Caboolture. Although they are nice places in which to live if a person works in the area, if a person does not work there, it is very difficult for him. Many people who are offered houses are faced with a catch-22 situation: they desperately need that type of accommodation but, because of the location of the housing that is offered, they cannot accept it. I certainly hope that the Government seriously considers building Housing Commission houses in inner-city areas or close to efficient public transport. Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (10 p.m.): I rise to speak in this Address in Reply debate Mr Austin: We will hear this in silence seeing it's your final Address in Reply speech. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 561

Mr DAVIS: No, it will not be my farewell speech. Mr Casey: We must be having an election. Mr DAVIS: I do not think that we will be having an election in May. I believe that the Govemment will well and tmly go the full distance. As the Address in Reply debate allows for very wide debate and as it has been announced publicly that I will retire at the next election, honourable members will notice that during this speech I may walk down memory lane and use some anecdotes that I have collected over the past 20 years. In May 1969, Mr Casey and I both entered this Chamber. I believe that we are the only two members from that year still sitting in the Parliament. In those 20 years, I have always been amazed to listen to some of our country cousins during this debate. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr DAVIS: Country colleagues, I should say. They have not changed their whining, whinging and moaning ways from when I first entered this Chamber. The speech of the member for Bumett tonight was a classic example. Mr Stephan: Don't be like that. Mr DAVIS: The member for Gympie is also a classic example. It is always the same tune. National Party members are always complaining about the tariffs being too high or too low and asking for more subsidies. As I have reminded honourable members time and time again, I am a classic example of a person who comes from the land. These hands of mine have worked in the dirt. I know the difference between hard times and good times. I have had the hard seasons as well as anybody else, but do honourable members hear me whinging and complaining about them? Mr Comben: Wasn't one of your great ambitions to represent a country seat? Mr DAVIS: It certainly was. I ventured into that area. I have told the story time and time again. Mr Comben: Let's hear it again. Mr DAVIS: I don't think so. Mr FitzGerald: You're filibustering. Mr DAVIS: No. I am certainly not. I will not tell the story. However, if honourable members wish me to, I will. Mr Casey: You are related to that great country novelist Steele Davis, aren't you? Mr DAVIS: I will make this speech in the way that I want to make it. However, the person that the honourable member mentioned was Steele Rudd. I have noticed—my colleague Mr Casey would agree with me—how things have changed in those 20 years. This Chamber pretends to operate under the Westminster system, but I would say it is as much like the Westminster system as a Christian church is like a Moslem mosque. When the Speaker of the House of Commons visited the Chamber recently, I did not have time to speak with him, but I imagine that he laughed to himself when he saw our question-time. It is the height of mockery to say that our question-time resembles the question-time in any other Parliament operating under the Westminster system. I am glad to see the Premier in the Chamber. The Premier told everyone that he had a vision of excellence, but he certainly has not delivered that vision of excellence when it comes to question-time in this House. Most of his Ministers are quite incapable of answering questions, anyway.

80544—21 562 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Austin: You never ask a question. Mr DAVIS: The Minister for Finance is one of the few Ministers who can answer a question without asking for it to be placed on notice. ALP members have taken a poll and agreed that there are only one or two Ministers who can answer a question. The former Minister for Education was very good at answering questions; however, at the same time, some of his colleagues were not. Mr Stephan: You usually complained about him taking too long. Mr DAVIS: No. The member for Gympie is known as one of the leading lights of the Dorothy Dix-type question. He is so incapable of asking a question that he has to be supphed with a Dorothy Dix question. The result is that members of the Labor Party cannot ask questions. A similar instance occurs with the Ministers' responsibility regarding debates. AU Opposition members are interested in the forthcoming Budget debate. In the past, the Budget debate has been conducted by two financial gums in Bjelke-Petersen, who could not add two and two together except when it came to a cheque from Alan Bond, and the member for Somerset, the previous Finance Minister. I will refer to some of the great Treasurers that Queensland has had such as Sir William Knox and the other Liberal Party Treasurers. I notice that the Minister for Finance is grinning at my mention of the Liberal Party. It does bring back to him a certain time in his political career. Mr Casey: You mean when he scabbed. Mr DAVIS: I did not want to mention that. I prefer not to use those sorts of nasty words about the Minister for Finance at the moment. Mr Scott: Remember, he told me his children read Hansard. Mr DAVIS: That is right. I prefer not to mbbish the Minister for Finance now, but I have 12 months to go. At least when it came to a debate on the Budget, those former Treasurers did stay in the Chamber, and at least they used their own words in their replies. I wonder whether the Treasurer will be doing the same or whether he will just leave it up to his advisers. Mr Ahern: The thing I admire most about you is your speech preparation. Mr DAVIS: I have leamed that from the Premier. I said to the member for Mackay, "The one thing I will do is study the Premier." I have heard the Premier's answers to questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and I have styled myself on him. Mr Austin: Careful—I think the wheels are falling off. Mr DAVIS: I cannot be easily bought hke policies could be bought from the former Govemment. It makes me sick to read what is happening at the Fitzgerald inquiry when I think of the number of times over the years that the Opposition has written to the Licensing Commission. How many people have written to the Licensing Commission or contacted the Licensing Commission on the subject of noise? Time and time again letters have been received back from the Licensing Commission saying, "There is no noise." A check at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning reveals that music is blaring out all over the suburbs. Obviously the Licensing Commission has been receiving the same sort of pay-packet as some of the others we have heard about. Mr Prest: You just send a little cheque along with your letter now. Mr DAVIS: That is probably what one has to do. Address in Reply 6 September 1988 563

I noticed in an article last year that the same Licensing Commission and the same police showed how strong they were at policing the Act when they arrested a 21-year- old giri at Eagle Farm for placing a bet for her 16-year-old brother. They made sure that girl was prosecuted right to the limit of the law. If a charitable organisation is mnning a game of unders and overs or some other game of chance, the police will stand over them and make sure that they do not go beyond the hmit of the law. On 19 November 1987 another former Minister—the famous former Minister for Racing and Police, Mr Hinze—was involved in a debate on amendments to the Racing and Betting Act. Honourable members wUl recaU that draconian legislation. I asked Mr Hinze about the $50,000 fine that had been inserted in the legislation. At the time he said, "This will ensure that there is no more SP betting in Queensland." Mr Mackenroth: That was the day he had an SP bet out in the lobby, wasn't it? Mr DAVIS: I do not know what he did. I asked, "In the four years since this fine has been introduced, how many $50,000 fines have been imposed?" The Minister replied, "We have caught one paraplegic and one old woman." When one reads what is going on at the Fitzgerald inquiry, one knows why. I said, "Don't forget the 72-year-old pensioner from Wynnum." He said, "Yes. they were doing hand-springs on the bed. They tumed the bed into a trampoline." The fact is that he was also the Minister for Police. It is rather strange that the Licensing Commission and the police did not seem to be able to pursue those activities. I do not frequent such places, but even I knew that illegal gambling was going on down in the Fortitude Valley area. Mr Casey: Did Johnno Mann tell you about it? Mr DAVIS: Mr who? Mr Henderson: Tommy told me they have a menu in those places. I thought they fed them, too. Mr DAVIS: Just after that report on Four Corners I noticed the honourable member for Mount Gravatt and his mate walking around those places. The honourable member seemed to be salivating. The Address in Reply debate is always an example of what one could term the PR of the National Party. It is unfortunate that a man such as the Govemor is placed in the awkward position of having to read such Speeches. The Govemor's Opening Speech is the same old hackneyed speech that honourable members have heard time and time again. It contains classic examples of what one would term National Party mbbish. Today is a date to remember because honourable members have heard the same thing time and time again. In his Opening Speech, the Govemor said— "Work on the Brisbane-Gold Coast railway project will be accelerated, bringing closer the certainty of fast, comfortable travel for tourists, holiday-makers and commuters." That will be as good as the ghost train to Redcliffe. That was another great promise. The electors voted the wrong way, so the National Party scmbbed the idea without any qualms "white-so-ever". The same thing has happened with road projects, and the Govemment will be introducing toll roads. Statements in the Govemor's Opening Speech that I like include— "Additional soil conservation advisory committees are to be formed." For the last 20 years we have been talking about soil conservation. By the time the Govemment gets anything going, there will not be any soU left. Thank Heaven I got off the land! 564 6 September 1988 Address in Reply

Mr Gunn: There could be cameras in here today. Mr DAVIS: There could be. Of course, there could be people who might stop in this State instead of going away. The Minister for Tourism is going overseas on one of his great free-loading trips. I am glad that the Minister for Finance interjected earlier, because one does not seem to receive a report back from Ministers who travel overseas. I do not know of a State that has more free-loading Ministers than Queensland has. The Minister in charge of trees flew to Paris. He was called back rather quickly. Mr Mackenroth: Which plane did he go on? Mr DAVIS: Did the Minister go on the Concorde? Mr Mackenroth: He went on Qantas. Mr DAVIS: He went on Qantas. The Minister for Police is now going overseas to see more audio or visual equipment. I will give him some advice. I do not pretend to be a technician with audio-visual equipment, but if the Minister goes to Camera Craft at the end of George Street, the people there will be able to advise him and save him a lot of money. Mr Casey: He can see it on level 5 in the Annexe. Mr DAVIS: No trouble at all. The bloke who used to be in that place would be able to tell him very quickly. The Address in Reply debate has not changed. Mr Speaker, since you were elected to your present position, a number of things in this Chamber and in this building have improved. In your role as Mr Speaker, you have provided at least an insight into the operations of this place for the benefit of honourable members. I suggest that the one thing that we should have in this Chamber is at least a fair dinkum question-time. Ministers are getting away with murder. The majority of them are incompetent. They cannot answer questions. I believe that if we had a fair dinkum House that would interrogate and question the Ministers, the State would benefit. If Ministers would answer the questions they were asked, inquiries of the type conducted by Mr Fitzgerald would not be needed. It is aU very well for Ministers to say, "These things happened. We couldn't do anything about it." It is all right for Mr Ahem to blame Bjelke-Petersen. Bjelke-Petersen may have been the person who pulled the strings, but the Premier and other Ministers were all there at the same time. It is all right for the Premier to blame Bjelke-Petersen because he is no longer a member of Parliament; but very interesting Cabinet meetings must have been held. Everybody in this State knew that cormption was occurring. Elected members on both sides of the House knew that cormption was taking place. The only person who may not have known it was going on was Mr Henderson, the member for Mount Gravatt; but after the Four Corners program he found out where the brothels were. Mr Austin: Do you realise that this moming the first 16 questions in a row were all without notice and were answered by Ministers? Mr DAVIS: Yes, but most of them were Dorothy Dix questions. Mr Austin: No, most of them were asked by you people. If you suggest they were Dorothy Dixers Mr DAVIS: On some days the Opposition gets to ask as many as four questions. Question-time is so organised that by the time Ministers have given statements Mr Muntz: Did you organise that referendum with Mr Beattie? Mr DAVIS: I do not know what the Minister is talking about. Mr Casey: He is talking in French. He spent too long over there. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 565

Mr DAVIS: I think that the Minister for trees spent too much time on the Left Bank. Mr Casey: We also need members who speak from notes or their vast knowledge, as you do, rather than read their speeches. Mr DAVIS: I do not need that praise. Although I am glad that the member for Mackay has given me that praise, I do not need it. The Opposition asks that we have a fair dinkum question-time. The Minister for Finance is grinning. Apart from when he answers questions without notice from the Opposition, the Minister has to have his answers supplied for him because he is quite incapable of answering them. Debate, on motion of Mr Austin, adjourned.

