Legislative Assembly 1278 10 May 1990

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 314

THURSDAY, 10 MAY 1990 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Vacancy; Appointment of Honourable N.J. Harper Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that a vacancy exists on the Criminal Justice Committee consequent upon the resignation of the Honourable Michael John Ahern from that committee. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.02 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That the Honourable Neville John Harper be appointed a member of the Criminal Justice Committee to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the said Honourable Michael John Ahern." Motion agreed to. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under--- Racing Venues Development Act 1982-1988 Liquor Act 1912-1989 Report of the Trustees of the Willows Paceway for the year ended 30 June 1989.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Comments by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen Regarding Governor of Queensland Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.30 a.m.), by leave: During the parliamentary recess the former Premier, the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, made some inflammatory remarks about the Governor of Queensland, Sir Walter Campbell. At the time I issued a statement responding to the remarks of the former Premier and, because of the important historical aspects of this issue, I seek leave to have my statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND HON. WAYNE GOSS M.L.A. Executive Building 100 George Street, Brisbane, Q 4000 Telephone 224 4500 MEDIA RELEASE SATURDAY, 7TH APRIL, 1990 Legislative Assembly 1279 10 May 1990

STATEMENT BY MR WAYNE GOSS, M.L.A., PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND The Premier, Mr Goss, said today he felt obliged to make some comments on certain media statements in relation to the actions of the Governor of Queensland at the time of Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen's resignation from office in 1987. The media statements had described events which had purportedly occurred. Mr Goss said that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had outlined some major complaints he had, and in summary these appeared to be— ¥ The Governor did not accept immediately his resignation as Premier which would involve the falling of his whole Ministry and recommissioning him as Premier. ¥ The Governor delayed the formation of a new Cabinet and had forwarded him a rather technical letter to explain the delays. ¥ The Governor had not accepted his advice. The Premier said that from an examination of the correspondence released by the then Premier, Mr Ahern, on 16 December, 1988, it was apparent that— ¥ The Governor had told the Premier that he may not recommission him as Premier unless he was of the view that he was able to form a new Ministry and that he would be able to obtain the confidence and support of the Parliament. ¥ Subsequently, the Governor, acting on the advice of the Premier, agreed to the commissions held by three Ministers being withdrawn and the swearing in of the new Ministers. ¥ There was no delay on the part of the Governor in appointing the new Ministers, as the Ministers whom the Premier wanted to have sworn in were in fact sworn in less than 48 hours after the Premier had first seen the Governor. ¥ The letter of 25 November forwarded to the Premier by the Governor set out the facts that had occurred up to that time. It could not be called a "technical letter in any sense. "Insofar as the Governor accepting the advice of the Premier is concerned, the point needs to be made that if Sir Joh had resigned as Premier, as he wished to do, his request to be recommissioned would not constitute advice from a Premier, and the Governor would not be obliged to act on such advice." Mr Goss said the actions of the Governor throughout had been constitutionally entirely correct. For further information: Home (07) 273 7955 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Courier-Mail Article Regarding Investigation Into Underground Mine Safety Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I rise to make a statement about an article in this morning's edition of the Courier-Mail regarding an investigation into underground mine safety and the involvement of Dr Sally Leivesley. Dr Leivesley is one of four consultants working with two officers of my department's Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station on an underground mine safety research project. Dr Leivesley was engaged along with the other consultants late last year by the previous Government. Their appointment is for a fixed six-month period and ceases when they deliver their report to me later this month. The team is investigating mine explosions, using evidence from the Moura mine disaster in central Queensland in 1985. The entire budget for the project is around $290,000. The issue of the Moura mine disaster was extensively investigated by the Mining Warden in 1986. His finding was that the mine flame safety lamp was the most likely source of ignition which led to the blast. The lamp was immediately withdrawn from use throughout Queensland. Tests on the lamp as late as yesterday at SIMTARS still support this finding. Safety conditions are continually monitored by SIMTARS and the and the Mines Safety Inspectorate, and the House can be assured that it is an issue that the Government takes Legislative Assembly 1280 10 May 1990 very seriously. However, at this time I have no evidence before me to suggest that there was another cause for the Moura tragedy. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Medical Board Report on Ward 10B, Townsville General Hospital Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa—Minister for Health) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: In recent days public attention has again been focused on the past medical practices conducted at the psychiatric ward of the Townsville General Hospital. The Government, and myself in particular, have been criticised for the decision not to proceed with an open public inquiry. It is obvious that problems identified at the unit were allowed to develop unchecked by previous Health Ministers, who were, of course, members of the National Party. I need not remind honourable members that in 1986 I was the first person to question publicly activities at the unit. Since becoming Minister for Health, I have informed the House of measures put in place to ensure that the unsatisfactory practices permitted in the psychiatric unit will never be allowed to occur again. I can say to honourable members in all sincerity that the care for the mentally ill in Townsville is now of a standard of which this Government and this State can be proud. In my judgment, the Ward 10B fiasco highlights the need for changes in the administrative arrangements of public hospitals, similar to those envisaged in the Green Paper proposals that were issued for public comment some two months ago. In January, State Cabinet resolved that the Townsville Hospitals Board be dismissed and replaced with an administrator to institute new administrative and medical structures. At present the unit is functioning well, following the appointment of senior professional staff. Public confidence in the unit is growing and morale among staff has slowly returned over the past two years. Planning is well under way for a new $5m psychiatric facility. In early March I tabled the unabridged report by retired magistrate Merv Stubbins into malpractices at the unit, and its key recommendations have been acted upon. In addition, matters raised through the Stubbins inquiry, plus all documentation on Ward 10B held by the Health Department, have been referred to the Director of Prosecutions. Other avenues of investigation and inquiry have also been undertaken. They include examinations by professional bodies, that is, the Medical Board of Queensland and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. As I understand it, Dr John Lindsay is no longer registered in Queensland as a medical practitioner, nor as a specialist psychiatrist. He is in fact living in Western Australia. I further understand that the Royal College of Psychiatrists is due to make a determination shortly as to his membership. Dr Cant is not a psychiatrist and is not therefore the subject of any examination by the college. The Medical Board of Queensland has now concluded an investigation of complaints against the two doctors. In a letter to me, I am advised that the board has— (1) examined a report by Dr J. Ellard on perusal of documents concerning Ward 10B; (2) examined the report by Mr Merv Stubbins, Chairman of the Health Complaints Unit; (3) contacted witnesses recommended by barrister R. M. Bourke and considered his assessment of information provided by them; (4) noted advice from barrister R. M. Bourke concerning the standard of proof required in the case; and (5) interviewed Dr Cant at length at a full meeting of the board. The Medical Board has decided that there is not sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution before the Medical Assessment Tribunal for misconduct in a professional Legislative Assembly 1281 10 May 1990 respect. The board decided that further investigation is unlikely to provide such evidence. Therefore, it has resolved that no proceedings against either Dr Cant or Dr Lindsay will be initiated. This issue was ignored for far too long by the previous Government. This Government is prepared to do all that it can to resolve the matter. To that end, and following the latest development, namely, the release of the results of the Medical Board's report, I am currently examining the options for finally settling the concerns of the Townsville community. One of those options is a public inquiry. However, no final decision will be made until outstanding investigations, such as the receipt of the College of Psychiatrists' report, are completed. However, I do intend to take action soon. In the next few weeks, I will present to State Cabinet a recommendation for the best manner in which this long-running matter can be resolved. I say very clearly that this Government has nothing whatever to hide in regard to Ward 10B. The scrutiny of the performance of that unit and other units around the State was clearly the responsibility of a series of Health Ministers who were appointed by former National Party Governments. This Government is determined to resolve the matter. As I indicated, I will put to Cabinet a submission on the choices as to how this matter can be resolved once and for all. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Annual Report of Office of the Special Prosecutor Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: Today I will table the annual report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which covers the operations of the office from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989. The Special Prosecutor's operations are an important part of the reform process that was begun by Tony Fitzgerald, who identified widespread corruption throughout the many institutions that govern the lives of people in Queensland. The extent and nature of the corruption that was discovered in those institutions shocked many people, including those who had, until then, full confidence in those institutions. On 13 December 1988, Mr Drummond was appointed as Special Prosecutor for a term of 12 months. His appointment was renewed on 7 December 1989 for a further term of 12 months. His report indicates that he expects that all the prosecutions that are to be brought by his office will have been commenced prior to December 1990. Mr Drummond says that most of the committal hearings and a large number of the trials should also be completed by December. By that time, a number of professional staff from the office will have returned to private practice. Mr Drummond notes that, provided that suitable arrangements can be made for the conduct of remaining matters, it should not be necessary for him to seek a second extension of his appointment as Special Prosecutor. Mr Drummond reports that, in the period between its establishment in May 1987 and November 1989 when the Criminal Justice Commission commenced its operations, the commission of inquiry referred to his office a large number of matters arising out of its work so that consideration could be given to bringing prosecutions in respect of those matters. That referral process was almost complete by 31 December 1989. Mr Drummond notes that it is not anticipated that, in the future, any more than a very small number of matters will be referred by the commission of inquiry to the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Noted in the report is the increase in legal and support staff in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which has almost doubled during the year. Police officers have been involved in investigative work as provided under section 11 of the Special Prosecutor Act. Until May 1989, assistance was provided by police who were attached to the commission of inquiry. Since then, that work has been carried out by a group of police who have been seconded to the Office of the Special Prosecutor. As at 31 December Legislative Assembly 1282 10 May 1990

1989, the police group, which is headed by a detective superintendent, comprised one detective senior sergeant, five detective sergeants and four detectives or plain-clothes constables. In an appendix to his report, Mr Drummond outlines the prosecutions that have been undertaken by his office. Up to 31 December 1989, former police officers who had been prosecuted included a former Commissioner of Police, a former superintendent, three former detective inspectors and 19 former or serving non-commissioned officers or constables. Six former Cabinet Ministers are presently before the courts. Three major property-developers are also being prosecuted. Three of the persons named in the Orders in Council that established the commission of inquiry as persons suspected of involvement in protected criminal activities have also been charged. Three persons have been prosecuted in respect of two major auto-theft rings. Those people together were responsible for the theft of 432 identified vehicles. A number of SP book-makers and brothel- keepers involved in corruption have also been brought before the courts. The cost to the public of rectifying the corruption that was exposed in such detail by Mr Tony Fitzgerald is significant. The expenditure of the Special Prosecutor's Office for the calendar year 1989 is detailed in Appendix III. Mr Borbidge: Why don't you read out the whole report? Mr WELLS: Because the honourable member needs to know this. The total expenditure for that year is $4,606,539, of which more than half related to fees to counsel. It is worth noting that the Special Prosecutor's Office was set up under its own Act in order to have a degree of independence that is not possessed by other law officers of the Crown. Tony Fitzgerald wished the office to be clearly beyond the political direction of any politician, and that it be seen to be so. As to the other law officers of the Crown, those in my department—as is proper, I have regularly exercised the discretions that attach to the Attorney-General in regard to legal and quasi-legal decisions that have to be made. As well, I have regularly involved myself in the financial and general administration of those offices. With respect to the Special Prosecutor's Office, I have done neither. As far as I know, my predecessors have done as I have done. This has meant that the Office of the Special Prosecutor has had the complete independence that Tony Fitzgerald wished for it. I thank Mr Drummond for his report. I thank also the Special Prosecutor and his staff for their work in continuing the fight against corruption, which was begun by Tony Fitzgerald. I lay the report on the table of the House and move that it be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. PRIVILEGE Performance of Duty or Service to Crown by Member for Stafford Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (10.16 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. As some honourable members may be aware, for a number of years, under the auspices of the Australian Council for the Teaching of Swimming and Water Safety, I have been associated with swimming and water safety and in particular with the coaching of teachers of swimming and water safety. Approximately four years ago, the South Brisbane College of TAFE started courses which allow people to obtain partial accreditation as teachers of swimming and water safety. A couple of years ago I was invited to deliver occasional guest lectures at the Legislative Assembly 1283 10 May 1990

South Brisbane College of TAFE. Over a number of years, I lectured on approximately three occasions each year, delivering a one-hour lecture on each occasion. After the election I was again invited by the college to deliver lectures in that course. I advised the TAFE college officers of the possible difficulties relating to members of Parliament holding an office of profit under the Crown and indicated at that time, in February this year, that I intended obtaining formal advice from the Premier's Department in relation to the matter, and I did so. However, pending the delivery of that advice from the Premier's office, I subsequently agreed to give lectures. I suggested at the time that payment be reserved. I delivered the first lecture on 21 February this year. Despite my request that payment be reserved, I subsequently received a payment of $21.60. The point of privilege relates to the fact that the payment to me by the South Brisbane TAFE College for the lectures presented since my election to the Parliament may mean that section 7B of the Legislative Assembly Act applies to that situation. On 4 April, I delivered a further lecture and on 5 April I specifically contacted the TAFE college to remind it not to process any further payments. On that occasion I was advised that any payment in respect to the second lecture had been stopped. On 12 April, I received formal advice from the Premier's office and I was advised that, although my delivery of those lectures to the college did not constitute an office of profit under the Crown under section 7A of the Legislative Assembly Act, it was nevertheless possibly prescribed as a duty or service to the Crown or Crown instrumentality under section 7B of that Act. Immediately on receiving that advice, I telephoned the TAFE college and, in particular, the lecturer in charge of the relevant course to advise of my inability to provide further services of guest lecturing, casual or otherwise, to the college. I followed that with a letter which returned the full amount of the original payment. Subsequently, despite my discussions with the college, I received a further cheque which had spewed out of the college computers. That cheque was in respect of the lecture on 4 April. Of course, that cheque has also been returned. Although some people may regard the two amounts of $21.60 as trivial, it is nevertheless an important principle to which I subscribe. Consistent with my personal commitment and the commitment of this Government to open, honest and accountable government, I draw the attention of this matter to the House and also draw to the attention of you, Mr Speaker, and the House the prompt action I took to rectify that situation and ensure that protocol was properly complied with. Mr Speaker, I understand that the Premier will move an appropriate motion in respect of the matter. CONTINUATION IN OFFICE OF MEMBER FOR STAFFORD Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.19 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "(1) That the honourable member for Stafford shall continue as a member of the Legislative Assembly notwithstanding that the honourable member as a casual employee, namely, guest lecturer, of the South Brisbane College of TAFE performed a service for a Crown instrumentality for which he received a fee; and (2) The House notes that the honourable member for Stafford will perform no further services for the South Brisbane College of TAFE whilst he remains a member of this House and that all payments received by the member in respect of services subsequent to 2 December 1989 have been returned." Motion agreed to. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Legislative Assembly 1284 10 May 1990

Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I will sit here and wait. I am as patient as honourable members can be. When I can get honourable members' attention, the business of the House will continue. TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE Appointment of Members Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (10.20 a.m.): I move— "(1) That this House do appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations in relation to all aspects of road safety in Queensland. (2) That the Committee be called the 'Travelsafe' Committee. (3) That the Terms of Reference of the 'Travelsafe' Committee shall be— (a) to monitor, investigate and report on the causes of road crashes in Queensland, and issues of road safety; and (b) to review and report on countermeasures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries, and the social and economic costs to the community arising from road crashes or inappropriate road user behaviour. (4) That without restricting the generality of the foregoing Terms of Reference, the Committee is to give urgent consideration to the following matters— (a) the need for some form of compulsory periodic inspections of passenger vehicles as an effective means of reducing road crashes and the severity of associated injuries; (b) the need to improve the standards of motor vehicle repairs as a means of improving vehicle and road safety; and (c) current traffic law enforcement methods and penalties, and their effectiveness. (5) That the Committee shall consist of seven members of the Legislative Assembly and of whom not less than two shall be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. (6) That the Committee shall consist of Mrs Bird, Messrs Fenlon, Dollin, J. Goss, Lester, Springborg and the mover. (7) That— (a) upon the appointment of the Committee, the members shall appoint a member to be Chairman of the Committee and another member to be Deputy Chairman of the Committee; (b) the Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Committee at which he is present; (c) in the absence of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman shall preside at meetings of the Committee at which he is present; (d) in the absence of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman at any meetings at which a quorum is present, the members in attendance may appoint one of their number then present to be temporary chairman during that absence. (8) That the Committee shall have power to recommend to the Parliamentary Service Commission the appointment of persons possessing special expertise and experience in the field of road safety to assist it in an advisory capacity in its meetings and deliberations. (9) That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records necessary for the conduct of its inquiries. Legislative Assembly 1285 10 May 1990

(10) That the Committee may examine witnesses on oath or affirmation. (11) That the Committee may sit during the sitting of the House but not to take evidence. (12) That the Committee have leave to sit during any adjournment of the House notwithstanding that such adjournment exceeds seven days. (13) That the Committee may meet and adjourn from time to time and place to place. (14) That as soon as practicable after the end of each year ending with June 30, the Committee shall prepare a report in writing on the operations of the Committee during that year. (15) That— (a) within 14 sitting days of the Chairman of the Committee signing a report upon any matter with which the Committee is concerned the report shall be tabled in the Legislative Assembly; (b) if, at the time at which the Committee seeks to report to the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, the Chairman shall transmit the report to The Clerk of the Parliament; (c) where the Chairman has transmitted a report to The Clerk of the Parliament, the report shall— (1) be deemed to have been transmitted to the Legislative Assembly and to have been laid before the Legislative Assembly; (2) be printed by the authority of The Clerk of the Parliament; (3) be deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly; and (4) be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on the first sitting day of the Legislative Assembly after receipt of the report by The Clerk of the Parliament. (16) That the Committee shall continue in existence for the life of the current Parliament notwithstanding prorogation. (17) That the foregoing provisions of this motion, so far as they may be inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Motion agreed to. QUESTION UPON NOTICE Withdrawal of Science Teacher from Science and Technology Centre Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to the fact that Prime Minister Hawke insists Australia must become the "clever country" and in the light of the fact Premier Goss has promised that Queensland must encourage industry and technology to broaden the base of the State's economy— (1) Is it correct that the science teacher attached to the Science and Technology Centre has been withdrawn from his role of promoting interest in science? (2) If so, how can this be justified?" Mr BRADDY: Owing to the unavailability of certain officers, all the information relating to the answer of this question has not been available. I have so informed the honourable member for Condamine. With his agreement, I request that the question remain on notice for the next day of sitting. Legislative Assembly 1286 10 May 1990