PUBLIC OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS RECOVERY BILL Second Reading Debate resumed (see p. 473). Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (10.17 p.m.): Firstly, I register the Opposition's support for any measure that will prevent cormpt police officers, public servants, or public officials escaping appropriate punishment and, in particular, receiving full superannuation entitlements. Since late 1987 I have consistently called for some action on what has occurred in Queensland with the knowledge of this Govemment, namely, that senior police officers retired from the force before they were due to retire and took their lump-sum pay-outs in the knowledge that they were facing allegations at the Fitzgerald inquiry. A number of police officers have slipped through the net and received full superannuation pay­ outs. During the past five months I have consistently called for some action from this Govemment. The Premier repeatedly resisted those calls, saying that it was not possible, but in April of this year it was demonstrated that it was possible. Finally, the Govemment was forced to act—once again under pressure from the Opposition—the agenda having been set by me and the Opposition, and the Govemment being required to respond and follow that agenda. The Opposition supports the legislation with certain reservations and expresses concem about what it regards as poor drafting and the way in which the legislation is being mshed through. Too often legislation is mshed through this House; too often legislation is undertaken on the mn; and too often over the last few years legislation has come back again and again to be amended because it has not been properly drafted in the first instance. I predict that before too long, this legislation will be back before the House to be amended and corrected. Coincidentally, I have just been handed a proposed amendment to this legislation. It seems that we will not have to wait for the very near future for this legislation to come back for amendment; it is already going to be amended in this Chamber tonight. I will have a look at the amendment shortly. It contains two words. I am sure that it will be the first of many amendments. The public should be concerned about the fact that continuously in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry and the problem of cormpt or potentially cormpt people escaping the net, this Govemment fails to act, it gives excuses and then it is subsequently exposed when it is found that those excuses are without foundation. Increasingly, the public is coming to question exactly why this Premier and other people put up excuses which they then have to admit are without foundation. That was seen just today when the Premier told not the Parliament but joumalists, under pressure at a press conference, that he has changed his tune on this question of moving against the Police Commissioner 566 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

on the grounds of maladministration because he received a new legal opinion just on Saturday moming. From the word around the House, that is how I understand the position. Mr Ahern: You have been inventing a fair bit lately. Mr GOSS: Is that right? Mr Ahern: No, I have not. In terms of what you have just said, I deny that completely. Mr GOSS: Most of the joumalists in this place seem to be under the impression that the Premier told them that he received a new lot of legal advice on Saturday morning from Mr Callinan of Queen's Counsel. Mr Ahern: I haven't denied that. What I have denied is the context in which you made it. Mr GOSS: The context is quite right and I do not withdraw that. The Premier has been caught out. In this House today when the Premier had the opportunity, when he took 10 minutes in the Matters of Public Interest debate, he did not mention to honourable members that he had received another opinion on Saturday morning from Mr Callinan of Queen's Counsel that said the grounds for dismissal should be maladministration; the Govemment could move on that. Despite the fact that the Premier has been making all these cute and disparaging comments about not following the advice of lightweight Labor lawyers, it tums out that his own advice now, after all this time, is to the same effect, notwithstanding that for months he gave the clear impression, while never producing his advice, that the move could not be on the basis of maladministration. He has been caught out today. At the press conference the Premier had to admit that his own advice, as at Saturday moming, he claims, is exactly the same as what the Opposition and I have been saying for months. So much for his reference to the best legal brains in the country. I do not question that he has some good legal advice at his disposal. Perhaps the advice is quite good; it is just the manner in which he is prepared to interpret it or act on it that is the problem in this particular case. For some time—since April, as I recollect—the Opposition has been calling for the Police Commissioner to be sacked or suspended without pay. We all know the Premier's response to that. It is, "Innocent till proven guilty. We are not a hanging jury. It cannot be done on the grounds of maladministration." Today he has turned around 180 degrees. Mr De Lacy: Pinwheel Mike, they call him. Mr GOSS: Pinwheel Mike. This legislation has been coming for some time. It appears as though it has had to have been urgently adjusted on the mn to deal with this problem of Sir Terence Lewis. In relation to those problems concerning the Premier, I want to read into the record some extracts from an article to which I referred this moming. It was written by political writer Andrew Stewart in a column which is syndicated throughout various Queensland newspapers. The edition of the column that appeared in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin of 3 September contains the following pertinent points— "Premier Ahem is putting about the image that he knew nothing of the extent of cormption.

Mr Ahem cannot escape some responsibility. If he says he did not know of the cormption, as he was busy on the backbench and then fully involved in his Primary Industry, then Industry and finally Health Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 567

portfolio, as well as scheming to succeed Sir Joh as Premier, then he is naive in the extreme. If he says he heard a few hints of cormption but was unwilling to do anything when he did not have the numbers to ensure action was followed through, then that may suggest a lack of judgment or courage. In fact Mr Ahem cannot claim to be ignorant of facts and claims about the system of police cormption." Mr Stewart then made reference to the late Kevin Hooper and said— "Hooper had the names of police at the lower level accurate, if the Fitzgerald Inquiry evidence is any guide. He only dared hint that the cormption system might reach higher. The Hooper background did spur Hinze into starting to introduce some stricter Licensing Squad regulations, which did not get on to the books because Sir Joh shifted him suddenly in a ministerial reshuffle. Hinze briefed Ahem on the information. Hinze and Ahem were then a twosome, planned to together succeed Sir Joh." I acknowledge that the Premier has this morning denied that reference to the briefing. Mr Ahern: Absolutely, but you insist on reading it out again. Mr GOSS: I do not think that the people of Queensland have heard the end of it. As far as I am concemed, I am quite happy to adopt the analysis of Mr Stewart. I thought it pertinent to read it into the record because this Premier is making a great play on scoring as many political points as he can from the Fitzgerald inquiry by trying to erect this quite false and superficial facade, which is to the effect that, suddenly, cormption has been discovered for the first time. He wants people to believe that he was completely unaware of it and that now, taken by surprise though he is, he is moving resolutely to deal with it. The facts are that he is moving only when he and the National Party have been flushed out into the glare of publicity. When this Premier and other people were in a position to act privately and quietly behind ministerial doors, and on successive occasions when they had the opportunity to act and the opportunity and duty to follow through, they did not. That was apparent in the case of Bulger and in the case of the letter from the sohcitors who were acting for the former Licensing Branch inspector, Mr Jeppesen, to Mr Gunn. Another instance was when they had the secret section of the Sturgess report, but they did nothing. During the last week, the people of Queensland have been made aware that they have a Premier who is prepared to adopt the standards of Ministers Glasson and Harper who, when they received recommendations in a secret section of the Sturgess report that warranted the firmest action being taken in respect of Bulger, did nothing. I think that all honourable members and members of the public should be concemed about the following possibility: what if, in the case of the Fitzgerald report, there is a secret section that recommends a certain action or gives the Govemment certain wamings? Is the Opposition simply to accept the assurance given by this Government that its members will act on those secret recommendations that are contained in any secret report? Given the track record of this Premier and those two Ministers that has been exposed during the last week, that is not a very reassuring position in which members of the public or honourable members of this Parliament are to be placed. I wish to refer also to other matters that ought to be part of Hansard in relation to the Premier to indicate his record of indecisiveness or inactivity when it came to this cormption issue. I have referred already to the matters outlined in the Stewart article. Secondly, I want to refer to an extract from an interview published in the Sydney 568 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

Morning Herald. It was quite a lengthy interview with the Premier in which he was asked about the sacking of former Commissioner Whitrod. The Premier said— "That did cause me some concem at the time. I was quite junior and didn't have a great deal of influence." Mr Ahern: 1976 was that? Do you remember what you were doing at that time, Mr Goss? Mr GOSS: In 1976, I was practising law in Brisbane. Mr Ahern: That is a long time ago. Mr GOSS: That is right; it is a long time ago. However, let me finish the point I was making and go on to develop my argument. In that interview, the Premier went on to say as follows— "It was the symptom of a much wider problem, as we now know." What is clear from that article is that the Premier, as the humble back-bencher he was formerly, was completely unaware of prostitution, SP betting and the problems in the police force. At that time, everybody was aware of the controversy surrounding the sacking of former Commissioner Whitrod and the appointment of Mr Lewis. It was on television and in the newspapers. Presumably, humble back-bencher Ahem was too busy with other matters to notice such a matter of public importance. However, in the latter quotation that I have cited, he admitted that that incident did cause him concern but that, because he was quite junior at the time, he did not have a great deal of influence. The concem that he expressed quite clearly indicates some knowledge; yet, even as he became more senior, what evidence is there of this Premier's action on any occasion— and I emphasise the words "on any occasion"? As he became more senior and more influential—which is what I am sure he would have honourable members believe—what evidence is available of any occasion on which he took action to raise these matters, or to press either the Government or the Minister of the day into action? Some time ago when I became a member of Parliament, I raised allegations of cormption in the police force and in the Justice Department involving In-Line Machines and the involvement of Rooklyn, Herbert and other people. The Premier was a member of Parliament then, but presumably he was too busy with other matters to either be aware of, or have the need to act in relation to, such matters. The Premier was here when I raised allegations in this Parliament relating to child pomography and prostitution which led to the Sturgess inquiry and report. Presumably the Minister, as he then was—the Premier now—was too busy or concemed with other matters to require that his party take any action. He appears to have determinedly kept his head in the sand. Apart from the allegations I raised in this House, the Sturgess report was subsequently presented to the Minister and, as he has told the House, it was debated by Cabinet. He was aware of it. It was stated on the front page of the Courier- Mail that the main perpetrators of this organised criminal activity had "enjoyed immunity from prosecution for years". What evidence is there of a stand or action of any kind being taken by the Premier, or the Minister as he then was? The tmth is that there is no evidence and one can only conclude from that that he kept quiet, sat back and did nothing on each and every occasion when these matters were brought to public attention by the Govemment's own Director of Prosecutions, Mr Sturgess. The evidence appeared in the Sturgess report and on the front page of the paper and yet nothing happened. When matters were subsequently revealed in the secret sections of the Sturgess report, the Premier was prepared to adopt the standards of Ministers who played pass the parcel and tumed their back on the clear evidence of cormption and clear wamings from the Director of Prosecutions. That inactivity, the tuming of the back on cormption and the passing of the parcel has enabled cormption to flourish in this State and the people in charge of the Licensing Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 569

Branch and other units of the police force to get away with it. A succession of people have been prepared to cover up, tum their backs and avoid the political embarrassment and damage that they might sustain if they were honest and acted in the public interest instead of their own self-interest. That charge lies fairly and squarely at the feet of all members of the Cabinet at that time, including the current Premier when he was a member of Cabinet and privy to information that warranted action by the Cabinet and its Ministers. The attitude of each and every one of them under the previous Premier was that they would sit quietly by and do nothing whilst cormption flourished and the allegations flew because in that way they kept their seats. Certainly the Premier was very successful at sitting there doing nothing and keeping his place in Cabinet. I turn now to look at some of the clauses of the Bill. The definition clause in relation to a prescribed offence makes it clear that what is being dealt with is cormption by public officials. This clause is split into four paragraphs and in the main they would appear to deal with police officers. The fourth paragraph states— "... has cormptly asked for, received or agreed to receive or cormptly attempted to obtain any property, benefit, service, or advantage for himself or another in circumstances that include, as a relevant circumstance, the offender's holding a public office." That paragraph seems to be directed more towards public officials as opposed to police officers than the other paragraphs. Perhaps it refers to Ministers and it is quite proper that Ministers and members of Parliament should be brought fairly and squarely within the net of that definition as well as police officers. I have expressed some concem relating to the disadvantageous treatment that has been meted out to public servants and police officers as compared with members of Parliament. I still believe that they should all be treated equally, but the Govemment has decided otherwise. Mr Ahern: That is not tme. Mr GOSS: If the Premier was going to deal with them equally, he would have dealt with them in the April legislation and he did not. Mr Austin: The April legislation was to prevent them from retiring. You cannot stop a member of Parliament from retiring. Mr GOSS: Yes, but the Govemment did not take any action at that stage to freeze their superannuation. Mr Ahern: You can't. Mr GOSS: The Premier says that it cannot be done. Mr Ahern: How can you prevent a member of Parliament from retiring? What a nonsense! Mr GOSS: I did not say that a member of Parliament could be prevented from retiring, what I said was that the Govemment could take action in respect of his superannuation. The Govemment did not do that. The record is quite clear on that. Mr Austin: The tmstees of the fund can. Mr GOSS: Yes, but the tmstees have to be given the legislative power; and they were not. Mr Austin: Read your legislation. Mr GOSS: Which legislation? Mr Austin: Your parliamentary super legislation. Mr GOSS: The tmstees do not have the power to withhold that superannuation. Mr Austin: No, they don't. 570 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

Mr GOSS: That is right, they do not. The Minister concedes my point. The Govemment had the opportunity to take action in April, but its legislation did not act in that regard. The point I made stands, and the Minister for Finance now concedes it. Mr Austin: Have a look at the legal implications of three people in a Parliament being able to hold over another member of Parliament the question of his superannuation. It is scandalous! It is scurrilous! Mr GOSS: With respect, I do not give any weight or respect to the Premier or the Minister for the way in which they come in here— Mr Austin: You don't have to. Mr GOSS: No. I am not referring to the Minister personally. I am talking about the repeated attempts to hide behind legal opinions that they have, yet they never produce. Mr Austin interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! Persistent cross-fire will not be allowed. Mr GOSS: What I was referring to is that I am not prepared to accept, or respect, this reference to legal opinions that the Premier and the Minister have when they do not produce them. The legal opinions seem to change when the pressure is on and when circumstances require it. Either the legal opinions change or the way in which they interpret or relay them changes. I am no longer prepared to accept at face value these references, particularly by the Premier, to having the best legal advice in the country or the world when his legal advice changes when it is convenient. The way in which he seems to handle their advice so carelessly is potentially a very serious slur on his legal advisers. Some of the provisions of Part II of the Bill refer to the liability to forfeit certain amounts of the superannuation and the manner in which that is calculated. On the part of the Opposition, I express very serious reservations about those parts of clause 8 that refer to the factors that a judge is called on to take into account in assessing the amount of the liability or the penalty. The use of the words "without limiting the matters that a judge may consider" provides a complete blank cheque to the court. The clause goes on to refer to four specific matters: firstly, the proportion of service in public office before the officer first committed an offence; secondly, the nature of the offence or offences upon conviction; thirdly, the value of the gain; and fourthly, the degree of hardship likely to be occasioned by the convicted person. There is also reference to other persons such as the spouse or dependant of the convicted person and any hardship that they may suffer. How the Supreme Court judge is supposed to put a figure on that and how that is supposed to be brought to bear to achieve a monetary figure is very loose in terms of its drafting and very imprecise. The courts will have a lot of trouble interpreting that clause, so I place on record the Opposition's reservations about it. The other provisions, which I have had an opportunity to look at only quickly today, seem at first glance and on face value to be workable. I am concerned that we are on the mn, as it were, and in a bit of a msh to extend very substantial powers both to the Govemor in Council and the courts on a range of matters and a range of offences in relation to the mechanism of this legislation. I just hope that it works. I do not have a great deal of confidence, but it seems that this is all the time that the House will have to deal with this legislation. In concluding my remarks on the specific provisions of the BiU, I want to refer to the last part, which refers to interpreting the term "officer on suspension". It means a person who is suspended from duty as the holder of a public office "on a ground that has a connexion with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence", whether or not that conduct can be attributed to a specific person. That is very hard for anybody to clearly Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 571 understand or clearly spell out. Perhaps in his response the Minister wiU clarify that phrase "on a ground that has a connexion with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence". It seems to me that that is a very general and loose phrase. Once again, I would like to know the way in which the courts are supposed to interpret that. I tum now to the clause headed "Effect of certain dismissals on superannuation or retirement benefits". I express two particular reservations that the Opposition has in relation to that clause. Firstly, it refers to the termination by dismissal of the employment of a holder of a public office, yet it does not specify whether that is dismissal on the grounds of maladministration or incompetence or cormption. It seems to me that the legislation should spell out whether it is both of those grounds, one of them or whatever. Secondly, it seems to me that there should be some specific provision nominating the time at which the effect of that clause would cease, that is, when the moneys are no longer to be held in escrow and when they are to be available for disbursement, whether in whole or in part. Perhaps certain Ministers should think about the question as to whether or not they might be caught by a provision that provides for dismissal on the grounds of incompetence. Certainly, at least a couple of Ministers would be open to that charge and may be caught by the pending reshuffle which the Premier is mmoured to be undertaking once we get out of this place. I wonder whether those Ministers have given consideration to the fact that they may be dismissed on the grounds of incompetence and perhaps their superannuation may be put on the shelf for some time. I also wish to register the Opposition's objection to any suggestion that a precedent could be established here that could take away or affect the superannuation rights of public officials—or any worker, for that matter—on the grounds of incompetence or maladministration. Clearly, the penalty in relation to superannuation should be restricted wholly and solely to people who are guilty of cormpt conduct. If there has to be a temporary freezing of their rights, that is all right. The Opposition has consistently supported a freezing of the superannuation for all three categories of persons, whether they be police officers, public servants or members or Parliament, until such time as the allegations of cormption are cleared. But simply to move on the grounds of alleged incompetence or maladministration is a dangerous precedent in the view of the Opposition. Those aspects of that clause need to be clarified. In conclusion—the Opposition has a number of reservations about the drafting of the Bill. We predict that it will be back here to be amended. It is unfortunate that the Govemment leaves matters for so long before it responds, as I said previously, under pressure, instead of acting at an earlier stage, which it could have done. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.43 p.m.): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I express concem also about the length of time that honourable members have been allowed to examine this Bill. Mr Gately: Sounds like a parrot. Mr INNES: The member for Curmmbin has made some inane interjection about parroting certain opinions. One of the tragedies of this House is that the only decent, informed debate comes from the spokesmen for the Opposition and not from the Government. Certainly the contribution from any of the luminaries on the back bench does nothing to raise the level of debate or the knowledge of these matters in this House. It is perfectly obvious that the Fitzgerald inquiry has changed absolutely nothing with regard to the arrogance and the stupidity which backs the Government. As long as this belligerent, hectoring, ridiculous attitude is maintained, the Government is going to be in perpetual strife. The Premier does not even understand the problems he creates for himself He cannot see two steps ahead. He does not listen to or understand advice. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly said— and it can be pointed out every step of the way in this sad and sorry saga—that other people have indicated to the Govemment 572 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill the signposts as to what to do, but the Govemment has failed to respond until the last possible moment and, at times, until it is in trouble. Today I spent some time detailing the problems that related to the specific information that this Govemment was given—not the mmour, not the innuendo, but the specific information that the Government itself had called for. The Premier likes to talk about the best legal brains being available—and there are able legal brains available. It is a bit like a computer; if one puts garbage in, one gets garbage out. One has to know what questions to ask, what advice to seek, and one has to be able to understand the advice that is given. Let us face it: there would be nobody more versed, nobody better qualified, no better criminal legal brain in this State than that of Mr Sturgess. However, the Government failed to read, to understand and to respond to the clear and detailed report that he presented. Only two years later, at the height of publicity and embarrassment, did the Govemment act, whereas, quite clearly, had it listened to the advice offered two years earlier, it could have acted and prevented another two years of cormption in this State. Certainly at a later point in time, when that crisis occurred, the Deputy Premier acted. Some polls were conducted at about that time that showed that the present Premier was leaping ahead in the prospective Premiership stakes and, no doubt, this was a bold gesture which allowed one to cut a bit of a swath for oneself However, for whatever reason, the then Police Minister, in the absence of the then Premier, announced that there would be an inquiry. As I have pointed out, the first instinct was to select and to approach Judge Pratt. The Lewis diaries reveal what a tragedy that would have been because it would have been impossible for people to approach the inquiry with confidence had that appointment taken place. It was only the publicity engendered by myself, the Bar Association and the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that that would have been inappropriate, that got things back on the rails again. Thank God the Government looked round in desperation and found an ex-judge who just happened to be an outstanding selection for the position. Similarly, I made some comments at the very beginning of this year as a result of the constant revelations at the Fitzgerald inquiry, the constant revelations by police officers that other police officers tried to verbal them. I am not talking about criminals or the great outside but about policeman after policeman saying that other policemen had tried to verbal and fit him. I raised the problem that this was creating in the administration of justice in this State. I pointed out that jury decisions were being affected prejudicially by the sort of publicity being given to the Fitzgerald inquiry, adding to some history of a problem of verballing in this State. On 10 March this year I wrote a letter to Mr Speaker asking for a debate on a Matter of Public Importance, that is, the need to introduce immediately videotape recording and tape recording as an assistance to the reliability and accuracy of evidence given in the courts in this State, and I pointed out the prejudicial effect that it was having with regard to the successful prosecution of cases. Indeed, at about that time the Queensland Police Union made statements about the problems that it was having. However, at that time the Deputy Premier denied that there was a problem with regard to obtaining convictions. He said that there was no perceptible effect on the court system of this State. Of course, the publicity was shortly to be used for yet another overseas junket to yet another part of the world to investigate what had been investigated by previous Justice Ministers and previous Police Ministers. Six months later, in the drama of yet another allegation of verballing, not the first but about the five-thousandth that we have heard in 10 years, again there was a flurry of action and again Ministers talked about dispatching themselves to various parts of the world. The Govemment does nothing about the clear indications that a problem exists. It does nothing about the advice that it has received from its own sources, let Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 573 alone the encouragement from other political parties as to the answers to and resolution of those problems. It is a constant pattem of solo National Party Government. It has an inability to understand the problems in the community. The Govemment has failed to act on advice that was readily available at an early time to forestall the creation of even greater problems. Again, there was only a flurry of action in the face of overwhelming adverse publicity. Similar circumstances have occurred with the sacking of Commissioner Lewis. Many times it has been pointed out to the Govemment that the swom statement by Commissioner Lewis on the second day of the Fitzgerald inquiry that he had not read the Sturgess report was at the very least the most crystal clear indication of maladminstration and of gross neglect of his duty. That was a conclusion that Govemment members could have arrived at themselves rather than hiding behind this flurry of legal opinions, which, it is rightly pointed out, are very seldom or almost never tabled in this House. There has certainly been plenty of condemnation of other points of view; but what did we find? Six months later, or a year after the statements have been made, the Premier eventually got round to saying that the actions against the Commissioner of Police were taken on the grounds of maladministration. At least that is what the Premier says one minute. There is some doubt about the cormption aspect being at least another consideration. It was only in the face of the adverse publicity created by the direct evidence of bagman Jack Herbert that Commissioner Lewis was being directly paid graft—direct evidence, not hearsay evidence—that we see the flurry of action that should have taken place and could have taken place months before. The subject of superannuation has been raised by members of other political parties and by commentators in the press. I can recall three, four or five months ago giving a press conference in which I suggested on behalf of the Liberal Party that, rather than whole-hearted agreement or significant agreement with the Leader of the Opposition's approach that suspicion was enough, there was clearly the means involving successful prosecution which should allow one to go back in time to attack superannuation and other benefits. Cormpt activity of a type which would have allowed the termination of employment within service—if that cormpt activity was known—is such a fundamental breach that at least it allows one to go back to recover the public contribution to the superannuation. That was precisely what I advocated in the conference in about April of this year. This matter has been the subject of debate for a long time. For so long the same concepts have been proposed. Finally, again in the glare of publicity, the Government is acting in accordance with the proposals put forward by commentators and other political parties that were at the time scoffed at, rejected and belittled in the usual mindless way that is characteristic of Government members. It is clear that hindsight can make people wiser. But Governments are supposed to rely on their experience of the world and upon reasonable information to look ahead. All wisdom is not gained by hindsight. The Leader of the Opposition and Government members have canvassed the matter of the appointment of Commissioner Lewis, whose situation clearly prompts the legislation before honourable members tonight. As I said before, there appeared to be two camps, or views, as to Mr Whitrod's efficiency. I do not think that anyone has ever doubted his honesty, but there were certainly some countervailing views as to his effectiveness and efficiency and the extent of the control that he had over the police force. There were clearly two camps as to the suitability and qualifications of Commissioner Lewis at the time of his promotion. Down the track we have gleaned other pieces of information which show that perhaps his appointment could have been argued on its merits. As a younger commissioned officer with the Queensland police force. Commissioner Lewis had qualifications which set him apart from his peers—his contemporaries. He 574 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill had done things and acquired qualifications that were not typical of police officers of his era. From pubhcity associated with the Lewis diaries, it was interesting to discover that, just before his appointment and whilst he was stUl stationed at CharleviUe, the commissioner met with the President of the National Party, Sir Robert Sparkes—then Mr Robert Sparkes, I assume—and the Vice-president of the National Party, Mr Charles Holm. I certainly did not know that. I find it rather intriguing to ponder the reason why the prospective police chief—the person imminently to be appointed—would have met with the president and vice-president of a political party. Mr Ahern: Perhaps Bill Knox might know; he was in Cabinet at the time. Mr INNES: The Lewis diaries do not show that Mr Lewis met with Sir William Knox. They show that he met with Sir Robert Sparkes and Mr Charles Holm. As I recall it, the Lewis diaries evidence a constant and regular personal contact between Commissioner Lewis and Sir Robert Sparkes. Indeed, astonishingly, we find that Lewis went to National Party headquarters to discuss matters of mutual interest. In any properly mn State I cannot conceive a situation in which the president of a political party engages in direct contact on political matters or political criminal matters with the Commissioner of Police. That is improper and will always be improper. Mr Sherrin: How do you know? Mr INNES: The Lewis diaries evidence a constant pattem of contact between Sir Robert Sparkes and Commissioner Lewis. Mr FitzGerald: What were they talking about? Mr INNES: I assume that the back-benchers of the National Party see nothing wrong with that. Anybody else who is versed in anything like the Westminster system and not cormpt and perverted would understand that that was improper. Only one party president was in contact face to face or phone call to phone call with Commissioner Lewis, namely, the President of the National Party. Mr Beard: Their inability to see anything wrong with that is the tragedy. Mr INNES: That is right. Their inability to understand the impropriety is a tragedy. Ordinary back-benchers are probably advised or requested to go through the Minister. I am not saying that that happens all the time—that would be unrealistic—but at least back-benchers have a direct function and responsibility within the system. Party presidents do not talk to Commissioners of Police. An honourable member interjected. Mr INNES: It happens in South America and one-party States. In our system of checks and balances and accountability, the purely political process is distanced from the processes of government. If Govemment members do not understand why party presidents should not talk to Police Commissioners, that shows what has gone wrong in this State. It is an improper practice, and this Govemment's failure to understand that is the reason why we are in the middle of the mess which is the Fitzgerald inquiry. Like every other member of this House, I have made some contact irregularly with my local police and, on a couple of occasions, with the office of the Commissioner of Police—but never to request that any prosecution be dropped or anything improper be done. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member that the Public Officers' Supemannuation Benefits Recovery Bill is being debated and I am having difficulty marrying his remarks with the matter before the House. Mr Comben: You have just got your instmctions. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 575