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I do so accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cooke Inquiry Mr COOPER: I direct a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. On 19 March, the Government caused to be read before the Cooke Inquiry an extraordinary submission clearly aimed at being a precursor to an attempt at limiting the terms of reference of the inquiry. I ask: as the Minister is responsible for the Cooke inquiry and for the submission to that inquiry, what decision, if any, has been taken in relation to the Government's view "that this is an appropriate time to assess the aptness of the terms of reference "? Will the terms of reference of the Cooke inquiry be varied? Mr WARBURTON: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is true to say that I have the responsibility for the carriage of the Cooke inquiry. It is very incorrect and somewhat impertinent to suggest that the submission that was made to the Cooke inquiry some weeks ago suggested in any way that the Cooke inquiry should be finished and that it was an impediment to the progress of that inquiry. That statement is both incorrect and, I repeat, very impertinent. In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition was privy to other correspondence that had been forwarded to the Cooke inquiry by my department, he would be able to see that this Government has done everything possible to ensure the free-flowing continuation of the Cooke inquiry. The question from the Leader of the Opposition brings to mind some other very impertinent and improper comments that emanated from the Leader of the Liberal Party, who suggested that this Government had prevented Mr Cooke from having the number of staff that he required. I recall Mr Innes jumping into the fray and making those comments, which caused Commissioner Cooke to come forward and state publicly that he had been completely misinterpreted and that what Mr Innes said was incorrect. I did not see Mr Innes making any formal apology following that event; as he is the Leader of the Liberal Party, he should have done so. This Government made a submission to the Cooke inquiry because it believes that it is in the interests of the public for Commissioner Cooke from time to time to look at where he is going with his inquiry to ensure, as the Government indicated that, if he has any reason for any change in law, the Government would like to look at those recommendations as a package. It does not want to be acting in a piecemeal fashion. The Government's submission suggested to Mr Cooke very definitely that, if any changes were to be made to the legislation, the Government would like to see those suggestions as quickly as possible because it has proposals for new industrial legislation. The Government asked Mr Cooke to be cognisant of the provisions within the Hanger report. Nothing has been done to prevent Mr Cooke from following his course of action, and at this stage the Government has had no further correspondence with Mr Cooke, except for the submission referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. No other action has been taken. Abolition of Voluntary Employment Agreements Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Manufacturing and Commerce in his capacity as the Minister responsible for manufacturing in Queensland—— Mr Gibbs: I would hope so. Mr COOPER: This is the point. The Opposition does not like Ministers ducking out from under, my friend. Mr Gibbs: Ask him the question? Legislative Assembly 1287 10 May 1990

Mr COOPER: Stick around, my friend. The honourable member will get one or two questions himself, shortly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: Plenty of questions are coming. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question. Mr COOPER: It is very difficult to ask it, Mr Speaker, with this character coming in all the time. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will stop interjecting. Mr COOPER: You should send him out, Mr Speaker. The Minister is an absolute guttersnipe. He cannot stand criticism. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question or I will sit him down. Mr COOPER: I intend to ask my question of the Minister for Manufacturing and Commerce. That break has given him some breathing space. It was well done. In his capacity as the Minister responsible for manufacturing in Queensland, can he say what productivity gains and unit cost reductions will flow to manufacturers and small businesses from the Government's decision to abolish voluntary employment agreements? Mr SMITH: With respect, that is not a question for my Ministry. It is a question that ought to be directed to the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Leader of the Opposition has been in this place long enough to know what responsibilities individual Ministers hold. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition does his homework. China Steel Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Manufacturing and Commerce: can he inform the House of the progress of this Government's effort to attract China Steel to Gladstone? Mr SMITH: I thank the honourable member for Port Curtis for that question because the China Steel project was one which, had it come to fruition, would have been established in his electorate. The fact is that this morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been running around calling for my resignation because suddenly the Opposition has found out that China Steel has dropped Queensland off its list of preferred locations. The fact is that that information has been around since Tuesday. The Leader of the Opposition ought to be looking to his own back. The fact that he has had to wait three days before he became aware of something which is public knowledge demonstrates that he is not on the ball. Mr Borbidge: I have not had the opportunity to question, yet. Mr SMITH: The honourable member has had the opportunity to ask questions for two days. If the previous National Party Government is remembered for anything other than corruption and cronyism, it will be remembered as the Government for phantom projects. The previous Government's Minister, Mr Fraser, was so concerned about the fate of the China Steel project that he flew to Taiwan for delicate negotiations but, because the National Party Government was in trouble, he was recalled. He was not allowed to complete the purpose of that trip. Legislative Assembly 1288 10 May 1990

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. If the Minister is referring to me, those statements are untrue. Mr SMITH: I referred to Huan Fraser. I was not aware that the honourable member had changed his name. Referring again to China Steel, I say that obviously this Government has pursued those negotiations very actively—— Mr Borbidge: The Minister sent down big documents to Senator Button in Canberra to get them vetted by head office. Mr SMITH: That is nonsense. This House has been over that matter. The honourable member is trying to recycle old material. The fact is that China Steel has made a decision on commercial grounds. One of those grounds is the fact that other locations offer that company an opportunity for disposing of approximately 70 per cent of its product on local markets. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SMITH: That is the story. In fact, the steel market has dropped off to the extent that China Steel will not be proceeding with the expansion of its plant in Taiwan. Mr FitzGerald: They were going off shore. Mr SMITH: The honourable member should be aware of that. He should also be aware that to say that Australia—Gladstone—was the No. 1 preferred site for China Steel is a nonsense. There were always a number of locations around the world, Gladstone being one of them. The fact is that the negotiations with China Steel may still bear a positive result. China Steel has in fact indicated to us that it is very interested in other projects in Australia and Queensland, and I would expect that the good relationship that this Government has set up with China Steel will bear a positive result further down the track. Local Authority Borrowings Mr PREST: I refer the Premier and acting Treasurer to the claims by the Leader of the Opposition about the large increases in local authority rates in the coming financial year because of restrictions on the borrowings on local authorities, and I ask: will the Premier and acting Treasurer advise the House of the true position concerning those claims? Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the honourable member for his question because it is an important one which affects the local authorities throughout this State. There has been some unfortunate and cheap political point-scoring by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this position as it affects local authorities. Large rate increases are by no means certain or automatic because of the action taken by the Government. It is simply not true to assert that; nor is it true to suggest, as he has done, that we have slashed the borrowing rights of local authorities. What the local authorities sought was a 30 per cent increase in loan funds when it is quite clear that, this year, the Commonwealth Government will seek to restrict borrowing by the States and, thus, local authorities. The precise position will not be known until after the Premiers Conference. It will not be known for some months. It is not only scaremongering but also absolutely premature. There was no basis for making the claim except to score a few political points. What the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is that local authorities should be free to borrow what they like. Is this his idea of fiscal and economic responsibility? Is this the sort of economic management that he would offer the people of this State? Does he say that local authorities should be able to borrow what they like? This is the sort of double standard in the approach of members in the Opposition. They parrot on about Legislative Assembly 1289 10 May 1990 the national debt, which is a serious situation, but then they say that local authorities should be able to borrow what they like. It is a logical absurdity. A reduction in local authority borrowing limits does not necessarily lead to increases in rates and charges. Options to avoid increases include deferral of projects, the use of internal funds to finance capital works, and rationalisation of services through improved efficiency. These are areas that can and should be looked at. Automatic increases in local authority rates and charges are by no means a necessary consequence. Green Island Mr INNES: I refer the Premier to the tiny but most heavily visited island of the Great Barrier Reef—Green Island off Cairns—and ask: are the reports that its major occupant and lessee, Great Adventures, Dreamland, or an associate, has applied or is applying for freeholding of the lease correct? What is the status of that freeholding application with regard to conditions or terms? Has the Government been involved in negotiations for the sale of such assets to Daikyo and to an Australian participant? If so, has it been suggested that that participant is OST Friendly Society? Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to the question about freeholding—I saw the media reports and I have asked for departmental advice. I do not have it yet. I will be happy to deal with it as soon as I get it; tomorrow, if possible. I do not know the conditions of the lease. That information will presumably be forthcoming when I am given that general advice. I do not know the detailed conditions of the lease or the freeholding arrangements. In terms of the negotiations, the Treasurer has indicated to the companies concerned what he has indicated publicly, that is, that the Government's preferred position is a joint venture as opposed to 100 per cent foreign ownership. In terms of who is being approached to be the domestic equity, and whether it is OST or any other institution, I have no knowledge. I do not know which parties are being approached and whether OST is one of those parties. Compulsory Motor Vehicle Inspections Mr INNES: I point out to the Minister for Transport that I note his reported proposal to put the issue of compulsory motor vehicle inspections to the Travelsafe Committee, and I ask: what would be the total approximate annual cost—that is, the global figure—to all car-owners in Queensland of annual vehicle inspections? What are the statistics on the percentage of vehicle accidents genuinely caused by vehicle defects in this State and how do they compare with the proportion of vehicle accidents in States which have compulsory inspections? Mr HAMILL: No doubt the honourable member is thinking of Rod Henshaw's radio program this morning and particularly the comments of Mr Vern Mathieson from the RACQ. The RACQ has estimated that a system of compulsory tests, presumably in line with the ACT tests, would cost approximately $30m. Mr Mathieson referred, I think, to something like 3 per cent of accidents being directly or solely attributable to vehicle defects. Those figures are all that I know in relation to the matter. I dare say that all people interested in the question of vehicle inspections and vehicle safety will have an opportunity to put their submissions before the Travelsafe Committee. Land Tax Bills Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Premier and acting Treasurer to claims by the member for Surfers Paradise that Land Tax Bills are a breach of the Government's commitment on taxes, and I ask: is there any basis for Mr Borbidge's claims? Legislative Assembly 1290 10 May 1990

Mr W. K. GOSS: We have seen some pretty pathetic and spectacular posturing from paradise over the last few days about the dilemma—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: He is a bit touchy about this, and do you know, Mr Speaker, why he is a bit touchy? He—this great economic guru—has suddenly discovered the problem of land tax that has presumably been created by this Government which has been in office for five months. Mr Borbidge: I raised it for years. Mr W. K. GOSS: Raised it for years? Did he ever raise it in Cabinet? Mr Borbidge: We fixed it last year. Mr W. K. GOSS: Oh, "We fixed it last year." No doubt the people from the cake shop in Surfers Paradise and all those other poor people that the member for Surfers Paradise has been posturing about in terms of his sympathy for their position are looking forward to hearing details of how he fixed their land tax problem last year. The truth is that in February last year when the member was a Minister, Cabinet charged him with the responsibility of doing something about land tax but he never did it. This land tax regime has been in place for years. This Government has inherited it and will deal with it as it sees fit when the time comes. It is hypocrisy and the use of double standards for the posturing "member for paradise" to say that somehow this Government is responsible for the position in which his constituents now find themselves. It is pathetic. The truth is that the National Party is responsible for this scheme. The further truth is that in February last year, when he was a Minister, the Cabinet at that time charged the posturing "member from paradise" with the responsibility of doing something about land tax for people in the retail industry, and the member did nothing. Radio Communications on Driver-only Trains Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development: is he aware of driver concerns about the radio communications system operating on driver-only trains on the Rockhampton to Brisbane railway, and can the Minister inform the House what steps, if any, have been taken to address drivers' concerns on this important safety issue? Mr HAMILL: The honourable member might recall that another question was asked in this place concerning the introduction of driver-only operations on Queensland Railways, at which stage I indicated my strong support for full consultations to take place to resolve any issues, particularly safety issues, that might arise during that process. I am aware of considerable concern regarding radio communications. In recent weeks this matter has been aired in the State Industrial Commission at a number of hearings. As a result of those commission hearings, this week a test was undertaken and I have received a report from the commission on the results of that test. A train control survey was conducted on Tuesday, 3 May. The report indicates that the drivers and observers on that train were very happy with both the UHF and VHF radio communications. Commissioner Ashwood has been hearing the case in the Industrial Commission. I understand, having read transcripts of the hearings, that the commission recommended that these trials take place. There was a further recommendation from the commission that if the trials were satisfactory to all parties concerned, then an initial train would be run on 14 May. If there are no further problems, then the system can be put into place gradually. All parties have been involved in these consultations; the State Industrial Commission, unions and railway management. Legislative Assembly 1291 10 May 1990

Relocation of Centre for Information Technology and Communications Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Minister for Administrative Services, I refer to the relocation of CITEC, the Centre for Information Technology and Communications from the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce to the Department of Administrative Services, and I ask: how will the new administrative arrangements affect the technology quadrangle project? What is the current status of that project, and can the Minister briefly outline to the House today what he considers to be the major issues in information technology in the 1990s? Mr McLEAN: CITEC has been moved over to my department for obvious reasons. My department has a very competent staff capable of handling that area very well. In the past week, I was interested to read a press statement issued by the member for Surfers Paradise. Mr FitzGerald: Don't you drop a bucket, too. Mr McLEAN: Yes, it will be a bucket. The honourable member issued a press statement that stated that because the Minister for Administrative Services was a former wharfie he would have no idea about computers, which drove me to look into the background of this imposter from the Gold Coast. I discovered that the honourable member lived in Victoria. He could not get a job, so and his father brought him up here, bought a motel and put him in as manager. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr McLEAN: I want to tell people about the honourable member first. The honourable member is simply a dag hanging off the backside of the Surfers Paradise white-shoe brigade. Mr SPEAKER: Order! ! I suggest to the Minister for Administrative Services that he returns to the question. Mr McLEAN: I will get back to the question. The particular project to which the honourable member refers still remains in Mr Smith's department. The honourable member is an imposter. "More Than Ever. . . North Queensland" Marketing Campaign Mr BORBIDGE: The Opposition appreciates hearing that fountain of knowledge on information technology from the new Minister. My next question is directed to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing. Mr Hamill: We've been waiting for this. Mr BORBIDGE: That is very kind. I refer to the Townsville presentation of the "More Than Ever. . . North Queensland" marketing campaign and will table a photocopy of a full colour, glossy invitation printed for that launch, but which was withdrawn, and I ask the Minister: can he confirm that 500 of these invitations were sent out, but another 1 500 invitations were dumped because the Minister's name was not featured in bold print? What was the cost to the taxpayer of appeasing the Minister's vanity? I table one of the invitations referred to. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr GIBBS: I am devastated by the question. The simple fact is that the first time I even became aware of these so-called glossy invitations was when I picked up the Courier-Mail one morning. Obviously the information had been leaked from within the QTTC to Des Partridge for use in his column in the newspaper. As a result of that, I understand that the ensuing invitation was a fairly low-key invitation which had to be put together hurriedly and at Legislative Assembly 1292 10 May 1990 the last moment. The simple fact is that I had nothing whatsoever to do with any design or sending-out of the invitations. It was left entirely to the—— Mr Borbidge: You never saw it? Mr GIBBS: No. I never saw it at all and I had no input into it. It was left entirely to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Mr FitzGerald: Do you think it was a waste of money? Mr GIBBS: Yes; in fact, I do. The Labor Party has a policy—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer! Mr GIBBS: ——all members of the Labor Ministry adhere to it. None of us will use our photographs in publicity shots or promotional programs in newspapers or in any other way. The simple fact I must put on record is that, when I saw the article appear in the newspaper, there was no doubt in my mind about the person who was responsible for leaking that information in an attempt to embarrass me. It came from within an organisation which, I repeat, had been purposefully and deliberately manipulated to be another branch of the National Party during the years it held office. A thorough review of the activities of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation will be undertaken and completed by the end of July. I can assure the honourable member that that sort of waste of money will not occur again. Community Service Orders for Juvenile Offenders Ms POWER: In directing my first question to the Minister for Family Services, I refer to reports of juveniles who are committing offences in the suburbs and young people who are creating disruption in the Queen Street Mall. These offences are of concern to the community, as I am sure they are of concern to the Minister. Last year the Children's Services Act was amended to provide for community service orders to be made in respect of young offenders. I ask: why have these amendments never been proclaimed? Can the Minister explain what action, if any, is being taken to review juvenile justice legislation? Ms WARNER: For many years, the whole issue of juvenile justice has been left in abeyance. Honourable members may be aware that, in the dying days of the National Party Government, the previous Minister for Family Services tried to score some brownie points by introducing legislation to provide for community service orders for juvenile offenders. At that time, as the shadow Minister for Family Services, I supported that legislation, although I recognised that it was not the full answer to the problem and that, if that particular device were to work effectively and provide a further sentencing option, adequate funds would have to be provided. Typically, the National Party got half of the right idea and introduced the amendments to allow for community service orders, but failed to follow through by making enough funds available to allow community groups to select that option. The National Party allowed a mere $60,000 for the full financial year for the operation of community service orders. That was a completely inadequate level of funding. It meant that neither Mrs Nelson nor I have sought to have that legislation proclaimed. The reason that happened is that, if the legislation were proclaimed on the basis of such a paltry figure of $60,000 being allocated in the Budget for those service orders to take effect, what the Government is saying to judges or magistrates, in effect, is that, "There is a sentencing option, technically and legally, but in reality and in practice it is not effective." Rather than mislead magistrates by proclaiming the legislation, the Labor Government has decided to fund the program properly so that it is operable and will make an impact on sentencing options for juvenile offenders. Proper funding of that Legislative Assembly 1293 10 May 1990 option will be part of a much broader review of the juvenile justice legislation as it stands at the moment. As I understand it, the National Party had that legislation under review for approximately the last six years but dithered over the whole issue. Members of the National Party held a considerable number of discussions and a great deal of community interest was expressed, but the National Party was never able to make up its mind and take any consistent policy direction. Basically its idea of justice was simply to say to people, "There should be some sort of curfew." What nonsense! That was just an attempt to try to absolve the National Party Government from any real funding responsibilities the application of which would have done something concrete about the problem. I can assure the House that this Government will not dither. This Government will put its money where its mouth is. When this Government brings forward legislation that provides a sentencing option, it will be properly funded. INFO-One Computer System Ms POWER: I ask the Attorney-General: is he aware of widespread concern in the legal community that law practices in Queensland are unable to access the INFO-One system, with the effect that Queensland is the only State in the Commonwealth without computer access to its own statutes and cases? What does the Attorney propose to do about this legitimate concern expressed by the legal profession? Mr WELLS: As a matter of fact, it is possible to walk into any law firm in the city and, by payment of a small fee, press a button and obtain access to the latest case on any matter from any jurisdiction— for example, the Supreme Court of the United States, the House of Lords or from the Victorian County Court. People are able to access information on negligence, provocation in homicide cases, and any subject matter in any place except Queensland. The previous Government did not take any action to ensure that Queensland statutes, in comparison to Victorian statutes, or Queensland cases, in comparison to New South Wales cases, were on the computer system. Mr Gunn: Have a drink. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member. I will drink to his health because he will need it. The system that has been available to practitioners throughout the rest of Australia—a system that even Queensland solicitors and other lawyers can access—has not had Queensland information included. Very recently, I took action to ensure that that situation will not continue. At a recent Cabinet meeting, it was decided that a committee that the National Party had allowed to lapse should be restored. That committee will now look into the possibility of providing the best possible computer access to legal information, both statutes and case decisions, which will be made available to the legal community. That should assist the delivery of decision-making in the legal system. It should also add to the moves that the Government is making to reduce the cost of justice by improving the speed and efficiency of the system. Logging on Fraser Island Mr ELLIOTT: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment, I refer to the extension of the national park area on Fraser Island and to press statements in which the Government indicated that those extensions would include the last remaining virgin blocks of tall satinay forest, and I ask: in relation to area 17, was he party to the Cabinet decision which allowed logging in that addition to the park to continue until 20 March, or was he rolled by Mr Casey on that decision? If the Minister was party to the decision in regard to area 17, is that the standard of environmental protection that the people of Queensland can expect in the future? Legislative Assembly 1294 10 May 1990