Mr SPEAKER: Order! the honourable member for Windsor! Mr Comben: You have just got your riding instmctions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Windsor under Standing Order 123A. Mr Comben: Your know where you got those instmctions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wamed the member, and I now wam him a second time. I call the member for Sherwood. Mr INNES: I detaU these things to provide a background to the unfortunate environment in which we find ourselves discussing brand-new legislation in a sense of urgency in the middle of a crisis about the appointment of a particular Police Commis­ sioner. All the things that I have said relate to the background which leads to this sort of nonsense. In a properly mn Parliament—with respect to you, Mr Speaker, that is no reflection on the Chair; I refer to a Parliament in which the Govemment has proper control of itself and proper control over the business of the House—we would not find ourselves debating this legislation as a matter of urgency. Like most other members of this House, we in the opposition have not had time to examine this legislation in total detail. We have not had the benefit of putting it down for 24 hours, picking it up and having a look at it again to see whether there are any new angles to it. We have not had the benefit of canvassing it with a wide community—and there are many elements of the public service which would have an interest in this sort of legislation—to provide a different viewpoint based upon a wide diversity of experiences. The Liberal Party in fact proposed legislation involving these types of principles. It does not have a problem with legislation that aUows the recovery of the Govemment's contribution of superannuation from somebody who is found to have been cormpt. However, there are some things that I would make comment on. Firstly, Liberal Party members believe—as we understand it, this legislation will be proceeded with either tonight or tomorrow—that the legislation should be referred immediately to the Law Reform Commission to allow its expert opinion to be given about whether this legislation does affiont any of the basic principles of justice. Secondly, we believe that the Director of Prosecutions should certify any case of conviction involving cormption and a public servant. We do not beheve it is satisfactory that the initiation of this legislation or its consequences should be in the hand of a Minister. The very environment in which we are discussing this matter is one of political embarrassment. We beheve that the axe of the law should fall fairly and equally on people and not be subject to the decision of the Queensland Cabinet. We have suffered from those decisions for far too long. If a case involves a public servant and cormption, we believe that certification of the Director of Prosecutions should be given. If it is given, steps should be initiated automatically in relation to the superannuation and not left to the "pick and choose" of the Queensland Cabinet, the activities of the Ministers of which have got us into this diabolical trouble. I also refer to Part V of the BUI. I will leave aside detaUed examination of the restraining orders and the method of recovery. We have not had time to exhaustively consider the implications. On the matter of deferred retirements and resignations—there indeed appears to be a problem with regard to the interpretation in clause 32 of "officer on suspension". Unashamedly I would agree, and my party would agree, that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition are vahd legal comments to make. What on earth does the phrase "on a ground that has a connexion with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence" mean? How wide is that phrase intended to be? Is a person who draws a cheque in a department, in circumstances in which the cheque is one of the activities necessary to provide the cormpt benefit, albeit drawn innocently 576 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill on instmctions from a cormpt person, guilty of a prescribed office when the person who gave the instmction has a connection with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence? That proposition seems to me to be quite arguable. On that basis, the Govemment could move to affect the superannuation rights of that person. I do not believe that the principles of this Bill should be intended to affect anybody other than a person who is involved in cormption. Members of the Liberal Party are worried by clause 33 because I suspect that it carries on a problem that originated in the present Public Service Management and Employment Act. Members of the Liberal Party are worried about the concept whereby a person can be locked in by Executive Government action. A person could be trapped in employment that he wishes to get out of For example, a person could be suspended without pay but not allowed to resign. By the terms of his employment, he is also not allowed to have another job. It occurs to me that a person could be suspended for a year or two without pay, and with no legal rights in terms of his employment to take up another occupation. It seems to members of the Liberal Party that some limit should be imposed on the period during which a person can be suspended without pay—a period within which some determination of the issue should take place. I wish to examine clause 35 in context. Clause 32 defines an "officer on suspension". Clauses 33 and 34 refer to officers on suspension also. Clauses 36, 37 and 38 refer to officers on suspension. Each clause in Part V refers to officers on suspension, except clause 35, which does not. It contains the following provision— "If the employment of a holder of a public office is to be terminated by his dismissal from office in circumstances..." That is the phraseology. It seems to me that clause 35 can apply to anybody. Without any requirement that an allegation of cormption has been made or that an allegation has been made in connection with cormption, clause 35 has the effect of giving the Governor in Council the untrammelled right of a decision, without grounds Sir William Knox: With total discretion. Mr INNES: With total discretion to declare that the whole or part of superannuation benefits shall be held in escrow. Surely, that cannot be right. Unashamedly, members of the Liberal Party totally support the concept of a person who is convicted of cormption having his rights impugned. However, we find it impossible to go along with a clause that appears upon examination to be totally different from all other clauses of that Part and appears to be without limitation or requirement that conduct relates in any way to cormption. It appears to members of the Liberal Party that clause 35 gives untrammelled power to the Governor in Council without any limit or discretion to order that superannuation benefits be held in escrow. I cannot readily believe that that was the intention of the legislation. It is not the impression one obtains from looking at the second-reading speech. I wonder whether it has been included deliberately as a catch-all clause, just in case there is a heck of a lot of political flak about some individual but no other grounds exist? Those matters should be taken into account. Because members of the Liberal Party are being asked to participate in law-making on an urgent matter, on this occasion I ask the Premier to respond directly to the arguments that have been raised. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) (11.09 p.m.), in reply: Before the opportunity is taken to respond in detail to the remarks that have been made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to this legislation, I feel I must respond in a general way to issues that have been raised. It is worth while restating a few general principles and as these issues have been raised tonight, although not directly in the legislation, I feel that I must. I thought that there had been agreement some long time ago between members of this Parliament that there was only one commission of inquiry operating in Queensland Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 577

and that it was operating up at the other end of George Street. It is a time-honoured and accepted principle of respect for a convention which has been described as sub judice and given other descriptions which members of Parliament generally respect. When a full commission of inquiry is operating, members of Parliament do not try to turn their Parliament into another commission of inquiry operating in another place. It appears to me that on this occasion this is where the debate has descended. Members of this Parliament are trying to operate a commission of inquiry in this House. Mr Goss: Not so. Mr AHERN: It is certainly so. There have been many arguments in respect of issues which have been raised. The Govemment's response to the issue has been completely open and it has tried to give as much information as possible to people along the way as to how the Govemment was dealing with the matter on a day-by-day basis. However, the members of this Parliament ought to respect what the commissioner is trying to do under enormously difficult circumstances and in a unique situation. He should have the support of the members of this House, who should ensure that they are not advertently or inadvertently fmstrating the work of the inquiry. Mr Goss: Is this all going to be a motherhood speech? Mr AHERN: I will answer the Leader of the Opposition directly because he brought the mother of all motherhoods into his speech tonight. I said this morning in the House, and I say again, that the effect of the Fitzgerald inquiry has ranged wide. Whilst there has been an attempt by the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition to sheet home to me and my Cabinet Ministers responsibility for issues that were determined in 1976, the public of Queensland would surely regard that as complete nonsense. It is complete nonsense to hold me responsible for issues and happenings that occurred in 1976. The Leader of the Opposition has sought to hold me responsible as a back-bencher in the Government of the day. He would be laughed out of any court anywhere with that sort of outrageous proposition. It is simply a desperate attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to implicate someone in respect of something that happened 12 years ago when I was serving on the back bench in this Parliament. It is nonsense. Obviously, from the evidence that has already been presented, this "joke" or system that has operated in the State goes back in history a long way. It has gone back and implicated members of the Labor Party. Members of the Labor Party have been mentioned, and one member who is serving in this House has been mentioned substan­ tially and aUegations have been raised. The issues concem times when the members of the Liberal Party were on the Treasury benches in this House during which decisions were made. Questions could be asked as to what was happening in relation to these issues when they were occupying the Treasury benches. It is tme that issues have been raised which occurred at a time when this Govemment was operating in its own right. These questions have been raised legitimately and the question has been asked, "You have taken action in respect of the constitution of the inquiry. Why did you not take action earlier?" Mr GOSS: Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under what Standing Order does the Leader of the Opposition rise? Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order under Standing Order No. 120. I refer to the reference by the Premier to a member of the Labor Party having "substantial allegations made against him". I am not aware of any member of the Labor Party in respect of whom there have been allegations of cormption. I am aware that there has been a hearsay reference to the attendance of one member at an illegal gambling establishment. There is no allegation of corruption that I am aware of I believe that the Premier's 578 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill statement in that regard, if he is imputing cormption, is in breach of Standing Order 120, and I ask for a retraction on that basis. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable Leader of the Opposition is claiming the imputation of improper motives. I am sure the Premier was not doing that. Mr AHERN: I am certainly not doing that. I ask: under what Standing Order is the honourable member able to seek a retraction on behalf of another honourable member in this place? Mr SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 120, if there is an imputation of improper motives, the honourable member is within his rights to rise on that matter. That is what he has done. Mr AHERN: I do not at this stage impute improper motives, but I do indicate that two members of the Labor Party, one of whom is retired, have certainly had their names mentioned. An Opposition member: Be specific. Mr AHERN: Johnno Mann. The Leader of the Opposition has taken us weU back in history. Let me go back a little bit further in history; that is a not unreasonable course to take. It is interesting that the honourable Leader of the Opposition is holding the Australian Labor Party up as lily-white on this issue. Nobody in Queensland believes that. What a nonsense! Let us see what happens in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria when these issues really get going. The plain facts are that this issue has ranged wide and the Govemment is now dealing comprehensively with it. The Govemment has proceeded on the advice of those whom it has hired to represent it before the commission and on the advice of the Solicitor-General's Office. They are observing the day-by-day evidence that is presented and the Govemment is acting on their advice in a meaningful way. The honourable Leader of the Opposition and his friend the Leader of the Liberal Party, who seem to agree on all of these issues, are arguing that some of this advice is wrong and that the Govemment should have acted earlier in the context of the advice that it had been given or in respect of the particular stage of evidence that has been presented. We are the Govemment of this State. The advice is available to us. We are proceeding to get on top of this problem. To date, no loopholes have been left and we have no intention of leaving any. That is why this legislation is before the House tonight and that is why it casts its net widely, so that the Govemment has the power to ensure that no loopholes are left for anyone in this State who is a member of the criminal system to get through it. The Govemment will not aUow that. It will not happen. The Govemment has the resolve to get on top of the problem, and it will certainly do that. I am angry that the Leader of the Opposition raises this scuttle-butt in the column written by Andrew Stewart, whom I know. It is clearly unacceptable professional jouralistic practice to write something like that, which imputes that I have not acted in the exercise of my duty, without giving me the opportunity even to comment on it beforehand, to say whether or not I had met the former member for South Coast. The fact that he did not consult with me before writing that drivel is quite scandalous, yet the honourable Leader of the Opposition, having had my absolute denial, insisted tonight on again reading it into the record. We on this side of the House are not mnning some cheap debating society; we are pursuing systematic criminals in this State with a determination to get to the bottom of the matter. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated unreasonable standards by reading out that particular piece of scuttle-butt. Mr Goss: I recorded that you denied it. Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 579

Mr AHERN: But the Leader of the Opposition had to read it out for the second time in the day. What a nonsense! What low standards that demonstrates! How grafting he is in respect of tiny issues! Mr Goss: I am not going to let you off the hook. Mr AHERN: What a nonsense! What hook am I on? The Leader of the Opposition got on the hook last Saturday, and two weeks ago. He is on the hook. That is why he is so angry at the present time. The legislation covers members of Parliament. An attempt has been made by the Leader of the Opposition—not the Leader of the Liberal Party—to say that the legislation somehow or other discriminates between members of Parliament and other receivers of Crown moneys in respect of their superannuation. Mr Goss: The April legislation. Mr AHERN: That is not so. This piece of legislation covers all. In respect of the earlier legislation, there was clearly a need to discriminate between members of Parliament and Crown employees. A clear distinction exists in relation to an elected public official. I noticed that the Leader of the Liberal Party did not raise that issue, because I think that he understands the situation a little better in respect of the rights and immunities of a member of Parliament. This legislation does not discriminate. It is a comprehensive piece of important legislation which represents the toughest piece of anti-cormption legislation in Australia today. Is there any legislation anywhere in the country that is as strong and as wide as this legislation? The answer is, "No, there is not." It is new legislation. Nobody has tried to write this type of legislation before. Mr Innes: We want it tough and fair. Mr AHERN: Yes. Tough and fair it is. I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party. There is an intention to be tough and fair. However, when completely new legislation is being written, there is nowhere else to look for precedents. The Government draftsman has to sit down with goodwill and try to develop a set of concepts and incorporate them into legislation. Because it is brand new, I make no apology for the fact that I expect this legislation to be back for further amendment in terms of its operation. Nobody has tried to do this sort of thing before. Nobody has been confronted with this type of situation. Mr Innes: What's the msh? Mr AHERN: There is some msh in respect of the legislation, and the Leader of the Liberal Party knows the reasons why. It is a nonsense question to ask me why. The legislation undoubtedly will be back for further amendment in terms of its experience in the market-place when the courts look at using it and when the Govemor in Council has to use it. We have done the best job that we can in the time that we have had, which has been some months now. Much attention has been given to it. Consultation has been wide with the legal fratemity in respect of how the legislation might sensibly operate. The legislation is very comprehensive. It casts its net deliberately wide. I guess that is why some exception is being taken to clause 32 which relates to deferred retirements and resignations. A selection has been made in respect of paragraph (b) and questions have been asked. That clause states, in part— ".. .'officer on suspension' means a person who is suspended from duty as the holder of a public office—

(b) on a ground that has a connexion with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence, whether or not that conduct can be attributed to a specific person." In the circumstances of the day on which a very substantial problem has been revealed amongst a group of senior officers who are in receipt of superannuation or are 580 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill approaching retirement age or are over it, there was no other way in which the draftsman could cast his net other than with this form of words in order to prevent something which is publicly unacceptable happening, with someone being able to demand his superannuation entitlement, which would not be perceived by the community to be reasonable. That is why those words were specifically put in the legislation. However, generally speaking, I agree that the issue of incompetence is insufficient ground for the Government not to pay its contribution in respect of superannuation. A careful reading of the wording of the legislation and an understanding of the circumstances reveal that this form of drafting is not unreasonable to meet the circumstances that confront the Government at present. It casts the net wide, and I have no doubt that at some time in the future, when this problem is behind us, this type of legislation will be reviewed with a view perhaps to drafting it differently to provide better guide­ lines to the Govemor in Council in regard to its application. I am advised that section 35 prevents the operation of the provisions of the superannuation legislation which would otherwise entitle a dismissed person to get full superannuation benefits. Again, this is a wide casting of the net of power that is available, and it is deemed necessary in the present circumstances. The question has also been asked: how will the Government judge the liability and the circumstances under section 8? What are the factors relevant to the assessment of liability? It has been determined that that is best left in the hands of a judge. I have no doubt that experience in the courts will result in the requirement of considerable fine- tuning of the legislation. However, it does not leave the matter resting in the hands of a court, because it may well be very difficult to decide the extent of cormption—to decide whether a dozen bottles of beer represents cormption or whether $100,000 is the extent of cormption—and who is involved. Surely a judge is the person who is best equipped to determine that. The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party asks whether a Minister is approporiate or whether it should be the Director of Prosecutions who initiates the process. The draftsmen and the Ministers who gave consideration to this matter and how it might operate publicly—and given the fact that there are no precedents—determined that this was an issue relating to the recovery of public moneys. Accordingly, the Minister for Finance was the appropriate person to initiate that action. However, a judge will make the ultimate determination, given all of the circumstances of the day and the particular case. The legislation contains guide-lines and safeguards in respect of family arrangements, and those have to be taken into account as the Government deals with this difficult issue. As I indicated, this is path-finding legislation. It is new. No-one in this country who has an opportunity to read and study it will believe that anywhere is there tougher legislation against cormption in public office. Its severity will jar many people and obviously it will have immediate application in respect of personalities who are under the judgment of the Fitzgerald commission. I have no doubt that the community of Queensland wants strong action on the matters in the legislation. There is now a deep resentment of those, who, in positions of tmst, have been demonstrated to have acted entirely irresponsibly and over a long period to their own very substantial benefit in ways which are manifestly unfair in every sense of the term. In respect of these matters, there is outrage in the community that these persons in highly paid positions took very substantial amounts of money by way of graft and cormption to abuse completely their offices and positions of tmst. The community as a whole is looking for strong action. There is resentment that any tax­ payer's money will be paid to these persons by way of lump-sum superannuation entitlements. I have no doubt that the community as a whole wants strong action—and strong action this legislation is. It gives to Mr Fitzgerald an opportunity to determine primarily those issues of criminality. In cases in which doubts arise in respect of unfinished matters, there will be an opportunity for the Govemor in Council to put moneys into Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 581