Mr COMBEN: My answer to the first part of the question is, "No." My answer to the second part is, "Inapplicable." Fish Kills near Yabulu Mr ELLIOTT: In directing a second question to the Minister for Environment, I refer to a fish kill near the Queensland Nickel refinery at Yabulu in the Townsville area and the decision by the previous Government to prosecute the company. I also refer to a second fish kill in the area in late November, the results of which were the subject of a departmental investigation a week prior to the State election. I ask: what action has the Minister taken in respect of the second fish kill? Have prosecution proceedings been launched? If not, why not? Has pressure been brought to bear on him not to prosecute as a direct result of the sensitive relations between the Government and Dallhold Pty Ltd? Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable member for an interesting question. However, he should be brought up to date. He seems to be acting on information that was available until his party went out of Government. If he had bothered to write to me or telephone me, I could have told him that there have been three other fish kills at Yabulu. The matter that he claims was being investigated in the week before the Labor Party came to Government has been taken to the courts. However, it was chucked out very quickly because under the Clean Waters Act, for which the National Party was responsible, there was no basis upon which the Government could prosecute. Mr Borbidge: It was a wrong sample. You messed it up. Mr COMBEN: Yes. It was a wrong sample taken before the Labor Party came to Government and before I put into place a set of procedures to ensure that my officers know how to take a sample properly. It was typical of the National Party that during all its years in Government there was not one successful prosecution under the Clean Waters Act. Since we came to Government, there has been a successful prosecution. As to whether or not pressure has been brought to bear not to prosecute—prosecutions are proceeding with every one of the other three fish kills, and we will succeed. We will not be deterred by the Opposition's second-rate legislation. We are closing the loopholes as soon as we can. At present, generally in this State, if anyone breaches the air pollution legislation, the Clean Waters Act, the Noise Abatement Act or the State Environment Act, he will be prosecuted. I do not care who makes representations on his behalf; if he breaches an Act, he will be prosecuted. The Government seeks the highest penalties, and that will be the way it will continue to go. Sale of Alcohol in Supermarkets Ms ROBSON: I ask the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing: will he explain to the House the rationale behind the Liquor Act review committee's decision not to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in supermarkets, particularly in light of the recent REARK research commissioned by the Australian Retailers Association, which indicated that 59 per cent of consumers surveyed stated that they would prefer to have that option? Mr GIBBS: Firstly, the REARK research was undertaken for the Retailers Association of Queensland. It is the type of research that any of the political parties, if they wanted to waste their money, could carry out by way of a survey. Anyone who has had anything to do with market research would realise that if one asks the right question, one will receive the right answer. That is exactly what was done. On two occasions, the Retailers Association went before the Liquor Act review committee to plead its case. The position that was put before the committee was: because hoteliers have recently been allowed to extend licences off premises to provide a service Legislative Assembly 1295 10 May 1990 that was needed, they should be allowed to establish bottle shops in the retail business area. Of course, that was not acceptable to the Retailers Association. The bottom line is that the retailers want access to the profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages. I am firmly of the opinion that the views expressed publicly by Mr Naylor are not the views of the majority of the people in that industry. The major push to allow retail outlets access to liquor sales is coming from none other than Coles and Woolworths. Some weeks ago, when interviewed on this matter, I stated that, if the Retailers Association of Queensland believed that there should no longer be a monopolistic or a semimonopolistic situation in relation to the sale of alcoholic beverage, perhaps we should look at the distinct possibility of allowing hoteliers or other people in that industry to sell milk, bread, butter and small grocery lines. When he said that the Retailers Association had no objection to that, Mr Naylor made a very flippant and irresponsible response. Of course he would have no objection to it because he represents the major retailers in the game. The point is that I believe that the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, for example, would not share the attitude expressed by Mr Naylor, for the simple reason that, if hoteliers were allowed to practise that sort of business, it would have an extremely adverse effect on small businesses throughout the community. I want to make the final point that Mr Naylor is totally incorrect when he says that hoteliers have, for example, not utilised the right to upgrade take-away areas, drive-in bottle departments or, indeed, these small extensions of off-licences. The simple fact is that they have only been in operation for a very limited period. I must say that the former Minister for Justice under the National Party Government did at least show a relatively progressive attitude in that regard. He did in fact allow the Licensing Commission to use some imagination under the leadership of John McKnoulty and to say to responsible hoteliers that, if they were able to provide a definite case that they should be able to extend their licences into a retail area, that should be allowed. Contrary to Naylor's public statement, in which he claimed that the Labor Party or I have taken an unfair advantage in relation to the review that is currently taking place in regard to Queensland's liquor laws, I have no hesitation in saying that prior to coming into office—and I say this absolutely openly—at no time had I ever discussed this matter with John McKnoulty from the Licensing Commission. I had made no representation to the Liquor Administration Review Committee. The Labor Party had not put forward any submissions. The only input that I have had has been since Labor has come into office. I have been saying exactly the same thing in office that I said in Opposition, that is, that the Labor Party Government will not be allowing the likes of Woolworths and Coles to sell alcohol on their premises. Western Queensland Floods Ms ROBSON: I refer the Minister for Transport to the damage caused to roads and railways in the recent western Queensland floods, and I ask: can he outline the steps taken by the Transport Department to overcome flood damage to roads and railways? Can the Minister detail any special assistance being provided to private vehicle owners whose cars or trucks have suffered flood damage? Mr HAMILL: I had the opportunity yesterday in the House to outline some of these measures in some detail. I will quickly summarise them. Concessions have been provided to residents whose vehicles have been rendered inoperable because of flood damage. They will receive rebates with respect to their registration fees. Queensland Railways has and continues to freight free of charge relief materials that have been marked as donations to the flood-affected areas. In fact, a very large quantity of furniture has been transported by Queensland Railways for distribution in those areas. Legislative Assembly 1296 10 May 1990

One area that continues to generate some heat, of course, is the weight and load restrictions that the Government has placed on roads affected by the inundation. Those restrictions have been progressively lifted as the roads dry out. However, as I told the House yesterday, some operators continue to run the gauntlet of those restrictions. They have been imposed for a very good reason, that is, to ensure that the road system is preserved. The State's roads, particularly the shire roads, are certainly copping a hiding from some selfish, irresponsible operators who prefer to seek to get their overloaded trucks through into areas where the roads simply are not up to coping with such weights. The load restrictions are 80 per cent of the normal legal load, and at present there is a ban on volumetric loading. With respect to rail—extensive work has been undertaken in restoring rail links to flood-affected areas. Yesterday, I told the House that we expected that the Quilpie and Cunnamulla branch lines would be restored by the end of May. However, following further investigations, I am told that that may now be the end of June. Extensive work is being undertaken to restore the transport and communications infrastructure in those areas to provide genuine relief and assistance to those who have been affected by the flooding. Appointment of Mr B. Dobinson as Chairman of Redcliffe Hospitals Board Mr COOMBER: I ask the Minister for Health: what were the criteria considered in the appointment of Mr Brian Dobinson as Chairman of the Redcliffe Hospitals Board, which was recently considered and approved? Did those criteria include his local knowledge of Redcliffe, his knowledge of local health-facilities and his length of residential status within the Redcliffe community? What hospital health care and administrative experience does Mr Dobinson possess? Why did Mr Dobinson move to Redcliffe, and where from? Has Mr Dobinson been, or is he still, a member of the Australian Labor Party? Has he represented that party on any local authority? Has he ever assisted the Minister's political campaigns? Mr McELLIGOTT: Mr Speaker, I am sure you can appreciate that it is very difficult to absorb a multipoint question such as the one the honourable member has just asked. However, I will do my best. The honourable member for Flinders did not help much by his chatter—— Mr NEAL: I rise to a point of order. It is that I believe the National Party Opposition is not being afforded its correct share of questions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr NEAL: Mr Speaker—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Balonne will resume his seat while I am on my feet. There is no point of order. I am going to start treating these sorts of points of order as disrespectful and start naming members who take them. I call the Honourable the Minister. Mr McELLIGOTT: As I was saying, it is difficult to answer a multipoint question such as that section by section. However, the implication of the question is very clear. The practice that I have followed in regard to vacancies that occur on public hospitals boards is to contact the member in whose electorate the board is located. In some instances, that may involve more than one member. From memory, in that regard I have contacted the member for Peak Downs and the member for Gregory, Mr Johnson, in regard to vacancies. That is the procedure that I followed on this occasion. The proposition was put to me that Mr Dobinson should be appointed to the position. Obviously because I have lived in Townsville, I am aware of Mr Dobinson and his qualifications for the job. Opposition members: What are they? Legislative Assembly 1297 10 May 1990

Mr McELLIGOTT: Based on the nomination that I received from the local member, I considered Mr Dobinson's suitability for the task. I have already acknowledged that I know him personally. Because I have personal knowledge of his attributes and qualifications, I considered him to be suitable to recommend to Cabinet. Mr Dobinson has had long involvement in and experience of the administration of public instrumentalities, including the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board. Because Mr Dobinson spent a number of years as chairman of the finance committee of the Townsville City Council, he has very obvious qualifications in administering the budgets of a large organisation. As well, he has a very clear dedication to community service generally. I am sure that members of the House would agree that, because of the strains that are placed on the public hospital sector throughout the State, and particularly the Redcliffe Hospital, which has been mentioned in the media on several occasions, Mr Dobinson's qualifications are appropriate for the chairman of that board. Local Government Building Approvals Dr CLARK: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government: is he aware of criticism that has been directed at local authorities with respect to delays that developers sometimes experience in gaining approvals? What action is being taken to reduce undue and costly delays while, at the same time, avoiding fast-tracking, which can be contrary to public interest and can even override local authorities' town-planning legislation? Mr BURNS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr Elliott: Day after day you used to say, "Don't read the question." Mr BURNS: I am not going to read the answer, because I did not expect this question. I am usually asked Dorothy Dix questions by the Opposition, so I do not have to worry about that. In March of last year, the Premiers of all States and the Prime Minister met to discuss housing problems. As a result of that conference, the blame for delays in housing construction and the rising cost of housing was attributed basically to local authorities because of delays in the processing building applications. My department felt that that was unfair and, as a result, it has been part of a joint consultancy with the Commonwealth Government, which has established a systems review. The three people who have been appointed have been holding seminars with developers, builders, local authorities and others throughout the State. The review process will endeavour to produce a one-stop process for approvals, so that the entire approval process will be conducted by local authorities. That review is continuing. Local authorities, builders and the developing industry have cooperated well. It is an important process for each and every one of us. I suggest that members involve themselves with the review process when those people visit their electorates. If the review process can be speeded up without fast-tracking of the type of legislation that Mr Hinze used to put through this House, and if legislation that develops out of discussions between developers, environmentalists and concerned citizens can be introduced, the cost to developers, the cost of land and the costs to those people in the community who are looking for help from the Government will be reduced. Location of Housing Commission Developments in Labor Electorates Dr CLARK: I direct my second question to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. A comparison of Housing Commission properties in the Cairns and Barron River electorates suggests that the previous National Party Government implemented a Legislative Assembly 1298 10 May 1990 policy of concentrating Housing Commission homes in Labor Party electorates. I ask: what steps is the Minister proposing to take to rectify that imbalance, which has disadvantaged residents in former National Party electorates across the State? Mr BURNS: It is true that the former National Party Government concentrated on certain electorates. In fact, some members of the National Party issued instructions through Ministers to various departments that certain land in their electorates was not to be developed. For example, although large areas of land of up to 600 blocks were available in the Pine Rivers electorate, the relevant file was noted that the former member for Pine Rivers and Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs did not want that area developed. Mr Gunn: Would you put 600 houses in one area? Mr BURNS: The same situation occurred in Mansfield, where Mr Sherrin did not want certain land developed. In Greenslopes, dozens of blocks of land were ready for pensioner accommodation, but Mr Gunn, as the former Minister, refused to allow those blocks to be developed because Leisha Harvey did not want pensioners in Housing Commission houses in her electorate. That has always been the policy of the National Party—to discriminate against those people and to push them into the outer suburbs and away from National Party electorates. My Government will continue with the process that Dick Persson set up in the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. Under that process there will be consultation and the development of a State plan. We have paid the money, and the QCOSS people have conducted meetings throughout the State. Mr Veivers: You built them in my electorate. Mr BURNS: I could mention several Opposition members who have done their level best to keep Housing Commission developments out of their electorates. It was a dirty trick by the National Party to treat people in that way, and it ought to be ashamed of itself. Government Policy on Local Government Mr GUNN: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, I draw his attention to the Labor Party's policy on local government, which states that local government has a distinct role to play in the administration and growth of Queensland. If that is so, I ask: why has the Deputy Premier appointed a director-general whose knowledge of local government is limited to the fact that rates have to be paid? Will the Deputy Premier allay fears that the department is becoming fragmented and is losing its effectiveness by appointing a local government professional? Mr BURNS: That is an example of the sorts of questions that bring down Governments. It is no wonder that people are laughing at the National Party. Mr FitzGerald: Come on, answer the question. Mr BURNS: I will answer the question for the honourable member. The Local Government Department and local government in this State appreciate the treatment that they have received from the Government since it came to office. There are no more Russ Hinze ministerial rezonings. There is no more graft and corruption where people take money and make decisions and override the councils. Those days are over. These days, local authorities make their own decisions without the grubby, handout tactics of the National Party—give money to the Joh Bjelke-Petersen fund; give money to Russ Hinze. Why are all those people in the courts? If the National Party was so concerned about local government and if its director was so good, why are all those people in the courts? It is because the previous Government was corrupt and it used local government to gather the money for its corrupt practices. Legislative Assembly 1299 10 May 1990