escrow. The whole issue is, I believe, an important one, one which will have strong community support and, I think, the in-principle support of all members of the House. The legislation is, however, presented on the basis that there is no doubt that it will have to come back for further review at some future time. But it is sufficient to meet the urgent circumstances and the demand of the public, which is looking for strong action and no payment from the tax-payer of Govemment superannuation contributions to people who are obviously cormpt. Mr Goss: For five months you refused to act. Mr AHERN: On this issue we have proceeded with pioneering legislation. We have taken due time. The Leader of the Opposition said that we have had five months. I am willing to bet London to a brick on that he will be out tomorrow accusing the Government of mshing through the legislation, having taken months to present it. He is every which way. He changes his mind. He called on the Govemment to suspend without pay. When that happened, he criticised the Government for doing that. He is against everything. As far as he is concemed, there is nothing that this Government can do that is right. Today the Govemment has taken strong action within a reasonable time-frame and within the original time-frame that was set by this House to bring in the legislation, which was the end of the year, before the sunset clause in the legislation came into being. It is brought into place tonight as an important part in the Govemment's program of a fight against corruption in Queensland. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. M. J. Ahern (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Mr INNES (11.35 p.m.): I rise to emphasise the Liberal Party's concem about the provision that so widely casts the net which was referred to by the Premier. The words "tough" and "pioneering" can be used as often as one likes; however, we are not doing the cause of sound, equitable and just law-making any good if we attack an individual or even a small group of individuals to the extent that other persons affected by the Public Service Superannuation Act are put in jeopardy. Merely by an emotion, which has been expressed as outrage in the community or a demand for tough action, one cannot cover up the fact that the Government has been motivated—as much by embarrassment or a sense of urgency that has been created by a failure to act in the past—to introduce legislation in this fashion in a tmncated time. The Premier has admitted that this legislation has been considered for some months. He has admitted that, because of the sunset clause that was passed earlier this year, it was known that this matter had to be addressed. The second part of the definition of "officer on suspension" is so wide as to be almost without limit. It jeopardises the position of a person who, in every sense of the word, could be innocent of any knowledge of or complicity or involvement in cormption. The Liberal Party supports totally an attack on the cormpt. It does not support attacks on those who are not cormpt. Therefore, I draw particular attention to this part of the legislation because I do not believe that the most felicitous or effective words have been found to achieve the aim of attacking the cormpt without jeopardising the innocent. Consideration of this aspect over a period would be able to reduce this clause to more specific terms. One does not use the mesh of a bait net to catch whales. The Liberal Party does not wish to see the introduction of legislation that will jeopardise or be used against—even misguidedly—an innocent person. In the time 582 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill allowed it is not possible for the Liberal Party to propose amendments. The choice of words in this clause is so wide as to put in peril people who might have nothing to do with and no knowledge of cormption. Mr AHERN: I understand the honourable member's concem. However, one must consider carefully what this particular clause is all about. It refers to deferred retirements and resignations and officers on suspension. It outlines certain action that will be taken by the Govemor in Council in respect of superannuation payments. Superannuation funds will be put into escrow and will continue to accme interest during that period. The legislation does not convict anybody; it takes certain action to put into escrow the superannuation of persons whom the Govemor in Council determines are appropriate on the grounds that those persons have a connection with conduct that constitutes a prescribed offence, whether or not that conduct can be attributed to a specific person. It is a wide drafting, but it is putting into escrow a lump sum of money until such time as a charge can be laid and action taken by a court. Unless there is a conviction, I remind honourable members that this Bill in its other sanctions cannot be triggered. So, what it is doing is postponing the payment rather than invoking a very substantial penalty in respect of the recovery of public moneys. That is all that this section is doing: putting the money into escrow. The tougher part of the legislation which is described in other clauses, which is the recovery part and which is a very substantial sanction in relation to this section, is not being triggered. It is only after the conviction occurs that the recovery process is proceeded with by the Minister for Finance to the judge. Given all the circumstances that are facing us in respect of all these issues, the drafting had to be that way. As 1 said, it may well be that at a later time the issue will be reviewed in respect of the particular wording which might apply in perpetuity. However, given the circumstances that are available now before the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry, with all of the horrendous circumstances that are there displayed, and so as there is not a payment required by law of a Govemment's contribution to a superannuation entitlement, it was deemed necessary to have a power to enable us to protect the public moneys. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clauses 33 and 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): In relation to clause 35, I have been advised by the parliamentary draftsman that there is a typographical error in line 33. The word "or" has been omitted between the word "superannuation" and the word "retirement". Mr AHERN (11.44 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 21, line 36, after 'Act' add— 'or any agreement'." This amendment is necessary to cover those parties who have a contract with the Crown. Mr INNES: It is perhaps not surprising that this clause is already subject to one typographical error and one amendment. This is perhaps the most disturbing clause in the whole Bill. The rest of the Bill sets up a scheme whereby a person convicted of a crime involving cormption can have his superannuation put in jeopardy, so that after a judicial assessment the public contribution can be recovered. 1 have said quite freely that the Liberal Party does not have a problem with the principle involved there. Although I have made the following statements previously, they relate to a matter that I wish to re-emphasise. Part V is a different scheme of things. The legislation moves from dealing with people who have been convicted to dealing with those people who Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill 6 September 1988 583 have not yet been convicted. A different combination of circumstances and different provisions relating to retirement or resignation appear to introduce the Govemor in Council as the controlling factor. The first four parts of the legislation are subject to judicial control. A finding of guilt has to be made by a criminal court on a charge involving cormption engaged in by a public servant. When that finding has been made, and if the Minister initiates recovery proceedings, the matter goes to a court or a master to make an assessment of the amount of money that is to be recovered. Steps can also be taken to seize property to satisfy a financial obligation. Part V relates to a totally different area in which questions of suspicion have not been resolved by litigation and matters have not been the subject of a judicial finding. It appears that six out of seven clauses, if one ignores the repeal provision, require an element of cormption because they all require the basis of a "prescribed offence". The only section that does not require any finding of criminality or cormption, or any allegation or ground of criminality or cormption, is clause 35; yet it is the provision that gives the widest possible powers under the total provisions of the legislation. Nowhere does it describe the need for a judicial finding to be made. Let me now examine the phraseology of clause 35, which states— "(1) If the employment of a holder of a public office is to be terminated by his dismissal from office in circumstances such that he would, but for this provision, be entitled to be paid the whole of the superannuation or retirement benefits ... the Govemor in Council may, by Order in Council, declare that the whole or part of the benefits shall not be paid to or on account of the dismissed person but shall be held in escrow by a person nominated in the order upon the conditions of escrow declared by the order. (2) Where the Governor in Council has declared as prescribed by subsection (1) the dismissed person's entitlement to have the superannuation retirement benefits paid to him or on his account shall be subject to and dependent upon such declaration and the fulfilment of the conditions of escrow so declared..." That provision means that the word "dismissal" can cover instances of cormption as well as those that do not involve any cormption. Perhaps a person might be dismissed under a contract of employment in circumstances in which that person's service is no longer needed, or in circumstances of negligence or because of a conflict of personality. Irrespective of the term to be applied, the circumstances could include any contract of employment or other public service conditions of employment, but need not involve any element of criminality or cormption. In such circumstances, the Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet advising the Governor—and let us not blame Sir Walter Campbell; it is the Government of Queensland—can make a decision to put all the superannuation benefits into escrow, subject to whatever conditions it imposes. There is no provision for judicial control. I cannot see any requirement that judicial oversight will necessarily come into the matter. I assume that in time it will be unlimited and that it will cover the whole of the superannuation entitlement; but it will not involve any finding of criminality, cormption or cormpt behaviour whatsoever. To my mind, that seems to be an extraordinarily wide provision that is entirely beyond the whole scheme of this legislation which, in all other respects, required judicial findings or judicial oversight. Does that not mean that the Cabinet of Queensland or the Governor in Council, who is advised by the Cabinet, could decide to put all a person's superannuation entitlements into limbo for an indefinite period and that that person would be unable to bring the matter to court? I cannot really believe that the Govemment intends that the clause should have such a wide effect. If I am mistaken, I would like to have my mistake pointed out and have reference made to other provisions in the Bill which I have overlooked. As I see it, this provision alone appears to have the widest possible unlimited powers under the Bill and not powers that necessarily invoke any judicial oversight or involve any criminality. 584 6 September 1988 Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill

Mr GOSS: I wish to raise three points in respect of this clause on which I seek clarification from the Premier. Firstly, to follow on from the point made by the Leader of the Liberal Party in relation to the wide-ranging nature of this power, is the Government prepared to give consideration to some mechanism whereby it could be tested or a review sought by any person affected, assuming that there is no such provision in the current legislation? I have not picked up any such provision during my quick reading of the legislation. The second point relates to the amendment. I seek clarification as to whether the employment agreements referred to—for example any agreement that Sir Terence Lewis may have—mean that under that agreement such a person would be entitled to full superannuation benefits, notwithstanding that he or she may be convicted of some prescribed offence. It would therefore be necessary to have this provision to overcome that. The third point 1 raise relates to the term "dismissal". As I said previously, the term "dismissal" carries no further reference as to whether it is on the grounds of incompetence, maladministration, cormption or all of those charges. There is no definition in the Bill of this term "dismissal". For example, could "dismissal" include a Minister who was defeated at an election? Could it be said that a Minister who was defeated at an election was thereby dismissed from his office in circumstances in which he would be entitled to his superannuation? Therefore such Minister could have all or part of his benefits held in escrow pursuant to this power. Mr AHERN: I am advised that the circumstances which are foreseen by the Leader of the Liberal Party are not envisaged in the operation of this clause. The plain facts are that under the contracts signed by public service heads there is an entitlement to superannuation as part of the contract. Where that situation occurs, this provision will override it and ensure that someone does not have an automatic entitlement to pick up his superannuation by virtue of their contract. This has now stopped. Also 1 am advised that dismissal from office under various Acts is prescribed in those Acts. It is not there for idle purposes or for those who are on contract. It is not something that the Government can idly undertake under various pieces of legislation. The grounds are laid down in each piece of legislation and misconduct must be established. Whereas misconduct is established dismissal occurs and under this legislation an option is available to the Govemor in Council, given the circumstances, to escrow all or part of the superannuation entitlement. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that the actions of the Governor in Council in relation to this matter will be closely monitored and will have to be carefully explained. I know that in legislation that is not enough, but it is certainly a safeguard that is there. When it is applied it will obviously be very publicly done and the circumstances will be clearly described. However, when the draftsmen were looking at all eventualities in relation to those on contract and those not on contract, they could find no other way to close all the loopholes other than to write the legislation in this manner. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked whether some safeguard could later be written to provide guide-lines in respect of this matter. That can be taken on board for consideration at a later time. I can see that questions will be raised in relation to this particular matter and 1 am prepared to give consideration to his suggestion. Mr INNES: I thank the Premier for coming some way along the path to answering some of the inquiries. I just want to try to crystallise the points by asking three questions. Firstly, is it not clear that no criminality is necessary to be a ground of a dismissal that will be embraced by the powers of this clause? Secondly, is it not clear that the Cabinet will decide the conditions and terms of the escrow, that it is unlimited as to time and that it can relate to the whole of the superannuation? Thirdly, do not the terms of the clause remove, or keep out, any oversight by the courts? If the Premier wishes time to take advice, I do not mind. Adjoumment 6 September 1988 585

Mr AHERN: A couple of questions have arisen to which I shall reply. Clause 35 cannot sensibly be applied to a member of Parliament. It is not possible to say of a member that his employment is to be terminated. He is either a member or his employment as such has been terminated. The answer to the first question asked by the honourable member for Sherwood is: yes, but what we do not know is how to word it to avoid the particular circumstance that he describes. It is certainly not the intention for us generally to operate in that way but, given all the circumstances and the personalities involved, that is the drafting that will enable the public interest to be best served. In respect of the Governor in Council's right to determine what happens to the escrow, how much of the money is to be placed in escrow, the terms of it and so on, yes, under the legislation the Govemor in Council—that is the Cabinet—will determine those circumstances and those amounts. As I said, no-one in the country has tried to do this and we do not know of any other way of proceeding with that in mind and with that end in view. If the honourable member has some suggestions for improvement, at a later time we will be pleased to receive them. Amendment agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 38, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Ahem, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (12.01 a.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Management of Moreton Bay Mr WHITE (Redchffe) (12.02 a.m.): I rise tonight because of my growing concern and that of many people, particularly those in my electorate, about the future of the Moreton Bay region. We now have the ludicrous situation in which there are so many reports and studies that people are thoroughly confused. The Govemment does not seem to be able to come to grips with what must be described as one of the most beautiful areas in the world. Over the years, we have had the Cook inquiry; the Moreton Bay marine park plan, which was thmst upon us out of the blue; the Moreton Island plan; the Moreton Bay transportation report; the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation's development plan for the area; and, finally, what is known as the Cameron McNamara strategy plan for Moreton Bay. As I understand it, the Cameron McNamara report was hastily put together in 1986 in the mn-up to the State election. It has now been used almost as the knee-jerk reaction of the Government—particularly of the Minister—to the efforts of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman SaUyanne Atkinson, to bring people together in an attempt to get a constmctive plan in which there will be consultation and input so that all the people who are concemed about the future of the bay will not only have input into that plan but also have a say in an advisory capacity as time goes on. We even have the situation in which the council has made an offer of $50,000 to the State Govemment. The Govemment is yet to reply as to whether or not it wishes to take up those funds to do a proper job on the management and development of Moreton Island. 586 6 September 1988 Adjoumment

The Govemment has had the Cameron McNamara report for two years. Everybody in the media around town seems to have a copy of that report, yet the Minister has steadfastly refused to release it. I wonder why there is the great secrecy about that report. If the Govemment is concerned about doing the right thing for Moreton Bay, surely the people who have an active interest in the region should have an opportunity to study that report. I therefore ask why that report has not been released for public consumption. If one can take much notice of the leaks that have appeared in the media generally, it seems that the report deals with the creation of new islands, the building of tourist resorts, marinas, canal estates and tanker off-loading facilities and the levying of yet further costs on the recreational and commercial fishermen of the area. The report proposes massive changes that, in my view, should not even be considered by Cabinet until such time as people have been adequately consulted about them. Furthermore, no indication has been received that a constmctive, co-ordinated and consultative mechanism will be established whereby the future management of that area can be sensibly handled, sensibly pulled together. What I believe ought to happen is that the various reports—as I said, there are five, six or more of them, as the Minister would know—should be put together, and they should form the basis of a draft strategy plan for the future of the bay. Let us get that out. Let the people have a go at it, instead of the hotchpotch, knee-jerk reaction by the Govemment that honourable members have witnessed. I remind the Government that if it continues in this vein it will have another Lindeman Island on its hands. Honourable members have already witnessed the fiasco surrounding the Expo site and the problems with the Lytton chlorine plant. The people of Brisbane will not cop it, and the local authorites, the people who live around the bay and the commercial and recreational fisherman concerned will not cop it. I urge the Minister to reconsider what appears to be a secretive method of handling this matter. He has already been laughed out of Paris. If he continues this way, he will be laughed out of Brisbane. What should be done is that the whole thing should be pulled together, as I said, and a proper, definitive strategy plan should be developed for the future. Why not put it into a draft form and let everybody have a go at it? Why not bring all the local authorities into it? There are about seven in the area. It is the people's bay. It is not the Govemment's bay, and it is not the council's bay. Time expired.

Application to Rezone Bald HiUs Land for Shopping Centre Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (12.07 a.m.): In the Matters of Public Interest debate in this Chamber this morning and, I understand, in the city council chamber this aftemoon, allegations were made about a speech that I made last week in this House conceming a proposed development by the Hooker group in the Bald Hills region. I want to rebut a number of the allegations made by the member for Toowong, Mr Beanland, this morning. During the course of his speech Mr Beanland said that I was unaware of town- planning matters. The reality is that either the council was aware of the collusion and conspiracy and was part of it or the council was in fact not aware of it and, therefore, is guilty of incompetence and maladministration. A lot has been said about that today in this House. In this case the council has deliberately avoided the proper town-planning procedures in order to expedite a project that no-one in the region wants to proceed, and that includes the Pine Rivers Shire Council and the local business community. Mr Beanland referred to earlier applications for a shopping centre on this site. He said this moming— "Because of time contraints I will skip over that one." Adjoumment 6 September 1988 587

And well he should have, because that application resulted in a rejection of that proposal by the Local Govemment Court. That is why he wanted to skip over that one. It was because a number of proposals for that area have been totally rejected by the Local Govemment Court of Appeal. The council is terrified that that appeal decision will be released in due course and used in a future action. Mr Beanland also said that serious allegations were made which lacked detail or substantiation. The facts speak for themselves. No-one wants the project. All previous applications received many and vigorous objections, so the developer and the Brisbane City Council officers—either with or without collusion on the part of the aldermanic team—colluded and conspired to develop a further proposal, supposedly based on technical details, which was advertised just prior to Christmas 1987, so that members of the community could not object. What is really interesting is that the member for Toowong pleaded that this was the State Govemment's responsibility, that the Minister should intervene, that the Minister should do something. That statement came from a person who, having served on the council, entered this Parliament. He complained that the State Government was interfering with local authority matters. In the House this morning he said, "We have made a mess of the project, but it is really not our fault. You come along and clean it up." I am delighted to tell the member for Toowong that I have raised the matter with the Minister and that, because of the incompetence and alleged conspiracy and collusion on the part of the council, his department is considering amendments to the Act and regulations. The member for Toowong also raised the allegation that I was out of touch with the business community. I point out to him that members of the local business community came to see me. They asked me to raise this issue in the House because the local people are very angry with the Brisbane City Council. Local business people have written letters to me about it. Small shop keepers in Aspley are outraged that they have to fight again a proposal that they fought eight years ago in the Local Government Court. Mr Tenni: Wasn't SaUyanne on the ALP ticket for the referendum on Saturday and on all the television screens? Mrs NELSON: I found that somewhat confusing. The people of Queensland certainly did not find it confusing. They gave those four questions a resounding "No" right across the State. If the honourable member for Toowong thinks that the hypermarket centre is going well, he knows nothing about the electorate of Aspley. Most of the small shop keepers are on their knees. The hypermarket itself is not going well. Mr White: Rubbish! Mrs NELSON: That is not garbage at all. The honourable member might live in my electorate. He does not live in his own electorate; he lives in my electorate. He thinks he knows something about it; in fact, he knows nothing about it. I am speaking on this issue because my business community came to me. Time expired.

Involvement of Queensland Museum with Davey Jones Archeology Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (12.12 a.m.): Tonight I intend to acquaint the Parliament with a fascinating but sordid tale of totally improper conduct and involvement by the Queensland Museum professionals with treasure-hunters and unethical treasure-scavengers. The tale concems the wreck of the ship commonly known as the Manila galleon, wrecked off Guam in 1690, and the role of the Curator of Marine Archaeology at the Queensland Museum, Dr Ronald A. Coleman. The basic tale is well told in the Pacific Daily News of 6 August this year. 588 6 September 1988 Adjournment

That report states— "The man a salvaging company expects to oversee the archeological aspects of salvaging a 17th century shipwreck began testifying in the District Court yesterday. Australian marine archeologist Ronald A. Coleman will continue to testify Monday as the civil case between Davey Jones Archeology and marine archeologist Robert Marx goes into its fourth week of trial. Coleman, the Curator of the Queensland Museum in Australia, testified that he has signed an agreement to act as a consultant to Davey Jones for a project here. The salvaging company and Marx are battling for the exclusive salvaging rights to the ship, commonly known as the Manila galleon, a Spanish galleon that sank off Cocos Island in 1690. Should designated District Judge Alfred Laureta mle in favour of Davey Jones, Coleman said the Museum has agreed to undertake the project by providing consulting services. Coleman testified that he prepared Davey Jones' proposed research design to the Department of Parks and Recreation, which issued a permit to the company to conduct salvage operations. Coleman said he submitted his resume to D.P.R. and was hired in accordance with D.P.R.s request that Davey Jones have on staff a marine archeologist during the project." Three days later, the Daily News reported— "Under cross examination Coleman testified that he would be eaming almost three times more as a consultant to Davey Jones than his salary as a curator. Coleman has an annual salary of approximately $35,000 in Australian dollars, he said." As the above extracts from the Guam newspaper indicate, Davey Jones Archeology, which is not an organisation of archaeologists at all but an organisation of treasure- hunters, with no concern for the value of this priceless piece of our planet's heritage, is currently engaged in litigation with another organisation. A number of documents were produced in the course of that litigation. Exhibit 8 in the court case was a contract signed between Ron Coleman and Davey Jones Archeology. That contract begins with the following words— "This agreement is made the seventeenth day of March 1987 between Davey Jones Archeology, a company incorporated in Guam ... and Ronald Arlyn Coleman." That makes it perfectly clear that, since March last year, that officer of the Queensland Museum has been on the pay-roll of Davey Jones Archeology. At the same time he has continued in the employment of the Queensland Museum. His involvement with Davey Jones Archeology has obviously involved a considerable period in Guam away from his museum duties. It is totally impossible that this could have been done without the knowledge and consent of the management of the Queensland Museum. Corroboration for the present state of affairs and the involvement of the Queensland Museum is provided in a letter dated 24 November 1987 from Mr J. C. Womersley, the manager of the State Heritage Branch in South Australia, to Mr R. McArthur, Assistant Secretary, Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in Canberra. Mr Womersley stated that during the course of his discussions in the United States of America he— "... also became aware of some concem which the National Park Service Officers have about the maritime archaeological activities of the Queensland Museum. It appears that the Queensland Museum is either actively or innocently being associated with maritime archaeological projects of dubious quality." Adjoumment 6 September 1988 589

He enclosed copies of correspondence concerning that particular wreck. He stated— "This particular wreck is of considerable historical significance and is the subject of several competing salvage claims by treasure salvors. It has come to my attention previously because of the interest of several South Australian divers, in the salvaging of the cargo, believed to include further porcelain from the mid to late 1600's, similar to the Nanking cargo salvaged several years ago from the same general area. I am concerned that Australian authorities with responsibilities for maritime archaeology should be associating themselves with a basically unprofessional activity such as treasure salvage. The association of such authorities with a project like this gives credence to the claims of the treasure salvors that theirs is a bona fide activity." I table that letter. Since that letter was written, the prophecy of Mr Womersley concerning certain matters and others ships has come tme. A range of ships is being pillaged for display in centres such as the new Sea World hotel where the Pandora relics are to be displayed. They are not being displayed in the Queensland Museum where the public could view them free of charge. Time expired. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to.