Housing Commission Loan Schemes Mr GUNN: I give the Minister two out of 10 for his last answer. In directing a further question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Housing and Local Government, I refer to the previous Government's Housing Commission loan program under which approvals were running at the rate of some 190 to 200 per week. I ask: would the Minister indicate whether the same home loan schemes are still available and whether loan applications are still being approved at the same rate—up to 200 a week? Is it not so that at present there is a long waiting-time—up to six months—for interviews? Mr BURNS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr Gunn: Answer the question. Mr BURNS: I will answer the question for him. The previous Government was borrowing money at 14.75 per cent and lending it to yuppies at 13.75 per cent. The Sunday Mail indicated that money was being lent to people who were buying houses worth $300,000 and for second mortgages. The previous Government was not interested in the battler; it was not interested in the first home owner. That is how the Government was lending the money. Simply, the previous Government was not interested in the ordinary person and his problems. That Government was lending money at 13.75 per cent when interest rates were 17.5 per cent. No wonder the queue was a mile long. No wonder the Government put a bit of brown paper over the door to hide the name of the Housing Commission so people could not find it. The previous Government did not open Housing Commission offices in rural towns to organise loans. Why did the Government not do that? Because it did not want rural people to get the dough. This Government's home ownership made easy program and its shared equity program are under preparation and will be introduced after the Budget. Let me tell the honourable member that people are waiting for a program that will help the battler and not his rich mates. Mr SCHWARTEN proceeding to give notice of a question— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the honourable member's question. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Facilities at Rockhampton Court House Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: is he aware of the state of court facilities in Rockhampton? If he is aware of them, is he prepared to advise the House of the course of action he intends to take to address the problems he has identified? Mr McLEAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr Borbidge: Tell us about Tas Bull. Mr McLEAN: Why don't you wake up to yourself? Mr Borbidge: Old tactics die hard. Mr McLEAN: At the invitation of the honourable member for Rockhampton, I visited the Rockhampton Court House precincts. It is an absolute disgrace. It is Legislative Assembly 1300 10 May 1990

impostors such as the honourable member for Surfers Paradise who allowed this situation to prevail. The impostor from Surfers Paradise is one of the greatest reasons why the National Party is sitting on the other side of the House. One has only to look at him strutting around this House in such a manner that one would swear there was something wrong with his posterior. It is not hard to understand why he does it, either. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the Minister get to the question, please? Mr McLEAN: My apologies, Mr Speaker. At Mr Schwarten's invitation, I visited Rockhampton. The situation in the courthouse and in the Magistrates Court is desperate. The witnesses, solicitors and clients have to sit in full view of people walking along the footpath. The staff working conditions in the Magistrates Court are quite unacceptable. The staff room is totally unacceptable. From memory, some 23 people are required to fit into an inadequate area. The entire situation is unacceptable. At present, the Government is considering a number of options to remedy this. The Government believes that Rockhampton deserves a fair go. Over a long period it has suffered because of treatment by fools such as the honourable member opposite. The Labor Government will ensure that a fair go is given to Rockhampton. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.21 a.m.), by leave: Earlier today during question-time, the Premier attacked my record in respect of land tax in this State, and he did so to justify his own Government's inaction. I would like to state to the House that action was taken by the previous Government, that a report was made to the previous Cabinet by the former Minister for Finance and me, and that resulted in very substantial amendments to the Land Tax Act being presented to the Parliament which limited the amount of the increase and in certain circumstances permitted refunds to be made to taxpayers in the State of Queensland. It is the Premier who is now the Government. He has made the commitment that, under his Government, taxes will not increase over and above the rate of the CPI. This Government has an obligation to act to at least the same extent as the previous administration. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Leave of Absence of Prisoners from Correctional Institutions Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to report that I have received the following brief written statement from the honourable member for Sherwood pursuant to the provision of Standing Order No. 137— "Dear Mr Speaker I submit the following matter as a definite Matter of Public Importance for discussion today, namely: Responsibility for and the administration of, the so-called 'Leave of Absence system' in the Queensland gaols through which convicted killers, rapists and drug pushers have been repeatedly released, unescorted, years before their sentences have expired and in some cases, weeks after their admission. In particular, and notwithstanding public outcry against the scheme, in February, how a convicted killer, and now escaped prisoner, Henry John Bartczack could have been released, contrary to the recommendation of the trial judge, and forcing terrified and threatened relatives to leave their homes and go into hiding seeking police protection." Legislative Assembly 1301 10 May 1990

Not fewer than five members having risen in their places to indicate approval— Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.24 a.m.): I move— "That the House do pass to the next business." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 49 NOES, 34 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. FIRE SERVICE BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 May 1990 (see p.1277 ). Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (11.32 a.m.): This morning I rise to support the Fire Service Bill. Initially I did not intend to join in this debate. However, after sitting in this place last night and listening to some of the contributions from members of the Opposition, I felt compelled to make some comments. I certainly do not intend to take my full 30 minutes. Having spent some 17 years in local government, I believe I can claim with some justification that I have some small expertise in this particular area. Last night I was most impressed with some of the comments of the honourable member for Carnarvon. I thought that he was very sincere but, at times, misguided. I was quite amazed to hear the comments of some members of the parliamentary Liberal Party because, if one goes back and examines the history of fire services legislation in recent years, one learns that the architect of that legislation was Mr Bill Hewitt, a former Liberal Party Minister. I well remember Mr Hewitt travelling the length and breadth of Queensland and addressing a number of shire and city councils as well as the Local Government Association of Queensland. He gave all sorts of promises about what would happen once the legislation came into being. The main promise he gave was that he and his department would, on an annual basis, print disclaimers in all newspapers stating that any increases in the fire levy were in fact the decisions of the State Government and not the local council. Those disclaimers appeared once. Legislative Assembly 1302 10 May 1990

When Mr Hewitt introduced the legislation in the first place, he placed a tremendous workload on shire and city councils and, in fact, the inspectors of those councils, for they were given the responsibility of actually placing the various blocks of land in the shire or city into the various categories. I will be quite honest today in admitting that I basically supported the legislation at that time. However, I was concerned that a great onus was placed on local authorities. Since then, things have changed. To sit here and listen to members of the National Party criticise this Bill certainly makes one feel sick in the stomach, because the person who created the turmoil in this industry, the person who bankrupted the system, was none other than the former member for Barron River, Mr Martin Tenni. He was very often accused of saying things that he really did not mean. I always remember his remark that under the new system nobody would pay any more than he was paying before. That proved to be completely untrue and a ridiculous statement to make. He had to keep the fire premiums at the same level and almost bankrupted the whole system. Householders were also assured that there would be a reduction in their fire insurance premiums. The vast majority of the people in this State are still waiting for that to happen. Most of the criticism levelled against this Bill last night by the National Party and the Liberal Party referred particularly to the abolition of all of the fire brigade boards throughout Queensland. Let me place on the record that many fine men and women contributed many hours and days of their time doing fire board business, and I am the first to congratulate them. But, quite honestly, I believe that the fire boards in Queensland, because they have simply been rubber stamps for the decisions taken above, probably have not made one decision in the last 20 years. I also heard Liberal Party members, particularly the honourable member for Merthyr, get most upset when it was stated that some members of boards would be sacked. They claimed that that was a terrible injustice. Let me remind some of the members of the Opposition that the dismissal of people from boards is nothing new. For 15 years I served as a member of the Townsville Port Authority and, at the whim of one Minister, other members of the board and I, whose only crime was that we were not members of a political party, were simply sacked. At the same time, the same happened with some of the electricity boards throughout the State. I could never forgive the former Government for sacking Mike Reynolds, the then Mayor of the City of Mount Isa, and replacing him with Mr Dan Gleeson. Mr FitzGerald: He wasn't Mayor of Mount Isa. Mr McGRADY: He was the Mayor of Townsville. I was testing the honourable member for Lockyer. Mr Mike Reynolds, the former mayor, was sacked from the Townsville City Council and replaced by Mr Dan Gleeson. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr McGRADY: The honourable member knows as much as I do. Mr FitzGerald: Yes. Mr McGRADY: That is right, and I suggest to the honourable member—— Mr FitzGerald: Dan Gleeson was a local authority member. Mr McGRADY: I suggest to the honourable member that he does some homework. He will discover that the Government's appointee, Mr Dan Gleeson was replaced. The point I make is that the previous Government was reluctant to come forward and dismiss members of boards. If a person does not have the ability or has made a mistake or an error of judgment, there is reason to get rid of that person from a board. In every instance that I can recall, people were dismissed from boards simply because they did not belong to a particular political party, and I stand by those comments. Legislative Assembly 1303 10 May 1990

When I received a copy of the Fire Service Bill I forwarded it to the Acting Mayor of Mount Isa and also to the town clerk who between them would have approximately 30 years of service in local government. After they read the Bill I asked them to give me their comments. These two gentlemen expressed only two small concerns in a Bill covering 66 pages. These two people are well-versed in local government matters and are well aware of fire services in this State. All they could come up with was one comment, "It looks okay to me", and a small concern on page 46 of the Bill, which has since been addressed by the Minister. Today it is important for this House to debate this Bill in a rational manner. Queensland has recently been devastated by floods and the honourable member for Carnarvon made the comments last night that at times there are fires throughout the State. It behoves all honourable members of this Assembly to go into our electorates and sell this new legislation. A large number of untruths are being peddled about what will happen, particularly in country areas. Those statements are totally and utterly false. Last night I listened with great interest to the comments made by Mr Fitzgerald, the member for Lockyer. He ranted and raved about unions taking over fire services throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. Mr FitzGerald: I didn't say that. Mr McGRADY: The honourable member did. Mr FitzGerald: They are not my words. Mr McGRADY: The honourable member did. I went through this Bill last night and again this morning. I may be naive and fairly new to this place, but after going through this Bill I cannot find anything at all that will give additional powers to the trade unions in this State. This was the theme of the member for Lockyer's speech. I feel sad when people who I consider to have some intelligence start ranting and raving about things that will never, ever happen. I would much prefer it if members of this Assembly studied the documents which we are discussing and then made a useful contribution to the debate. I have not come here to start playing silly games. I have come here to act in a responsible manner and support, or otherwise, legislation which I believe is in the interests of this State. Today I am happy to rise in this House in support of this Bill. As the Minister stated yesterday, the great majority of this Bill was in fact the work of the previous Government. The Minister was quite correct when he paid tribute to those people who were the architects of this Bill. Changes have been made in line with what I personally agree with. The only real opposition that could come from either the National Party or the Liberal Party relates to the abolition of the fire boards. The member for Carnarvon was most distressed last night because he felt that some of the volunteers who are doing a tremendous job, particularly in the rural parts of this State, would be lost. I cannot for the life of me see that a person who has dedicated many years to his community by helping to fight fires will all of a sudden change his attitude and be less community-minded simply because a new piece of legislation has come into place. Mr FitzGerald: They are very sensitive to bureaucracy. The people in the bush very quickly get fed up with bureaucracy, and if they see bureaucracy they will soon become disenchanted with their role. Mr McGRADY: I have lived in the remote parts of this State for the last 28 years and I can speak with some conviction about people who live in those remote parts. I do not come across these concerns. I have discussed this matter with the people who work in the Mount Isa fire station and they do not have these concerns. Last night the Leader of the Liberal Party made some silly comment about it being all right for me because Mount Isa Mines is there to provide the service for us. That is not the case. Mount Isa Mines has a fire service, and a very efficient one, which is used Legislative Assembly 1304 10 May 1990 almost exclusively on any fires which occur on the Mount Isa Mines lease. That is the way it should be. Today I have risen in this House simply to express my concern at the scare tactics which are being used by some members of the Opposition regarding rural fire services becoming null and void in this State. I do not believe that that will happen. I believe that the good sense of country people will remain and that those men and women will still continue to operate those rural fire services. An investigation into the operation of some of these fire boards around the State is long overdue. I make it perfectly clear that I support the retention of some boards, but the fire boards certainly do not fall into this category. Fire services in Queensland are a multimillion dollar enterprise and must be run in a professional and efficient manner because the Government is playing with taxpayers' dollars. I support and applaud the initiatives taken in this Bill, which are aimed at making the fire services throughout this State operate as professional bodies. Simply because a person happens to be a long-time member of any political party does not give that person the right to sit on these boards. Last night, I did not want to become involved in the petty, political mud-slinging that went on during the debate on the opposite side of the House. However, if one were to examine the individual members of the board that operates in my own city, one would find that the insurance representative happened to be the National Party's candidate at the last election and that the two Government representatives were also members of the National Party. Whenever a position on any board or authority in the State of Queensland became available, it became a bit of a sick joke because the only qualification required was membership of the National Party. To my mind, that is not the way in which a Government should operate—it is not the way in which this Government will operate—and it is not the way in which this State should operate. It is also not the way in which multimillion-dollar enterprises in this State, such as fire services, should be administered. Mr FitzGerald: What about your council representatives? Your colleagues were saying that they were all National Party stooges. Do you say that the people in Mount Isa didn't do that? Mr McGRADY: The people of Mount Isa are very wise in their choice of aldermen, the Federal member and the State member. Mr FitzGerald: You probably disagree with your colleagues, who said that they were all National Party stooges. Mr McGRADY: The people of Mount Isa do not have that problem. I never said that all board members were in that category. I was referring to Government appointees. One could go right through the list of boards in this State and find that every single Government appointee is a card-carrying member of the National Party. In conclusion, I state my full support for the Bill. Although I had some concerns about it, they have been ironed out by the Minister. I am happy to support the legislation and call upon all other honourable members to do likewise. Mr KING (Nicklin) (11.47 a.m.): In rising to speak to this legislation, I do not intend to unnecessarily take up the time of the House by repeating most of the statements that have been so ably put by my colleague the member for Merthyr, the honourable member for Carnarvon and other members opposed to the Bill. I just want to summarise what I believe to be some of the main points and tell the Minister and other honourable members how I see the situation, based on my personal involvement and experience with the current fire board system. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this matter or believe that I am necessarily 100 per cent correct in every statement I make. However, I have spent five years as deputy chairman of the Maroochy fire board and wish to state from first-hand experience the way in which I see fire service boards operate. The Maroochy board controls a relatively large-sized brigade. Although the brigade is not as big as some of those in the Legislative Assembly 1305 10 May 1990 major cities, it is bigger than most brigades in country areas. Its areas of responsibility include coastal high- rise buildings, smaller country towns and rural bushland districts. The Maroochy board has experienced the fairly wide variety of the problems that are encountered by most brigades. Without doubt, the main problems experienced by the Maroochy board would be the same as those experienced elsewhere throughout the State. They all boil down to money—or rather, I should say, the lack of money. The real crux of the problem is that money is needed to employ extra fire-fighters and to buy modern equipment. The fire levy system should be reassessed to address these problems. I wish to refer to the type of men and women who make up fire boards throughout Queensland because it seems to me that herein lies one of the main reasons why the Government wishes to disband the board system. It cannot be denied that many National Party members have been appointed to fire boards, because that is a fact. It also cannot be denied that politics is largely about perceptions. The perception in the case of fire boards could legitimately be shown to be appointments for the boys. If the present Government is locked into rectifying this problem, then so be it; obviously, that is a matter that is beyond the control of members on the Opposition side of the House. However, I say to the Minister, "Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Please don't throw out the board system that really has operated, in the main, very well for many years, just to rectify a politically unpalatable situation." The Minister should look individually at the political appointees. If he believes that their only qualification was that they belonged to the National Party and if he believes that he can replace them with a better qualified apolitical person, then he should by all means do so. I plead with the Minister, if he is genuine in his desire to provide the best system of fire protection for the people of Queensland, to think again before he disbands the boards. I have attended several annual fire board conferences in Queensland and I have listened to, and spoken with, many board members. The agendas always cover a large range of problems. Ministers, fire service personnel and guest speakers invariably attend and contribute. By the input of the vast majority of board member delegates at the conference, they clearly show that they are experienced, dedicated, commonsense people who have had a wealth of hands-on experience in determining the best and most efficient way to run their brigades in their districts. Whether or not they were political appointments is really not an important factor. What is important is that they are experienced achievers who do a good job and who do that job more as a community service than as anything else. Any criticism about the high cost of fees paid to board members is not fair. The average member receives in the vicinity of $40 per meeting once a month. Most members would be capable of earning far more than that for their time in their normal occupation. The total cost of maintaining the boards is infinitesimal in relation to the overall budget of each board. Of course, the acid test question that could be asked is, "How efficiently do the boards operate?" The answer must lie in the response to a follow-up question such as, "How efficient are the fire brigades in giving the public satisfactory fire protection?" Although all honourable members would be able to mention an odd example by way of criticism, I believe that, on the whole, the public would agree that the brigades do an excellent job. I call to mind a couple of examples from my own electorate. A couple of years ago, in the early hours of Anzac Day, a crazed person set fire to seven of the local churches. The fire brigade—made up of dedicated, efficient men—was able to save nearly all the churches, with the exception of one building. More recently, 80 000 or 90 000 litres of fuel were spilt into one of the local creeks, which could have created a disastrous situation. It was an unusual problem, but it was handled capably by the dedicated brigade officers in that area. I am sure that all other districts could offer similar examples that illustrate that brigades in all areas are, generally speaking, efficient units. Of the relatively few criticisms possible, most could probably be attributed to a lack of sufficient manpower and a lack of up-to-date equipment, not to a fault of the board or the brigade. The real problem—I emphasise "real" as compared to "political" Legislative Assembly 1306 10 May 1990 or "perceived"—facing the fire services in Queensland really comes back to one issue: a lack of sufficient funding. That problem will not be helped by setting up a centralised bureaucracy; it will be adversely affected. The setting-up of centralised experts, with their offices, salaries, cars, staff and other operating expenses, will grow like Topsy, as is already starting to happen, and the cost will only add to the price that the public will have to pay for its fire-protection service. The millions of dollars involved would be far more effectively spent in conjunction with the current board system on updating equipment for brigades. An example is the brigade in the Maroochy area. As I have said previously, it is an efficient unit. However, if it had access to the more modern high-pressure pumps, it would be capable of putting out fires much more quickly. Those pumps require much less water, which is pumped at a higher pressure, and they are capable of extinguishing a fire much more quickly. Most honourable members who live in more urbanised areas probably do not appreciate the need for auxiliary fire officers to allow many country brigades to operate. Influential community leaders on fire brigade boards play an important part in recruitment that can be appreciated only by those honourable members who live in smaller country areas. I pay tribute to the member for Carnarvon for the accurate manner in which he described that situation yesterday. During the recent western Queensland floods, Mr Mackenroth indicated his concern for the people and the need to obtain facts first hand from the people working at the coalface. He went there, saw and spoke to the people involved and understood the problem. To have one's home destroyed by fire is even more devastating than to have one's home flooded. Until the Minister proves otherwise to me, I shall believe that he has a genuine desire in this matter to provide for the people whom we all represent the best fire service possible, not merely to satisfy political aims and retributions. On that basis, I ask that the Government defer the Bill until the Minister can personally check out the real situation fully, as he did in Charleville. Mr Mackenroth: I believe that I have already done that, and I believe that I have made the correct decision. Mr KING: Fair enough. That is the Minister's opinion. Mr Mackenroth: You said that that's what I should do. I believe that I have done that. I believe that the decision I have made is correct. Mr KING: I thank the Minister for his comment, which I accept. However, because his decision obviously differs with my understanding of the position, I find it hard to come to grips with. Mr Mackenroth: It probably will on a few other occasions in life, too. Mr KING: Fair enough. Unfortunately, supposed intellectual expert advisers do not always come up with the right answers. I believe that that is the case on this occasion. If the Minister were to defer the Bill, as requested, he may receive political flak for delays from some members on this side of the House. I assure him, however, that I will not be one of them. Furthermore, if his Government accedes to my request and then does something meaningful to check the position further, it will show that it is not here merely to steamroll legislation through with its weight of numbers but that it is genuinely interested in arriving at the best solutions possible for the people of Queensland. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (11.57 a.m.): The Opposition's case has been put most ably by previous speakers. In particular, I congratulate the Opposition spokesman on Emergency Services on his speech yesterday. I hope that the Minister takes note of what he said. Legislative Assembly 1307 10 May 1990

Mr Mackenroth: I did. I really listened to it. I read it again this morning. He did not know what he was talking about. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is being very unkind. Perhaps he does not want to know what the member was talking about. He would prefer to gloss over some points that he should take cognisance of. It would be remiss of me if I did not comment on the proposals in the Bill. It would also be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the service provided by board members in my electorate and the great work that those officers carry out in relation to fires and emergency situations in Sarina and surrounding localities. The ALP promised to reform the fire service for the benefit of the people of Queensland. It is very doubtful whether the promised reforms will be better for the people of Queensland. The Bill proves that it has no intention of doing that. Apart from breaking promises, the Bill will do nothing to give the people of Queensland a better service; it will do just the opposite. The decision to sack Queensland's 81 fire boards is a slap in the face for many of the hard-working, conscientious people in the local communities. That is how the board members interpret the decision. The local people with local knowledge have a very valuable contribution to make to the smooth running of the fire service and to the welfare and the safety of citizens in their region. That applies to every region in Queensland. The Minister would acknowledge that people in the fire service are genuine and performing a good job. Although he may think that his decision is wise, I believe that it is a retrograde step. Fire boards, by the very nature of the work, through cooperation with a full range of emergency services, including police and ambulance service representatives who are involved in local fire areas, have always played a vital role, and will continue to do so, in fire emergencies. That cooperation on site results undoubtedly in a far better and more efficient service for the citizens in the region. In my electorate, the cooperation between the local businesspeople on the fire board, the police and ambulance services leads to the betterment of the community. I have the highest admiration for the marvellous work carried out by the fire boards, police and ambulance staff. This grab for centralised power is a retrograde step and a denial of the rights of Queensland's decentralised communities to have a say in their own affairs. Prior to the election, we warned that the Labor Party would attempt to centralise power in the cities and forget about citizens in rural areas. We can only wonder whether the next to go will be the ambulance committees and hospital boards. We anticipate that fire board levies will be increased. Mr SANTORO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the House. Quorum formed. Mr Mackenroth: You would think he could have waited until a Government member was up. Mr RANDELL: He possibly has his reasons and will give consideration to that in the future. The huge bureaucracy that will be created under this Labor Party plan will certainly mean more expense to the community and to the taxpayer. It would be laughable, if it were not so serious, following Labor's pre-election promise that there would be no increases in taxes or charges. However, it certainly seems that there will be. There seems to be emerging a pattern of broken promises and to hell with the people of Queensland. That will continue. Legislative Assembly 1308 10 May 1990

The decision to do away with local boards is ill-considered and ill-advised. As the previous Liberal speaker said, the Government should delay its decision and give it more consideration. The Government believes that by its actions it will save money. Perhaps it will; perhaps it will not. However, I ask: what is money when compared with the safety of the citizens of this State? The saving of money should not be the only consideration. The payment to members of these boards is only token money. The fees they receive would not cover the cost of their time spent at board meetings, let along the time spent getting to and fro and the time spent away from their businesses. I know that the people on the board in my local township of Sarina do a tremendous amount of voluntary work. How can one equate money with the loss of local knowledge and expertise? I will name the members of the Sarina board. They are Col Graham, Neville Coulter—the chairman—Doug Fairburn, Sarina Shire Council representatives Frank Boyle and John Petersen, Mrs Mary Hansen, secretary, and Kevin Plumb and Rick Davis, insurance representatives. They have all given stirling service to Sarina, not only to the board but also to the local community. Chief fire officer Tom Dale and his crew are a model of consistency and dedication to their job. They deserve the highest commendation. These people come from a diverse occupational background and, as I have said before, their local knowledge and expertise play a great part in ensuring a safe and reliable fire service for the Sarina area. I know they have the full backing of the shire council and the local community. I believe that they parallel the work done by other boards in Queensland. They have a very good relationship with the local police, the State Emergency Service and the ambulance service. They all cooperate very well. I can only commend all of these services in the Sarina area. However, apparently this will all be lost after 30 June. The board will go and the service will be controlled by a regional officer based in Rockhampton, approximately 300 kilometres away. That is hardly conducive to active cooperation. Nobody can convince me that what we will get will be any substitute for regular and informed local knowledge and expertise. It will be a backward step, and time will prove me right. I know that the Sarina board has applied for a new appliance, and I understand that this has been recommended by the Commissioner for Fire Services. I ask the Minister to ensure that there is no delay in the delivery of that appliance. Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (12.05 p.m.): I wish to speak only briefly. Like the member for Mount Isa, I initially had no intention of speaking to this legislation. I am the first to admit that it is not within my area of expertise, and I have not been involved in the committee work and the preparation of it. However, I feel the need to correct one or two of the erroneous views that have been expressed by members of the Opposition, both last night and this morning. I speak largely on the basis of my knowledge of health. The opposition to this Bill stems mainly from two points. The Opposition is concerned about the abolition of the boards and about centralisation of fire services in Queensland. The first point I want to make is that boards do not stop centralisation. As all honourable members will be aware, a review is currently being conducted into the administration of health services in Queensland. So far a Green Paper has gone out. Submissions are being received, and those submissions are starting to be processed. I can speak with a fair bit of knowledge about hospital boards, having worked as a medical practitioner, both in the public and private systems, in a number of areas throughout the State. I have worked in Brisbane and in country areas, and I am currently working in Toowoomba. Over the last eight years I have been involved informally in discussion about the role of boards in the hospital system and the role of central administration in health. Legislative Assembly 1309 10 May 1990

The Queensland hospital system—which I still believe is the best public hospital system in Australia—is undoubtedly one of the most centralised Government services in Queensland. Mr Booth: You are still attacking the previous Government, even though you have just admitted that it is an excellent service. Dr FLYNN: It is an excellent service. Mr Booth: Surely the people of Toowoomba should be told what you are doing. Dr FLYNN: It needs improving. I am happy to commend the previous Government for having the foresight and wisdom to carry on the public hospital system in Queensland which was, of course, begun under a Labor Government. It is this foresight that makes Queensland's health services stand apart from those in the rest of the country. However, I wish to make the point—and this is relevant to this legislation—that the Opposition is mistaken in its belief that boards stop centralisation. Basically, the hospital boards throughout Queensland are composed of well-meaning, well-intentioned and diligent working people. However, they do not have the professional knowledge or ability to effectively change the decision-making process that is engaged in largely by the medical superintendent and the hospital administrator. The hospital administrator is an employee of the Health Department who answers directly to Brisbane. The medical superintendent is also appointed directly by the Director-General of Health. By and large, the boards will always follow their recommendations for the allocation of services. Despite the fact that Queensland has a board system and that the boards are allocated budgets, the decision-making in the health administration of Queensland is centralised. It is quite erroneous for members to believe that boards per se create decentralisation. Mr Booth: I would be happy to go to Toowoomba with you and debate that matter with you, when you are running down your own boards. Dr FLYNN: I am not running down my own boards. Mr Booth: Invite me to debate with you up there, because I will have a wonderful night and you will be run out of town. Dr FLYNN: I do not think that I will. Mr Mackenroth: You are being nasty. Mr Booth: I think I have got him on the run. Dr FLYNN: The honourable member is making me speak for much longer than I had intended to. I have an excellent working relationship with Dr Denis Lennox, who is the medical superintendent of the general hospital, and Mr Colin Brimblecombe, who is the chairman of the Toowoomba Hospitals Board. Together with Dr Lennox, Mr Brimblecombe and others who are involved in health administration in Toowoomba, I have spent several hours discussing the proposed Green Paper. Mr Santoro: What about the fire board? Dr FLYNN: I have not spoken to the fire board. I am the first to admit that I do not have personal knowledge of fire services in Queensland. I am talking about a similar model. When considering the model of the Health Department, many Opposition members believe incorrectly that boards give protection and regionalisation. I am sure that everyone would agree that the one thing that boards do well is provide at least some political lobbying power to the local community. No service that Legislative Assembly 1310 10 May 1990 has to respond to political lobbying should operate in Queensland. Whether we are talking about fire services or health services, we need to identify the areas of need and act on them. Responding in an ad hoc manner to the cries from one particular board that may more effectively lobby its member or whose member, when taking up their cries, may be able more effectively to lobby the Parliament, is not the way to provide efficient, cost-effective fire or health services in Queensland. Mr Santoro: Surely the people who are controlling the central region can use the input of the local community. That is what it boils down to. Dr FLYNN: I am not talking about removing local input in the health sphere. Mr Santoro: We are discussing fire boards. Dr FLYNN: The honourable member is forcing me to take up more time of the Parliament than I had intended to. I will move on to my second point. Mr Booth: You want to go into Hansard attacking your own board. Dr FLYNN: I have not attacked my board. I have accurately stated the role of boards in Queensland and how they act. That is how most people who are involved in the delivery of health services in Queensland, including doctors in hospitals at the administrative and work interface levels, and nurses at the administrative and patient interface levels, perceive their boards. They might not always tell them so to their faces, but when talking to independent people they will say, "Yes, that person works hard and does a good job. He always does what we say." How can one expect people who do not have a professional knowledge in a field such as health services to decide whether a sum of money should be spent on a renal dialysis unit or a new X-ray machine? Obviously they would accept the advice of professionals. It is an absolute furphy that boards per se stop centralisation. Centralisation has obvious benefits. Mr Booth: Now we are getting the real truth. Dr FLYNN: Centralisation has obvious benefits and I do not intend to rattle off a whole list of them. I am now referring to the benefits to the Health Department of the centralisation of health services. That is part of the reason why our health system is relatively cost effective. Centralisation has obvious benefits in reducing the costs of administration, increasing professional standards and independently identifying areas of need. During the process of evaluating submissions for the Green Paper, feedback revealed that the Health Department is very centralised. Because that has advantages, we must be careful to ensure that those advantages are not thrown away during the review process. Last night during the debate on this legislation, an honourable member attacked the Government for listening to the fire-fighters themselves—the people who do the job and put out the fires. Mr Santoro: We never attacked you on that. It certainly wasn't the Liberal Party. Dr FLYNN: I am not sure who it was. Perhaps it was Mr Lester. Last night, the Government was accused of listening to its union mates. It was claimed that the Bill had been drafted because of union influence. This Government intends to talk to the people who do the job. It is highly ridiculous to frame legislation relating to fire services without speaking to the people who put out the fires. Because their representatives are strongly in support of this Bill, I have great faith in it. The same procedures will be adopted when evaluating submissions for the Green Paper on the health industry. The Government will be listening to the people who Legislative Assembly 1311 10 May 1990 administer and provide health services. I am sure that practice will filter through to many other areas. The criticism that this Bill is a result of union influence is a misinterpretation by the Opposition of the fact that this Government is prepared to listen to the people who actually do the job of putting out the fires. I support the Bill. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (12.15 p.m.):This ill-considered Bill is a step backwards for fire services in Queensland. It is quite obvious that the Minister has listened only to the unions. He obviously lacks support from the ALP because, before the quorum was formed, only three members of the ALP, including the Minister, were present in the House to support him during this debate. Mr Smyth: There are only two of your members supporting you at the moment. Mr J. N. GOSS: Three out of nine is a far better percentage than 3 out of 54. It is obvious that there was a lack of support on the Government side, because two of Labor's speakers had to be roped in at the last minute. As one of those members knew nothing about fire services, he could speak only on health services. The attack on the boards shows that the Minister or his advisers have a very narrow view of fire services throughout this State. Until my election to Parliament in December last year, I was a member of the Brisbane Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board. I would not know the political leaning of most of my fellow members on that board. One does not sit around and talk about the party of which one is a member. I can speak only about the way in which I vote. I cannot speak for anybody else. No matter what their political thoughts were, all I can say is that each and every member of the metropolitan board did his best. I would have no doubt that some of those board members were National Party people. No matter what the political views of the members were, if they really believed in something, that was it. They had a professional standing in the community and they did not sell that for cheap politics. Mr Mackenroth: Was one of them Don Lane's campaign-director? Mr J. N. GOSS: I would not know. Mr Mackenroth: He was, I can assure you. Mr J. N. GOSS: I do not know who Don Lane's campaign-director was. It is not true to say that the members of the boards were politically biased. I can say now that when Labor aldermen were on the metropolitan board they, too, worked to the best of their ability for the board. Mr Ardill would know that, too. It was only in 1985, when there was a change of administration, that Liberal aldermen came onto the board. On every board on which I have served—and some had joint ALP and Liberal representation—we have always worked as a team for the betterment of the board. Considering the number of boards on which I have served, I find it rather strange that I have never seen political bias in those boards. Mr Smyth: You had your eyes closed. Mr J. N. GOSS: I would be interested to know on which boards the honourable member has served. On every board on which I have served there has been no political bias. The big advantage of the boards is that they offer flexibility. If the boards need a broader view, their members can always talk directly to the officers or the men concerned. They can talk freely with the junior officers and men about new systems and new ideas. I see the new system as being a very rigid, public service type system and being very remote from the men who actually fight the fires. The key to a successful fire board or a fire brigade system is for the Government to allocate sufficient funds. The collection of the fire levy was imposed on local authorities. Legislative Assembly 1312 10 May 1990