Misuse of Federal Public Moneys Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (12.17 a.m.): Tonight I wish to talk about the misuse of Federal public moneys that is occurring here in Queensland, and no doubt, in other States of Australia. Mr Tenni: They wasted $48m on Saturday. Mr HOBBS: That was a very good example. In fact, I wish to raise an issue that relates to the referendum. Federal public moneys are being used to fund the ailing ALP Governments of this nation; to peddle the philosophies of the Federal Labor Govemment; to prop up a disunited, faction-fighting and electorally unpopular State Labor Party; and to attempt to destabilise conservative State Governments. I am talking about the ABC program the 7.30 Report, which is funded by the tax­ payers of this nation. For quite some time that program has been peddling Labor Party policies, and it is about time that something was done about it. We have a Govemment service which is paid for by the tax-payers of Australia and put in place for the benefit of the citizens of this nation. I ask: why is the Federal Government not providing that service to the people? Why are the views of the minority given top priority and almost all program-time? Surely the people of this nation have the right to request that their money is spent wisely and fairly. Time and time again in the 7.30 Report Quentin Dempster has gone out on a limb before an election or a referendum on behalf of the minority of the people, and on almost every occasion the majority of the people have rejected his view. I am talking about a publicly funded body to which the tax-payers of this nation contribute. Either Mr Dempster is a terribly bad judge of the political climate at the time or the ABC is paying him to pursue only Labor Party policies. Let me refresh the minds of honourable members about the few days leading up to the referendum which was held last Saturday and the stand taken by the 7.30 Report. Mr Dempster found a couple he termed Mr and Mrs Average. To determine their views on the forthcoming referendum he placed them in a position to hear various opinions on each question by a panel of speakers. They also had the opportunity to ask questions of that panel. 590 6 September 1988 Adjournment

I and many viewers could determine without a great deal of effort the fact that they in fact were not Mr and Mrs Average but Mr and Mrs Set-up or Mr and Mrs Stooge who, with or without their knowledge, were working for the Australian Labor Party on a progam that is funded by all Australians. It is not hard to prove that Mr Dempster was trying to con Queenslanders into voting "Yes" on most questions. It is not hard to prove that Mr Dempster or the program has misused public funds. The so-called Mr and Mrs Average expressed the startling view that we should vote "Yes" on the majority of questions asked. The result of the referendum has shown that those two stooges were not in fact Mr and Mrs Average. The Australian people told Quentin Dempster that his program was far below the average—in fact, it was 30 per cent below. Opposition members interjected. Mr HOBBS: Members opposite are being hurt. They are starting to squeal a bit. Therefore a Federal tax-payer funded body was supporting the wishes of only 30 per cent of the nation. What an absolute waste of tax-payers' funds. What an absolute misuse of tax-payers' funds. On the night of the referendum, when counting showed that 70 per cent of the nation rejected the proposed constitutional reform of the socialist Federal Govemment, one had only to look at the face of the southem ABC interviewer, Paul Lyneham, to know that an overwhelming "No" vote had been recorded. It was quite obvious that he was grief stricken and no doubt wondering what had gone wrong. I call on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to lift its game out of the gutter, to report honestly and fairly and to remember that it has a duty to the majority of citizens in this State and nation to build some credibility into current affairs programs such as the 7.30 Report. Time expired. Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry; Crime in Queensland Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (12.22 a.m.): The Fitzgerald commission has produced some incredible admissions and exposure of the disgraceful cormption that has infested Queensland under the Bjelke-Petersen coalition Govemment. It has laid before the electors of Queensland all the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of politicians who claimed adherence to Christianity while practising behaviour which is anathema to aU that Jesus Christ proclaimed. What the commission has so far failed to disclose is the human misery that has been hidden in this State for far too long. Recently on the ABC's 7.30 Report, Mr Whitrod, the honest cop, one of many people who Bjelke-Petersen and his sycophants have destroyed in the past two decades, drew attention to the fact that murders and disappearances have occured in this State, and the law has been powerless to even investigate them. The cancer of cormption has so infested this State that so-called accidental deaths, so-called suicides and obvious murders no longer are cause for public concem. Cold­ blooded hitmen can come and go with the connivance of crooked police and crooked politicians. Since 1964 there have been a number of linked murders and disappearances that have either been covered up or ignored. In 1964 Vincent Allan disappeared and the name O'Dempsey was mentioned. In 1966 a certain James Finch was convicted of shooting a Johnny Regan in Sydney. Finch was deported and was out of Australia untU March 1973. In October 1967 Billy Phillips' home at Petrie Terrace was fire-bombed. His wife was blinded and she lost her hands. That was investigated by a member of the Rat Pack, Glen Hallahan, who was in tum accused by Shirley Brifman of being paid off in counterfeit currency. Adjoumment 6 September 1988 591

Later, Regan's girlfriend died at Surfers Paradise in mysterious circumstances. In 1972, Shirley Brifman died in similar circumstances. Also in that year, Brian Bolton, a joumalist with the Truth newspaper foretold that Brisbane night-clubs would be fire- bombed. In Febmary 1973 the Torino was fire-bombed, allegedly by Billy McCulkin. This was some weeks before Finch arrived back in Brisbane from Great Britain. On 8 March 1973, the Whiskey-Au-Go-Go bumed and people were murdered. O'Dempsey was in Brisbane at the time. In November 1973, a prostitute, Margaret Ward, disappeared. Once again, O'Dempsey's name was mentioned. In January 1974, the McCulkin family—except for Billy McCulkin—disappeared. The name of O'Dempsey again emerged, together with one Gary Dubois, who was known as a member of two select groups called the Mongrel Bunch and the Clockwork Orange. In September 1974, a boxer called Hamilton was shot at but survived. At that time, Johnny Regan was murdered in Sydney. In January 1975, Hamilton was murdered and the pohce blamed Billy Stokes. The link between a great deal of this activity was dmgs which were being peddled in massage parlours in the late 1970s. Dubois, Keith and Hall of the Mongrels and Clockworks were allegedly sought by police over the Hamilton murder, but unsuccessfully. One can only wonder why. In July 1979, inquests were held into the disappearance of six of these people. In Febmary 1980, O'Dempsey was arrested and the inquest resumed, but nothing came of it. Finally, in Febmary 1982, the then Attomey-General dropped the murder charge against O'Dempsey and Dubois. There have been other murders—24 altogether. This is a violent State. Police activities have been totally misdirected by the cormption that infests political life. During my time as a member of the Brisbane City Council, I received intriguing phone calls about a crematorium and bodies being transferred to Adelaide. I passed the information on to the Health Department, but the information was too vague and officers of that department were unable to find out anything. If the Fitzgerald inquiry eventually becomes interested, it will be obvious that fly-by-night funeral directors could be involved with cormpt police officers and public servants. Only half the story has yet been told. I am sure that much more evidence is available but is yet to be sifted—if the National Party has the fortitude and honesty to proceed. That will only happen if the public takes politics seriously and demands accountability. The public has been encouraged to think that these matters are not important; that all politicians are the same. All politicians are not the same and the public—the voters— have a duty to discover the difference between them and to discriminate against those who have allowed the State of Queensland to descend into a cesspit. Monofilament Netting of Spanish Mackerel Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (12.28 a.m.): I draw to the attention of the House a matter that concems amateur fishermen and professional fishermen. I refer to gill netting with monofilament nets along the Queensland coast, which is a great threat to the future of Queensland's mackerel fisheries. The narrow-barred mackerel, which is also known as the Spanish mackerel, is the main species. It is a migratory fish that comes up from New South Wales waters and swims as far north as Papua New Guinea. Along the entire stretch of the New South Wales and Queensland coastline, fishing grounds are now being netted in long lengths—up to 2 kilometres at times—by the use of gill nets. The use of those nets in that fashion is causing great havoc. This is a matter of concem across the entire spectmm of fishermen. As to its effect on amateur fishermen—it would be a great pity if in tourist areas an amateur fisherman is not able to go out and catch a fish. This matter is also of great concem to the professional fisherman because the species has been traditionally fished by professional fishermen using trawler methods. It is reasonable to state that, as long as line fishing is used by both amateur and professional fishermen as a means of catching fish, the species will not be endangered. However, as soon as the monofilament nets are used—up to 592 6 September 1988 Adjournment

600 metres in length is legal in up to 20 metres of water, and 1 200 metres in length in over 20 metres of water—and mackerel are taken in large tonnages because the nets have been placed around entire islands and around mackerel fishing grounds, the species will be in great danger. In fact, the species could be wiped out. If the Govemment allows this practice to continue, I believe that the species could indeed become endangered. Mr Tenni: You are right. We should get rid of all the prawn trawlers too. They are doing a lot of damage. Mr HINTON: I will not go quite that far, and I think the Minister would be in a little difficulty. One of the detrimental effects of gill netting is that it has been accurately reported by fisherman that when the fish are taken in great quantities, the mackerel do not readily retum to those areas. In fact, if great catches are taken, they do not return for some years. In addition, there is enormous wastage of fish because some of the larger fish drown in the net and fall to the bottom, and there is reduced quality in the fish because getting the fish bled and gutted is a slow process. That reduces the keeping quality of the fish and leads to a reduced market price affecting not only the fish caught in the nets but also the fish taken by trawlermen. Something has to be done about this, and I am heartened to know that at this time the Minister for Primary Industries has given serious consideration to implementing such a ban. I have canvassed this matter widely with the QCFO and at this stage it has come out in support of a ban on gill netting. This is also supported by the Queensland Fish Management Authority based largely on the advice of both the processing sector and the line trawlermen. It is supported by amateur fishermen and sporting groups who have made representations to the Govemment from areas right across Queensland for the implemention of such a ban. It is time to act. There is support right across the community. It would be a very good conservation measure for the Govemment to take which would be widely supported. I urge the Govemment to implement such a ban and preserve this fishery as quickly as possible. It is the responsibility of Govemment not to overregulate the fishing industry but to ensure that the resource is protected and that there will be a long-term future for this fishery. I commend the implementation of such a ban to the House. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.32 a.m. (Wednesday).