In Brisbane, the Brisbane City Council is required to collect that levy. But I would like to know what has happened to the 12 1/2 per cent that the State Government intended to allocate to fire services to cover all its property and land, because that never seems to be indicated in the Budget. We can only assume that some of the fire levy funds are syphoned off to feed the growing State Fire Service bureaucracy. In addition, the Commonwealth Government should pay its fair share of the fire levy. The lack of funds has left the brigade in Brisbane short of equipment, short of men and short of fire stations. This shortage is placing in jeopardy the lives of our firemen. Mr McGrady: Whose fault is that? Mr J. N. GOSS: The lives of our firemen are at stake. That has been made quite clear at board meetings. It is discussed openly that firemen's lives are at greater risk now than ever before. If the ALP had been greatly concerned about that matter, something would have already been done to increase the funding. Mr McGrady: Whose fault is that? Mr J. N. GOSS: The board cannot pluck the funds out of midair. It has to wait for Government approval before it obtains those funds. Mr Santoro: And what is this Government doing? Mr J. N. GOSS: Nothing! It has continually stalled. Many of the fire-pump units of the metropolitan brigade are so old that rust has to be continually cut out of them. To reduce the risk of explosion at fires, the brigade's petrol units should have been converted to diesel many, many years ago. Because the metropolitan board does not have enough units to cover the city, it cannot afford to have too many units being serviced at the one time. Mr Mackenroth: Were you a member of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board when they purchased the fibreglass fire tender? Mr J. N. GOSS: The Mitsubishis? Mr Mackenroth: Yes, the one that melted when it went to the fire. Mr J. N. GOSS: No. Mr Mackenroth: Are you sure? Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes. The Mitsubishis that were purchased caused many problems. State Fire Services ignored the board's recommendation and went ahead and purchased the Mitsubishi fire units. Mr Briskey: The professional firemen. Mr J. N. GOSS: The professional firemen black-banned the Mitsubishi units because they had too many steps. When that equipment was delivered, it was found to be unsafe because it had no automatic cut-out. Mr Mackenroth: That is one of the problems when you let a fire brigade board design something. Mr J. N. GOSS: No, it was not. It was done by the State Fire Services. Mr Mackenroth: No. Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes, it was. That proposal went through the State Fire Services. The boards would not have purchased those Mitsubishis. The Minister should check his facts. The boards did not want those Mitsubishis, but they were thrust upon them. Brisbane experienced the industrial problem of firemen not wanting to man those units Legislative Assembly 1313 10 May 1990 because they had too many steps and those steps were far too high. The boards are waiting to inspect the new unit that has been designed and is currently being built in Brisbane—in fact, that unit should have been completed by now. It will have a bus-type entry so that firemen can enter and leave the unit with one step onto the ground. The unit will have a wide door so that the firemen will be in almost a standing position when entering and leaving. The design of the Mitsubishis was so bad that the firemen had to exit the unit and then put on their air tanks. No provision had been made in the cabin of the unit for the firemen's air tanks. The purchase of those Mitsubishi units was an absolute disaster. The fire boards did not want to accept delivery of those units, but the instruction was that they had to accept them. Many of the older fire stations in Brisbane are located in areas unsuitable for use by the Mitsubishi units. The old stations are expensive to maintain. Access from them to newly developed suburbs is difficult because of traffic flow and the location of major roads or railway lines. Some of those fire stations need upgrading, and even relocation. For example, the fire stations at Nundah, Hamilton, Balmoral, Wynnum and Ithaca have either reached the education end of their useful life or require upgrading. The list of such stations is growing. Mrs Edmond: Please do not say that Ithaca likes the fire board system. Mr J. N. GOSS: I was just saying that the Ithaca Fire Station has to be replaced. For example, at the Nundah Fire Station, the officers can only fit one very small pump unit into the station, otherwise they cannot close the doors. That fire station was built in the days of the little Dennis fire engines, which were 5 metres in length. Those days are gone. One cannot service industrial areas with small low-pressure pump units, yet those are the only units that the fire station can house. In the near future, the need will arise to house a pump unit in the heart of the city. Because of increasing traffic congestion, both Kemp Place and Roma Street fire stations are experiencing longer response times to the city centre. In the afternoon, for example,it is quicker to have the units turn out from Windsor station to attend the Royal Brisbane Hospital than it is to travel the short distance from Kemp Place out to Royal Brisbane. If one compares the traffic flow in the city today with days gone by, the old Ann Street site would now be an ideal site for a fire station. Mr Beattie: What about the Ithaca Fire Station? Mr J. N. GOSS: The honourable member has missed that. In the past, the budget allocations and approvals for loan funds left a lot to be desired. A classic example was that the funds allocated would only allow for the purchase of one and two third pump units, which meant that a board could only purchase one unit because there was no guarantee that next year funding for capital equipment to cover the other third of the pump unit would be allocated. Therefore, a board would have a large surplus of funds at the end of the financial year which it could not use because the board did not have the full amount required to purchase a particular item. Sufficient funds were never allocated for the upgrading of equipment, buildings and the purchase of land for new fire stations. On one occasion a board was told to sell off the existing fire station to obtain money to build a new one. That would have resulted in an area the size of Brisbane having no fire station at all. The board is not in a position to change the Government's rules. As an example of costs, today a standard high-pressure pump unit costs $300,000, a teleboom costs $700,000, and a large hydraulic platform now costs over $1m. Even if those funds were available and an order was placed today, it would be 12 to 18 months down the track before that equipment could be delivered. That equipment is not sitting on a shelf in Legislative Assembly 1314 10 May 1990 the fire brigade manufacturer's shop so that an officer only has to ring up and order it for next month. More and more rescue units are being called out to assist the ambulance service. The cost of rescue units is now around $300,000- plus. My suggestion was that perhaps smaller rescue units could be purchased, but I have been advised that those rescue units need to be of truck size and that they cost $300,000 would be the cost. Many of Brisbane's major fire units are getting very old and tired. In fact, one of the major units fighting a fire down in Charlotte Street recently actually caught fire itself through an electrical fault and had to be put out of operation. It was fortunate that the fire in Charlotte Street had been almost extinguished when the fire broke out on the fire unit. This State's fire services are now going to be run by experienced firemen, men who, with their wealth of technical knowledge, know the equipment and know how to fight fires, but many of those officers have no financial skills. Many of them do not have knowledge outside their field of expertise. For example, in one large city the current board has brought to the brigade town-planning proposals, so that when a site is designated for a fire station, it will be designed to cope with the growth in that area for the next 20 years. Dr Flynn: But can't they just talk to somebody in the city council? Mr J. N. GOSS: That is not usually done because the firemen tend to look at what is there now. Mr Beattie: Is this an attack on firemen? Mr J. N. GOSS: The honourable member can take it how he likes. The metropolitan brigade looks at future sites. Before land was zoned for new development, the board purchased one block and made sure that the council knew that the brigade was interested in that block. This was done so that the brigade could get the block at a cheaper rate. A board usually consists of a large cross-section of people with multiple skills, so it is a multiskilled board. Apparently some fast-developing areas of Brisbane cannot be serviced within an acceptable response time. As examples, Bellbowrie, The Gap and Bridgeman Downs are beyond the acceptable response time. That, in Brisbane, is totally unacceptable. The metropolitan board has displayed outstanding and responsible management over many years. Many an ALP alderman has served on it. Priority has been given to equipment that will ensure the safety of firemen. Priority has also been given to the Lytton training centre to make sure that firemen are well trained. Having served on the board, I feel that the boundaries should not necessarily have stuck to the local government boundaries but, if they had to, I feel that the local authorities could have run the fire services far better. Mr Beattie: Rubbish! Mr J. N. GOSS: No, it is not. Local government has the infrastructure such as the garages. A fire brigade garage services only fire engines. Local government has broader facilities to service fire engines. I am sure that the service would be far more efficient if it were operated by local authorities. The State's fire services have not always been kind to the firemen. A classic example was the introduction of Mitsubishi pump units and the expense involved in modifying them to make them safe for use by firemen. Once the board purchased them, the union in Brisbane was heavily involved because it was totally unhappy with them. The people outside Brisbane seemed to accept them but, then, they were so desperate for equipment that they would have accepted anything. The union in Brisbane pointed out the failings Legislative Assembly 1315 10 May 1990 of the Mitsubishis and claimed that they were not safe for use by firemen. That was a classic case of a pump unit being designed by the bureaucracy rather than by the board and the men who fight the fires, the people who have come up through the ranks and have constantly been involved in the work of the brigade. The board is extremely frustrated by this Bill. The members could really pull their hair out. Mr Beattie: I can see what happened. Mr J. N. GOSS: I was not there long enough to pull all of my hair out. Under this Bill, change will be made for the sake of change. If this Bill is passed, it will be a sad day for the firemen of Queensland. The access that they have had to their boards and the opportunity they have had to talk to the management about their problems will be lost. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (12.35 p.m.): I rise—— Mr Beattie: Is this your valedictory speech? Mr BOOTH: I will make that decision. The honourable member need not worry about it. I will stay here until the day I die to annoy the honourable member. I rise to speak to this Bill and to make my main thrust the fact that I do not believe that the Goss Government has a mandate to centralise everything in George Street, Brisbane. That is the craziest of policies. The Labor Party did not go to the electors on that platform. In my electorate the lady who stood against me was a good Labor candidate. She was asked on a number of occasions, "Are you a centralist?" She answered, "No." Yet the Goss Government is deciding to centralise fire brigade boards. In addition, according to the honourable member for Toowoomba North, who seems to be supporting it, the Government will centralise hospital boards and ambulance boards. It is absolutely wrong for anyone on the other side of the House to claim that the Government has a mandate to do this. The Government's idea—and it is a great Left Wing idea—is to appoint a commissar for everything. If they look at their favourite country, which is the Soviet Union, they will see that the people there are getting sick of commissars. They are not as carried away with commissars as they were, and they are going to get rid of them. Mr Ardill: What did your mob do with the Warwick railway district? Mr BOOTH: Is the honourable member suggesting that the Government will put the railway workshops back there? He knows that he is speaking rubbish. Not only has the Government done away with the railway workshops in Warwick, it has also done away with them all over Queensland, so he should not try to tell me that. And he is quite a supporter of that, too. I believe that the overriding concept of a fire brigade is how quickly it can get the water on the fire. If the Government thinks that it can get water on the fire more quickly by having control in George Street, it will live to suffer for it. Even the honourable member for Isis, who is presently sitting beside the honourable member for Salisbury, will not see any improvement in the fire services in his region. I suggest that, when he returns home, he will be asked questions about it and he will lose a lot of votes. Mr Nunn: I am still trying to find out where you put the Maryborough butter factory. I think it ended up in Nambour. Mr BOOTH: I am not worried about what happened there. I do not know what happened. It is pretty obvious that the honourable member does not want to talk about fire services. He wants to talk about something else. Legislative Assembly 1316 10 May 1990

I want to talk about the men who served on these boards. In his second-reading speech, the Minister made a vile insinuation. He stated— "In this case, the discomfort comes from the displacement of some 500 to 600 board members throughout the State, who will no doubt clamour around with 600 reasons why they cannot be dispensed with." I have news for the Minister; not one of the people who served on fire boards in my area maintain that they cannot be dispensed with. They could not care less. However, thousands of people out there are upset because these good people are being done away with by the Government. The suggestion that has been heaped on them that they are cronies and stooges is quite wrong. They are not National Party stooges; they are good, fine people who were elected to local government, and there was not one political appointment. I cannot believe that the Premier—who seems to have shaped up fairly well in the opening days of this Parliament—would allow any Minister to claim that these people are all stooges with political affiliations. They were not, and that comment should not be made. The Government has no mandate to abolish these boards. I was worried and surprised to hear the member for Toowoomba North agree with this proposition. He also said that people have no right to be appointed unless they are professional people. If a person goes to hospital, he or she has a right as a citizen to be attended to. If a person needs a fire brigade, he pays his fees and—— Dr Flynn: I wasn't talking about rights; I was talking about competence. Mr BOOTH: I do not know what the honourable member was talking about, but I bet he loses hundreds or thousands of votes over this issue. If he keeps this up, he will be lucky to be in this place for three years. It is unfair to attack these people and say that they have no rights. A householder pays fees to a fire brigade, as does the commercial owner of a building. These people expect the fire brigade to be there when they need it. They do not want to be at the mercy of some bureaucrat down here in Brisbane. Mr Mackenroth: Has a board member ever responded to a fire or answered the phone? Mr BOOTH: No, but they ensure that the management is in place. The Minister is saying that only a fire brigade member has any rights and that if a person is not on a fire brigade, he has no rights at all. The Minister is quite wrong. Everyone has rights, whether he is a householder or the owner of a commercial building, and he expects the management of the brigades to be up to standard. Fire brigade chiefs and members are courageous men who put fires out, but that does not make them good business-managers. Mr Beattie: Are you supporting the abolition of boards? Mr BOOTH: No, I am not supporting the abolition of boards, but, using the same criteria, the heavyweight champion of the world should be the king or a commissar. Just because a person has brawn, that does not mean that he has ability. The people of Queensland will be sadly let down by some of these people. Mr Beattie: That's a pretty nasty attack on firemen, Des. Mr BOOTH: No, it is not. If the honourable member reckons that they have all got better business training than the people on the fire brigade boards, he should come out and say so. I am not attacking them. I am simply saying that they are trained to fight fires and they have the courage to do that. However, I do not believe that they will be good business-managers. There are a lot of things that they will be unable to do. One gentleman in this House said that lobbying is not right and that members of hospital boards or fire brigade boards should not do it. As long as I have been alive, it has always been the squeaky wheel that has got the grease. People have to lobby. I know that people in charge of the fire brigade in my electorate will not lobby because if they Legislative Assembly 1317 10 May 1990 do so, they will get the bullet. Only one centralist bureaucracy will control the fire brigades, and the Government maintains that this will be cheaper. The Government should look at other places in the world where such a facility has been handed over to bureaucrats and find out if it is cheaper. Queensland has been well served by the fire brigade boards and the system. There will always be some out-dated equipment, which will remain unless there is unlimited money. Despite what the Minister says, he will not have unlimited money. He will have a budget to adhere to. Most of the people serving on these fire boards were businessmen and the little bit of money that they received for that work would not have compensated them at all. However, they still did it because they were outstanding people in the community. I was amazed when the member for Mount Isa—— Mr Beattie: Tony McGrady—a nice bloke. Mr BOOTH: Yes. I am trying to call him by his correct name. I did not say that he was not nice. I will be surprised if he can maintain that doing away with the hospital board, ambulance board and fire board in his electorate has done Mount Isa a lot of good. The honourable member for Mount Isa will have some explaining to do, as will the member for Toowoomba North. It is fine to come down here, get carried away with the atmosphere and say that everything starts and finishes in George Street or Mary Street, or wherever the headquarters will be. It is different when members return home, because people in their electorates do not think the same way. They can see the weaknesses down here. Previous speakers have mentioned rural fire brigades. Rural fire brigades have done an excellent job. Principally, they have been established to control bush fires and things of that nature, and their equipment is tailored to that extent. They want more money, but that is a cry that is always heard. There is nothing wrong with their wanting more money, but there is a limit to what they can get. The community gets good service from those brigades—even if the Minister is right when he says that every member of a rural fire brigade or a board is a National Party person. However, he is dead wrong. It is possible that the Minister is not attacking those country people himself, but it is the Premier who wants to make the attack. If he attacks people who live in the country areas, he will find that after the next State election there will be a big change in representation on the Government side. The people in country areas will not cop the abolition of services presently provided in country areas. Why should they? Mr Beattie: We'll win Warwick on this. Mr BOOTH: At the last election, the Labor Party thought it would win Warwick, but that did not happen. The end result was a comfortable victory. Mr Milliner: You were lucky last time. You won on a couple of personal votes. Mr BOOTH: If the Minister calls 3 000 or 4 000 a "couple of personal votes", I suppose I did. I am proud of the personal votes that I get. I have never ever been ashamed of any personal vote that I have received. Before I conclude my speech, I wish to refer at greater length to the effects of this legislation on my electorate. The township of Warwick has a fire brigade. Auxiliary brigades operate at Allora, Clifton and Killarney. Does the Government think that its great genius, this great guru who will look after fire services and be accommodated in an office in George Street, will have any impact on encouraging young men in small towns to train as fire officers ? That will certainly not happen. Before members of this Government know where they are, the people in those towns will be sick of the bureaucrat. The Commissioner of Fire Service will not have enough personality to ask young men, "I would like you to join the auxiliary brigade", or, even in the township of Warwick, "I would like you to help in the auxiliary brigade." He will not have the right type of personality and the people will look upon him as a big stand-over man and a big bureaucrat from the city, and that is what he will be. He will be a commissar for firefighting, and the member for Brisbane Central knows that. Legislative Assembly 1318 10 May 1990

Mr Beattie: You will have to do your job and give him a hand. Mr BOOTH: I do not think the commissioner will even be popular in the member for Brisbane Central's electorate. Do other honourable members think that the member for Brisbane Central will boast, "We pulled the plug on all those country mugs. From here on in, we'll look after fire service and hospitals boards from George Street. We will spend all the money here and spend nothing in country areas." I bet that the honourable member would not be game to say that even to his own colleagues. Mr Beattie: I would never do it, either. What a scurrilous misrepresentation! Mr BOOTH: Of course he will. He knows that when the Commissioner of Fire Service controls the operations of fire services, he will do so from Brisbane. How far does the honourable member think a complaint lodged at a place such as Warwick, Toowoomba or anywhere else would get? Would the complaint be referred to a board? Mr Beattie: It will receive proper attention. Mr BOOTH: It will not be referred to anyone. If the fire brigade chief says, "I have bad equipment", I know where he will go. He will be sent to Thursday Island. He will be stood over night and day, and the member for Brisbane Central knows that very well. No complaints will receive attention, and the same situation will apply to hospitals boards. The member for Toowoomba North has said that the ordinary people in Toowoomba have no rights; that they should be stood over by professional people and be given no rights at all. I point out that people who visit hospitals like to feel that they can complain if they have to, and they should be able to do so. I believe that this change to firefighting services legislation is only a symptom of the way in which Labor's administration works. The Labor Party wants to centralise everything. It will appoint commissars. It wants to take away opportunities that people enjoy. Mr Beattie: What about the wheat board and the egg board? You supported all those. Mr BOOTH: Of course I did. I still support them. When I get the opportunity, I intend to ask the Minister for Primary Industries a question about them. However, because of the manner in which the House is being run at the moment, it seems to be wellnigh impossible to ask a question. Fortunately, I am a stayer and I am tenacious enough to stay until I can ask the question. Mr Beattie: Another 30 years. Mr BOOTH: I do not know about 30 years. I would love to be able to say "Yes" to what the member for Brisbane Central has said. I can tell him that I have enjoyed the time I have spent as a member of this Parliament and that, while I am a member, I will give him plenty of trouble. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.48 p.m.): In rising to speak to his legislation, I must congratulate the Minister on his ability to show other Ministers how to quickly implement ALP policy. Although that policy might not be policy with which I agree, it is a matter on which the Minister and members of his party certainly agree. For example, he has shown the Minister for Transport the way to quickly get a Bill together and bring it to the Parliament. Honourable members already know about the hidden agenda of the Labor Party that applies to fire services, the evidence of which has come forward today. Mr Mackenroth: This was not in it, and your Opposition spokesman yesterday read out Labor's policy to the Chamber. Mr BEANLAND: I point out to the Minister that this legislation goes a little further than Labor's policy. I have a copy of Labor's policy, too, but this legislation goes further in ways that I will elaborate on later. Members of the Liberal Party appreciate the way Legislative Assembly 1319 10 May 1990 that the Labor Party wants to centralise power, control funds and exercise power from George Street. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that Queensland will receive a more efficient, effective or leaner fire service. Obviously the Minister has ignored the lessons that can be learned from other parts of the world that illustrate the problems of centralisation versus decentralisation. There is presently a worldwide trend towards decentralisation and more attention is being paid to local needs and issues. I understand that the term is "devolution of authority", which describes a modern concept. The legislation provides for the establishment of a significant structure, which is no doubt not only in keeping with Labor's policy, but also effective in creating appointments for a commissioner, assistant commissioners and regional commanders. I have no doubt that the Minister is mindful of the operation of the police force and that the proposed structure is based on that. Mr Mackenroth: It is the Queensland Police Service. We changed its name. Mr BEANLAND: That is quite so. The Queensland Police Service is now quite a significant empire. Mr Mackenroth: You do not support the changes to the Police Service? Mr BEANLAND: If the Minister wants to talk about police, with the leave of the Chair I am quite happy to do so at great length. There are quite a few things that I would like to say about the Police Service in this State, particularly the significant lack of police numbers. The Minister has not indicated how this legislation will assist in providing more fire service officers or in improving and upgrading the present service and alleviating its shortcomings. BEANLAND (LOQ) The Government has not indicated how the new arrangement will improve funding for fire services, which is the crux of the matter. As at 30 June 1988, the debt was $32m, and for some time it has hovered around that figure. Because during the last election campaign the Labor Party claimed that there was plenty of money in the system and that we did not have to worry about new taxes and where the funds were coming from, I assumed that it proposed to dissolve the debt of $32m, or whatever the exact figure might now be, for the fire service operations. Other members and I will be pleased to hear of the plans that the Government has to relieve the community of that debt. I would be pleased to hear how additional funds will be found to upgrade the equipment and facilities that are so badly needed in some regions. In the past, both the Minister and I have commented on that topic. However, in his second-reading speech the Minister did not inform us how the problem would be overcome. I appreciate that the Minister is talking about a fresh approach that focuses on the new empire that he is creating. I am not sure whether he will rival the empire of the Minister for Transport, but I appreciate that he is working towards that end and that it is within his policy area. The community should be made aware of where the additional funds will be coming from to service the debt and to meet the cost of the additional equipment that is required. Householders believe that they already pay more than their fair share of funds towards fire services. They want relief in that area. If the Minister is contemplating an increase in the fire levy, that will create more concerns in the community. At one stage, the Government spoke of taking funds from consolidated revenue. In view of recent utterances from other Ministers, I would be pleased to learn—so would the community—whether the cost of the increase in bureaucracy will be funded from consolidated revenue. The establishment of a bureaucracy will cost more than the fees that were paid under the old board structure. The old boards were abolished not only because of what the ALP termed as "cronyism"—the appointment of National Party supporters to those boards—but also because of their cost. Other members of the Liberal Party have indicated that, in many instances, politics play little or no role in the way Legislative Assembly 1320 10 May 1990 in which those boards function to meet the local needs. Something will be missing in the new fire service structure. Nevertheless, cost formed an important part of the Minister's reasons for abolishing the boards. It is only fair that an indication be given as to how those proposals will be funded and how much the Government expects to save. When a reorganisation takes place, those are important and pertinent questions to consider. The whole structure of fire services in Queensland is starting off from scratch. One hears about the savings that will be made through the abolition of the boards and with the increase in bureaucracy, but one would like to know how the local input will be provided, in view of the fact that the boards will not be available for that purpose. We have heard a good deal about the need for more professionalism within the fire-fighting service. Because of the present training programs, a great deal of professional expertise already exists. If major changes are proposed to those programs, now is an appropriate time to advise people about those changes. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to the various independent reviews that were carried out. Of course, the Government has not taken note of the findings of those reviews. In introducing the changes to the legislation, particularly those relating to the structure of the board, the Government has largely overlooked the Leivesley report. A number of important points on funding must be answered . No indication has been given of where funds for the upgrading of equipment and facilities will come from. The Warongary Fire Station on the Gold Coast is operational only between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., and people virtually have to book in for a fire. If a fire occurs outside those hours, people must rely on a vehicle coming from Southport, or another neighbouring station, and the local volunteer service. I know that the local volunteer service does its very best, but this is a rapidly expanding and developing locality. The major problem is that additional funding is required. Although the Minister has painted a pretty picture for fire services in the next three years, the bottom line is that he has not indicated how the additional equipment will be funded and the manning times will improve for the various fire stations in Queensland. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (2.30 p.m.), in reply: First of all, I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Opposition spokesman on fire services, the member for Fassifern. It is obvious to me that Mr Lingard really did not understand the thrust of this legislation and, indeed, did not understand the fire services legislation that was introduced and passed in this Parliament at the end of last year. This legislation differs from the legislation that was passed by the previous Government in that it abolishes the fire brigade boards. The thrust of the legislation that was passed last year—which I supported as the then Opposition spokesman—is contained within this legislation. So criticism of the majority of this legislation by the National Party based on that premise would be wrong because, in fact, at the end of last year the National Party supported these types of measures—— Mr Booth interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I explained that, and I will continue to say it. However, the National Party did not support the abolition of fire brigade boards. In that debate last year, I spelt out clearly that it was the policy of the Labor Party to abolish fire brigade boards and that, on coming to Government, it would do just that, and that is what it is doing now. The member for Fassifern said that Dr Leivesley believed that the boards should continue. That is clearly not true. At the insistence of the then Minister, Mr Cooper, on behalf of the National Party, Dr Leivesley stated that there should be a system of Legislative Assembly 1321 10 May 1990 advisory boards and that they should offer advice on fire safety in the community. She did not say that a system of boards should administer fire services within urban dfistricts. Even after Dr Leivesley had concluded her position within my department, she stated publicly that the measures that the Government was taking and what had been outlined by me, as Minister, was in fact the way that fire services should be going. The member for Fassifern stated that the top positions were not open to the best candidates. That is completely untrue. The top positions were advertised nationally. In fact, more than 100 applications from every State in Australia and from New Zealand have been received for positions in the new Queensland Fire Service. I believe that these appointments will provide our organisation with the best people for the jobs. So it is not true to say that Queensland is not going to have a very professional service under the system that the Government has outlined. The member for Merthyr referred to the centralisation of power, and quite a number of other members stated that the Government is centralising power in Brisbane and that it is setting up a huge bureaucracy to administer fire services. That is completely untrue. What we are talking about is regionalisation, not centralisation. The Government is setting up a number of regions throughout the State. There will be commanders in each of those regions with their own support staff to administer those regions and, of course, there will be a headquarters in Brisbane. The point is that, after 1 July, the number of administrative staff who are presently employed by fire services throughout this State will not differ. The same number of people will be involved in the administration of fire services in this State. There will not be a greater bureaucracy. In fact, the number of people employed in the present centralised system with the current board structure will be fewer because some of those jobs will be decentralised to those regions. It is not true that this new system is going to set up some great new centralised power. Mr Santoro said that the Liberal Party does not agree with the politicisation of fire brigade boards. However, since the Liberal Party has been in office, it has consistently appointed three Liberal Party aldermen to the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board, and it has never yet appointed one Labor Party alderman. The Liberal Party’s statement that it does not politicise those jobs is completely untrue. It has done that by appointing its own people to the fire brigade boards. Mr J. N. Goss: Just as the ALP has. Mr MACKENROTH: Yes. The member for Mount Isa correctly pointed out that the present funding system was dreamt up by Bill Hewitt when he was the responsible Minister. There was quite a deal of criticism from the other side in relation to that funding system. That funding system is a system that this Government inherited not only from the National Party Government but also from the previous National/Liberal coalition Government. That is the system that they put in place. In its policy the Labor Party has outlined that that system will be reviewed, and it will be reviewed. At present, my department is working on the structure for that review, and it will be done. That was clearly outlined in ALP policy. I have, and I will continue to do so. That was outlined in our policy, and that also will be done. I quite firmly believe that the ordinary people in the community are subsidising the amount paid by businesses for fire services in Queensland. Part of that review—and I have already held discussions in relation to this—will address that particular issue to see whether that is in fact the case. In relation to one of the points made by the member for Carnarvon about auxiliary firemen—I obviously have more faith than the member for Carnarvon in the people who act as auxiliary fire-fighters. I do not believe that, as at 1 July, auxiliary fire-fighters Legislative Assembly 1322 10 May 1990 will walk away from the fire service simply because fire brigade boards no longer exist. If any individuals do that, one would need to question the reasons why they were auxiliary fire-fighters in the first place. At my request, and following my announcement that the boards would be abolished, Queensland's fire services have monitored very closely the auxiliary fire-fighting strength throughout Queensland. My advice from them is that no reduction has occurred in the number of auxiliary fire-fighters. The Government will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that that number does not fall and that all areas throughout the State receive an adequate fire service. The member for Nicklin made a very interesting point. Tomorrow morning when he reads the Hansard pull of today's proceedings, he might think about what he said. The honourable member spoke about the need for fire brigade boards and said that he is not an expert in fire-fighting matters. However, later during his speech he said that, for the past five years, he had been a member of the Maroochy Fire Brigade Board. That is exactly what he said. If he is prepared to support a board system and then tell the House that he is not an expert in those matters, it would be very difficult for him to argue that boards should be retained. The member for Nicklin spoke also about the need for pressure pumps in the Maroochy area. Two years ago the Maroochy board requested high-pressure pumps for the area, but, as the honourable member would be aware, funding for those pumps was not made available by the previous Government. Several members spoke about the need for boards and claimed that the system would collapse after 1 July because the 82 fire brigade boards will be abolished. Those members should consider that Queensland is the only State in Australia that still has a system of fire brigade boards. New South Wales has never had such a system. Its first fire service was established in Sydney. As New South Wales expanded, that fire service grew throughout the State. Although board systems in other States have been abolished, their fire services have continued to operate very effectively. I do not believe that, as at 1 July, the system in Queensland will fall apart—as was suggested by members of the National and Liberal Parties. I believe that, after 1 July, Queensland will have a far more effective and efficient fire-fighting service for the people of Queensland. That is the issue about which members of the National and Liberal Parties should be most concerned. They should be concerned about providing the best possible facilities for the people they represent rather than maintaining a system that has operated for 100 years simply because they do not want to hurt people by disbanding the boards and displacing over 600 people who have represented those boards. It was interesting to listen to the views of the Liberal Party on this matter. Particularly during the past six years in this House, I have heard members of the Liberal Party argue time and time again that Queensland has too many quangos. Mr Santoro: We are still doing that. Mr MACKENROTH: Members of the Liberal Party are still arguing about that, but they want to retain the 82 fire brigade boards. It would be interesting to hear which of the 1 000-odd quangos in Queensland the Liberal Party would like to abolish. Mr Santoro: You want to pick off the easy ones and then go out there and say, "Here's the ALP keeping its commitment to abolish boards." Mr MACKENROTH: No. The reality is that, within my portfolio, I am abolishing or disbanding the boards. That has been clearly outlined in Labor Party policy for quite some time. It is not simply a case of picking off the easy ones. This system was clearly identified by our party as being the best way to provide an efficient fire-fighting service to the people of Queensland. Mr Santoro: Don't forget you've got to fund them. Legislative Assembly 1323 10 May 1990

Mr MACKENROTH: The boards do not fund fire services; the people of Queensland fund them. The boards take a section of that cake in fees, which I think total $1.3m. From what area did Sir Robert Sparkes come? Honourable members: Jandowae. Mr MACKENROTH: According to the most recent annual report of the Jandowae Fire Brigade Board, the highlight of the year was the chairman's Christmas party. We are paying those people for their services, and we also paid for that Christmas party. I would have thought that the highlight of the year might have been some new training measures that were being implemented. Mr Lingard: You were having a good time at my Christmas party. Mr MACKENROTH: That was the Speaker's Christmas party. The honourable member told me that he had paid for that party out of his own pocket, but I have only just discovered that that was not true. I believe that the Queensland Fire Service will provide a far more efficient service for the people of Queensland than was previously provided. As I have already outlined, funding will be reviewed. I hope that, by the end of this year, I will be in a position to make a statement about the future funding of fire services. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Before I introduced this legislation I did suspect that Opposition members would not support it. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 46 NOES, 33 DIVISION In division— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gregory should remain in his seat during the division. Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Hon. T. M. Mackenroth (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 1324 10 May 1990

Clause 5— Mr HARPER (2.54 p.m.): Subclause (12) states— "On the appointed day each Fire Brigade Board constituted under the Fire Brigades Act 1964-1988 ceases to exist." In his reply, the Minister indicated his antagonism, I guess, to the suggestion made by the member for Carnarvon that when this clause comes into effect many auxiliary firemen would be discouraged from offering their services voluntarily to the community as they have done for decades and as they would undoubtedly normally do for decades to come. The Minister is losing sight of the contribution that these people make voluntarily and the fact that he and his Government are taking away from the local communities the degree of input that is available to them at the present time. I know that the Minister's colleague the Minister for Health intends to do the same thing with respect to hospitals boards, and that is to take away the local involvement. I know that the Minister is involved in an area of sport and that he receives a great deal of satisfaction out of his involvement in that sporting activity. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that this legislation will take away the ability of men and women in the local community to have a direct input into the operation of their own fire brigades. As in other areas, one finds that it is the women in the community who back up the fire brigade boards and the auxiliary firemen in their efforts to protect the community. The Minister and the Government will take away that incentive to make a contribution. I am quite sure that the Minister will find, not as he said, that on 1 July auxiliary firemen will not resign, but they will progressively lose interest. It might take one year, two years or three years, but eventually those people who voluntarily give of their time and their services will be replaced by union members who will be on full wages and who will then be an increased cost burden to the total community. That may be a satisfactory result to the Minister. The Opposition strongly opposes the intention of the Government that existing fire brigade boards will cease to exist from the day on which this legislation becomes effective. The Opposition does not intend to divide the Committee on this clause. The Leader of the Opposition will respond in the House at the appropriate time, but on behalf of myself and my constituents I express very, very sincere regret and concern at the decision of the Government to abolish the fire brigade boards that are so important to the effective functioning of fire brigades in country areas. Mr SANTORO: Section 5 (10) of the Fire Services Act 1989 reads— "Any personal property of a Board that, pursuant to subsection (9), becomes the property of the Commission on the appointed day and that was donated to the Board or purchased by the Board (wholly or in part) from donations received by the Board shall not be removed from the control of the Board unless the Board, or the Minister after consulting with the Board, approves its removal." That section has been deleted from the Bill currently before the Committee. Currently, several fire brigades have a number of items of historic memorabilia that are intended for public display, and those boards tend to feel that that section should be included in this legislation as a safeguard to ensure that the items already donated to the boards remain in the area to serve their original purpose. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that that will be the case? Mr MACKENROTH: I am aware that the honourable member is talking about the assets of boards. They are assets of the Government because those boards represent the Government. Each and every board in Queensland has already been written to and informed of its obligations to ensure that it disposes of no property without the authority of the Queensland Fire Service. I consider that that point has adequately been covered, Legislative Assembly 1325 10 May 1990 not by what was needed in this legislation but by the actions that the Government has already taken. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Further to that point, from the Government's viewpoint it may be dealt with satisfactorily but I can report that there is a feeling out in the community that because a lot of this equipment was purchased by local donations it is a local possession, not something that the community wants to hand over to the Government. In fact, I understand that in some areas steps have been taken to hand over control of equipment such as the jaws of life to the local shire council rather than have it vested with the Queensland Fire Service. Mr MACKENROTH: If those boards have taken action to give away that equipment, they would be doing the wrong thing. That decision will be made by the Queensland Fire Service and those boards have been so informed. I am aware that Maryborough has a very well-equipped small fire services museum that is being handed over to the local council. I have no objection to that course because it will be incorporated in the town's museum. The result will be a better museum for people to visit .So those items that rightfully belong to the Queensland Fire Service will be displayed in that larger museum and the smaller museum which is contained on the fire brigade property. If boards make recommendations to us about items such as that which can be better displayed, we will have no objection to giving approval as long as it is going to the appropriate area. Certainly we will not support the selling off or handing over of any assets such as a board member's furniture. We are certainly monitoring the situation. All boards have been informed of their obligations under the law but we are not attempting to stop some of these historical items being better displayed than at present. Mr SANTORO: I ask the Minister to clarify whether the words, "dangerous goods" include spills and releases of toxic fumes, and do they extend to toxic waste incidents? Mr MACKENROTH: I might need you to intervene, Mr Chairman, because I think the honourable member is referring to another clause. Mr SANTORO: I am sorry, Mr Chairman; it is clause 6. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr LINGARD (3.01 p.m.): In his closing remarks, the Minister went to great pains to link this 1990 Bill with the 1989 Bill. I would hope that, when it is sold to the public, there is no indication that the 1990 Bill is similar to the 1989 Bill, that the Government is covering itself so far as boards are concerned. I believe that the Opposition has made its point very clear. I ask the Minister to explain why, when referring to the Commissioner of Fire Service, more functions are not outlined, as was the case in previous Bills. As an example, I mention the words, "The Commissioner shall have control of and authority over the Queensland Fire Service in the fulfilment of his functions as Commissioner." Why is it that clause 9(3) of the 1989 Bill suggested a tenure of five years whereas the 1990 Bill suggests an unlimited tenure? Mr MACKENROTH: On the matter of the tenure, this present legislation will make the Queensland Fire Service an arm of the Government and the commissioner will be appointed on terms similar to those that apply to other departmental heads. The second point dealt with functions. They were spelt out in the earlier legislation because the boards were to remain operating and there was a need to spell out the difference between the functions of the commissioner and the functions of the boards, and the different roles they were to play. Under this Bill, the commissioner will fulfil all of those Legislative Assembly 1326 10 May 1990 roles, and they do not need to be spelt out. I notice that the former Minister in charge of fire services is nodding his head in agreement. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 36, as read, agreed to. Clause 37— Mr MACKENROTH (3.06 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 14, omit lines 7 and 8 and substitute— 'promotion unless— (a) the appointment is made to an office involving part-time duties only; or (b) the appointment is declared, or is one of a class of appointment declared, by the Governor in Council as an appointment or class of appointment against which no appeal lies.' " Paragraph (b) was in the original Bill and the public service legislation but, because of a drafting error, it was omitted from this Bill. I ask the Committee to support its inclusion. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 38 to 69, as read, agreed to. Clause 70— Mr LINGARD (3.07 p.m.): One of our criticisms of this Bill is that there has been a combining of two Bills and we believe that mistakes have been made in the amalgamation. Clause 70 contains no reference to activity whereas clause 71(c) refers to the doing of an act. Clause 70 is restricted to goods or possessions or articles. As an example, I would list the carrying of petrol in a plastic container. It seems to me that there is no way that the commissioner can prohibit this. I ask whether this has been an omission or whether there is a special reason for it. There is no way under clause 70 that the commissioner can prohibit an activity such as the carrying of petrol in a plastic container. Mr MACKENROTH: Clause 70 is fairly clear. An honourable member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: No. What Mr Lingard said was unclear. The clause states— "The Commissioner may, by notification published in the Gazette, prohibit or regulate the sale, use or possession of any article or substance that the Commissioner believes may constitute a fire risk." That means that, if the commissioner believes that something constitutes a fire risk, the sale of that article can be regulated or prohibited by notification in the gazette. I do not see why anyone would object to the Queensland Fire Service having authority to do that. There are some items that should be prohibited for sale through retail outlets. I do not understand why the honourable member is objecting to that. Clause 70, as read, agreed to. Clauses 71 to 83, as read, agreed to. Clause 84— Mr HARPER (3.10 p.m.): This clause again raises the issue that people should be given incentive to do something for themselves and encouraged to take part in fire-fighting activities. When speaking to clause 5 earlier, I made the point that this Government's actions are a disincentive to members of the community to volunteer their services. Legislative Assembly 1327 10 May 1990

Clause 84 contains the same type of disincentive to the community, particularly the rural community and property-owners. I am not referring to millionaire graziers, but to the average guy who wants to protect his fences, his neighbours' fences and the feed that he might have for a dry period. This clause of the Bill indicates that, when a subsidy is provided to a property-owner for the purchase of equipment for himself, that equipment becomes the property of the Government, irrespective of the amount of the subsidy. I hope that the Minister can give this Chamber an assurance that in the normal course of events this clause will not be put into effect. It is most important that people be given the incentive to buy fire-fighting equipment, motorised fire-fighting equipment or some of the more sophisticated small machinery that is available. It is equally important that that machinery should remain in the possession of the person who is prepared to put his or her own funds into buying it. The individual property-owner is not the only one who benefits from having modern, workable equipment spread throughout Queensland; the whole community benefits. I view the intentions of this clause with a degree of scepticism and concern. Mr MACKENROTH: This is exactly what happens at the present time. If equipment is subsidised by the commissioner, it is owned by the rural fire brigade. The equipment is not owned by the individual who owns the property where the equipment is located; it is owned by the brigade in that area. There is no difference. I am advised that clause 84 is exactly the same as the clause contained in the legislation introduced by the previous Government at the end of last year. It is not something that I have dreamt up for inclusion in the legislation. A similar clause was placed in the legislation by the former National Party Government when formulating the new legislation after negotiations had been carried out. What will happen under this clause is in fact no different to what happens today. Mr HARPER: I take it that the Minister is indicating to the Chamber that practices which have been in existence for the past 30 or 40 years under the rural fire brigades concerning subsidised equipment will be maintained and will continue as in the past, and that there will be no Big Brother attitude towards equipment purchased by a private individual, a group of individuals or a rural brigade using some degree of Government subsidy? I appreciate the points made by the Minister, but I ask him to give this Chamber a commitment that the practices of the past will continue and that there will be no repossessions of the nature laid down in this clause. Mr MACKENROTH: There is no intention to have mass repossessions of equipment anywhere. If someone was abusing equipment, there would be a need to act. That would occur irrespective of whether or not this Bill is passed through Parliament. I am certain that in the past there have been instances where former Ministers have had to take action. If I am required to do that—and I have not been asked to since being appointed Minister—then I will do it. No such intention is contained in this legislation. In fact, in my second-reading speech I advised that training in bush fire brigades is the one matter that will be addressed, but the set-up and operations of the brigades as they exist today will not change. Clause 84, as read, agreed to. Clauses 85 to 107, as read, agreed to. Clause 108— Mr LITTLEPROUD (3.16 p.m.): I seek clarification in relation to prescribed properties and, perhaps, an assurance from the Minister. Is a rural holding that is part and parcel of a bush fire brigade classified as a prescribed property? If it is, will the Minister give an assurance that any contributions made by property-owners to a rural fire brigade are voluntary and that the people concerned will not be subject to a prescribed levy every year, as are property-owners who have the benefit of a fire protection service in a town? Legislative Assembly 1328 10 May 1990

Mr MACKENROTH: I spelt out the funding arrangements earlier and said that a complete review will take place. Until the review has been completed, it would be inappropriate for me to give any assurances in relation to anything concerning funding because, firstly, I will have to look at the system of funding for fire brigades as it operates throughout the State of Queensland. Before the review is carried out, no further properties will be prescribed or changes made to the properties that have been prescribed to date, with the exception of drive-in theatres that have been changed, with approval, from one category to another. They are now in a lower category because, clearly, they were paying too much in the category in which they had been placed. Other than taking that action, at this stage I do not intend to change the areas in which properties are placed until a complete review is carried out, even though I personally believe that some areas should have a higher category and should pay a higher levy. Without the proper background material that a review would provide, it would be wrong to take that step. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I must express the concerns felt by people who live in the country who do not receive the services of a fire brigade but are in a rural fire brigade area. They are fearful that, if the review finds that they should pay a levy every year, they will have to pay for what they perceive to be a much more expensive fire service provided in towns and cities. I seek an assurance from the Minister that they will not be subsidising a service which will be provided elsewhere and from which they will derive no benefit. Mr MACKENROTH: I appreciate that, and when an examination is made of the funding of brigades and the sources of revenue, the matter will have to be looked into. I inform the member that when I became the Minister for Police and Emergency Services on 7 December, one of the first things that came to my attention from the rural fire boards was that in October last year they had spent the funds allocated for equipment for this financial year. They had no further money to spend on equipment between October last year until the end of June this year. The Government can continue to provide that type of service quite easily because people do not have to pay anything for it. However, if people want a better service, I must look at how that will be paid for. I am not suggesting that a levy will be imposed. I believe that the Government should examine the system of funding that applies to fire services right throughout the State to find out how funds are acquired and the percentage of funding that is allocated to each area. If the Government does that, it will have to be done fairly to ensure that people who pay are getting the service for which they are paying. Mr HARPER: I take up the point mentioned by the Minister. The inference is that the people to whom the member for Condamine was referring will have to be prepared to pay if they want an improved service. I draw attention to the fact that my colleague the member for Condamine was referring to rural fires brigades, which are voluntary organisations. I put it to the Minister that Queensland has probably the most effective rural fire service in Australia. It costs the Government very little because the Government merely subsidises the acquisition of equipment that the private individual is prepared to purchase. The people who operate the rural fires brigades are volunteers. They receive no remuneration and they certainly do not want to be replaced by paid officers. Although the Minister made the point that the budgetary allocation to the rural fires board may have been used up before the last calendar year, the fact is that much of that money would have been spent in accordance with the way that a budget program operates. The money would have been spent on subsidisation of equipment which would have been purchased within the period mentioned by the Minister. Mr Littleproud: In much the same way as sports are subsidised. Mr HARPER: As the honourable member for Condamine says, in much the same way as sporting grants are distributed. They are granted once annually to assist people who are prepared to assist themselves. That is what rural fires brigades are all about—people who are prepared to help themselves by providing protection for themselves and Legislative Assembly 1329 10 May 1990 their property and help for their neighbours and the community generally. It would be a tremendous imposition and a tremendously retrograde step if that philosophy or principle was in any way interfered with. Mr MACKENROTH: I understand the points that have been made. The position is that, presently, applications would have been made for subsidies from the Government for rural fire brigades. Rural fire brigades are waiting for $5m. Using the amounts allocated in the Budget for rural fire brigades, I estimate that a subsidy of that magnitude would have to be spread over a period of approximately four years to enable the equipment to be purchased. I appreciate the excellent job done by rural fire brigades and I do not put them down at all. I also appreciate the service that is provided and the fact that it is voluntary. I do not wish to interfere with that at all. However, if the Government is to examine funding with a view to providing the amounts requested by rural fire brigades —and members of the Opposition should bear in mind that they are not my estimates—the Government must consider not only how much money is needed to fund fire services in Queensland but also where the revenue would come from. We must look at the total picture. I am not suggesting that I will levy those people or insist that they have permanent fire officers in those localities. When we examine funding and the needs of our fire services, we must take the advice of the people in the fire services. They are excellent people who perform a great job. We must listen to them to ascertain what they need. If they are performing a great job, as the honourable member says, they are best placed to tell us the type of equipment that they need in their own areas. We should ascertain the amount that is required for fire services not merely for one year but over a longer period. Mr LITTLEPROUD: In regard to consideration of funding for equipment subsidies for rural fire brigades, I raise a similar point to that which I raised with the Minister for Primary Industries about his forestry responsibilities. The Baracula forestry, which is in my electorate, is the largest State forestry in Queensland. Because it covers such a vast area, fire services equipment was located at three different locations in the forestry. Because of the rationalisation within the forestry service, all the fire services equipment has been withdrawn and placed in one centre, which places it approximately 80 miles from the extremities of the forest area. A rural fire brigade is located on the edge of the forest area. Recently, private land-owners have assisted the forestry service to put out fires, firstly, because of their community commitment and, secondly, because the fires posed a threat to their own properties. When the Minister is arguing in Cabinet for a slice of the money to be allocated to subsidies, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that those people are helping out the forestry service. Mr Casey might be good enough to back up my claim. Mr MACKENROTH: I assure the honourable member that in Cabinet I will be arguing for every cent that I can get. Mr LINGARD: I have heard reports of the Rural Fires Board, the State Emergency Service and the ambulance moving into the RACQ building, and then moving into Makerston Street. Could the Minister advise me on the provision of a central office for the Rural Fires Board? Mr MACKENROTH: I do not know how this subject will fit into a debate on the annual contributions of owners; however, I will provide an answer in relation to it. The Administrative Services Department is considering rationalisation of the offices of the ambulance, fire services, the State Emergency Service and the Chemical Hazards Emergency Management Unit—all the services that are administered by the Bureau of Emergency Services. It is not considering including the Police Department, because it is moving out of Makerston Street. Legislative Assembly 1330 10 May 1990

The Government is investigatNGn a proposal for common training facilities for all those services within one building. I support that proposal, but I cannot take the credit for it. I believe that proposal was put forward by Russell Cooper. Clause 108, as read, agreed to. Clauses 109 to 115, as read, agreed to. Clause 116— Mr LINGARD (3.27 p.m.): The 1989 Bill offered a concession to people who paid their levies early—in other words, a discount. I notice that the new Bill does not offer any incentive in clauses 116 or 117 to people who pay their fire levy immediately. Why has the provision in this Bill been changed? Mr MACKENROTH: Previously, local authorities could charge more than the $72 and then reduce that amount, which would bring it back to $72. In fact, no discount existed on the money that was paid to the State Government. That farcical provision has been deleted. Clause 116, as read, agreed to. Clauses 117 to 119, as read, agreed to. Clause 120— Mr MACKENROTH (3.29 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 41, omit lines 16 to 44 and substitute— '120. Payments and interest to be debt. All payments required to be paid to the Commissioner pursuant to section 118 and all interest payable by a Local Authority pursuant to section 119 constitute a debt due to the Commissioner and may be sued for and recovered by the Commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction.' " The Bill before the Chamber contains a clause dealing with precepts whereby local authorities would be liable for the money if they did not collect it. The clause was discussed with the Local Government Association, whose officers have assured me that no local authority in Queensland will refuse to collect the levies. Their argument was that no local authority in Queensland has refused to collect the levies in the past and, even though at this stage some local authorities are threatening to take that course, none of them will actually do so. In fact, if any local authorities continue with their threats, I have been assured that officers of the Local Government Association will talk to them. Based on that assurance from the Local Government Association, I am prepared to remove from the legislation the section dealing with precepts and to return to the situation as it existed previously. If the circumstance arises of local authorities not playing their role and the Local Government Association cannot deliver its promise to me, I will examine the matter again. Amendment agreed to. Clause 120, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 121 to 154 and Schedules 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.32 p.m.), by leave: I move— "That the Bill be now read a third time." Question put; and the House divided— Legislative Assembly 1331 10 May 1990

AYES, 46 NOES, 33 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. POLICE COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL ACTS REPEAL BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 March (see p. 1047). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (3.40 p.m.): This Bill, which is supported wholeheartedly by the Opposition, is really the final chapter in the life of the Police Complaints Tribunal. The events leading up to the finalisation of that tribunal have been well and truly documented in this House. Because this Bill is supported by all parties in this House, I expected it to pass through this Chamber with a minimum of disruption. However, it appears that eight or nine members intend to speak to the Bill. I find that curious. It suggests to me that members of the Government will use this debate as an opportunity to tip a bucket on the previous Government in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry and other related matters. That would be a curious attitude for members of the Government to adopt. Probably it has something to do with the cultural cringe that developed over more than 30 years in Opposition. In his second-reading speech, the Minister made some fatuous statements about the previous National Party Government, which did him and this Chamber no credit. Mr Beattie: Eight speakers, but four of them are yours. Mr GILMORE: The list of speakers did not start out that way. In any case, it does not matter, because two of the speakers are members of the National Party. It has been well documented that, some time ago in this State, the Fitzgerald inquiry was conducted into various matters. I have studied the Fitzgerald report and have read it from cover to cover. I am sure that every member of the Government would have done that. The report is an excellent, objective document, which I hold in high regard. For a long time, Government in this State has needed an objective view. Because the Fitzgerald report is both sensitive and accurate, the former National Party Government chose to adopt its recommendations. I had no intention of taking this particular line, but I had to mention that because it is obvious that the National Party and the previous Legislative Assembly 1332 10 May 1990

Government will cop a bucket during the next hour or so. I felt that, fairly early in my speech, I should put on record the reality of the situation. The National Party Government in this State put in place the Fitzgerald inquiry. It accepted the recommendations of the Fitzgerald report, accepted the difficulties that confronted the Police Complaints Tribunal and established the Criminal Justice Commission. I put that on record so that there is no misunderstanding. From a historical perspective, it is important that the records of this Parliament are accurate and unbiased so that future historians do not put the wrong slant on history, which should be portrayed as it truly was. The Fitzgerald report is very much a part of that history. The Bill is an excellent document that the Opposition is very pleased to support. It provides adequately for the transition from the Police Complaints Tribunal to the Criminal Justice Commission. I congratulate the Minister and the parliamentary draftsman on that. The Bill also provides the adequate and necessary protection for the staff of the Criminal Justice Commission and the Police Complaints Tribunal during the transition so that there is no likelihood of somebody taking advantage of that transitional period. A couple of things need to be said about the Police Complaints Tribunal. It has had somewhat of a chequered history; there is no question about that. As that chequered history was unravelled and laid bare by the Fitzgerald inquiry and by the judges inquiry, it became patently obvious to the people in this place, not only to Government members but also to others, that something had to be done. In recognition of that, the Criminal Justice Commission as proposed by Mr Fitzgerald was set up, with the undertaking that that commission would take over the role of the Police Complaints Tribunal. In Government, we on this side recognised that it was imperative that the old cliche of justice not only being done but also being seen to be done had to be enforced. It is also imperative that justice be done with expedition. Instead of cases that are heard before a tribunal that has proven to be inadequate being dragged out over a period of years, we expect that the Criminal Justice Commission will handle claims of malpractice or misconduct against police with absolute expedition so that not only might the victim of those complaints, that being the policeman himself, be cleared—if indeed a clearance is in order—but also that the complainant might receive justice as quickly as is possible should the opposite be the case. The Opposition has looked at this matter. It goes forward with a new hope that the Criminal Justice Commission will handle its duties adequately and properly and that the Police Complaints Tribunal will disappear into the history of this State and will be remembered for what it was. With that, I support the Bill. I trust that the other speakers in this debate will support the Bill and will recognise what I said in the preamble to my speech: that history must not be rewritten in this place but it must be recorded as it occurred. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (3.48 p.m.): Naturally, I rise to support the Police Complaints Tribunal Acts Repeal Bill. At the outset, I think it is important that we go back to the Fitzgerald report and examine what it says about the Police Complaints Tribunal. Unlike the suggestion of the honourable member for Tablelands, I am not interested in going back and kicking anybody other than to point out that the mistakes of the past are those that we need to learn from if we are going to get this very vexing area right. All of us in this House know that it is a complicated area. In recent years, the tribunal has been brought into considerable disrepute. On page 292 of his report, Commissioner Fitzgerald said in relation to the old tribunal— "The Tribunal is regarded by corrupt police officers as impotent. It has lost all public confidence. It is seen as an apologist for the Police Force. Notably not one complaint of corruption has been made to the Police Complaints Tribunal. Legislative Assembly 1333 10 May 1990

Since this Inquiry revealed that the low public perception of the Tribunal's performance was quite justified, a determined effort to improve its image has been made under the current Chairman"— that was the chairman who has just retired, Judge McGuire, about whom I will say more in a moment— "and his predecessor, each of whom was appointed for a limited period in a 'caretaker' role pending recommendations in this report with respect to the Tribunal's future. There is no doubt that it should be abolished." This is exactly what the Bill does. Commissioner Fitzgerald continues- "It is ineradicably tarnished with a deservedly poor reputation, and, while its image can be, and to some extent has been, improved, that will, in time, only add to its problems. The lack of public confidence in its performance has assisted it to the extent that it has almost certainly reduced the number of complaints which have been made." That is a very important point. I refer to it only to highlight what the problem was. If we now turn to what happened in the latter days of the Police Complaints Tribunal, I think it is important, in debating a Bill such as this, that we pay public recognition to the significant contribution made by Judge McGuire. He was the former head of the Police Complaints Tribunal. He bailed out the tribunal from a parlous and unsatisfactory position. I do not believe that is a matter that would be arguable in this House by anyone. Mr Ardill: Even unsavoury. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, unsavoury. Judge McGuire inherited a sensitive situation that included not only a massive backlog of several hundred unheard complaints but also a tribunal that had lost any public respect or credibility. His Honour, with help from certain police, cleaned up this massive backlog, and when the Criminal Justice Commission took over the responsibilities of police complaints on 22 April 1990, there were only some 66 unheard complaints. His guidance and experience led to the virtual evaporation of this messy backlog of cases. I turn now to the closing address by Judge McGuire at the Police Complaints Tribunal, which was attended by the Honourable the Minister for Justice, the Attorney-General, a number of other people involved with the Criminal Justice Commission and me. I think it is important that I put on the record exactly what Judge McGuire did. On page 3 of his closing statement, Judge McGuire said— "The Tribunal sat virtually full-time for the first 6 months"— and he was there for only a year; we all know that— "and thereafter periodically, in an endeavour to eliminate the backlog and to process current complaints which were being received at the rate of about 35 per month." He said that the tribunal's business had been despatched with efficiency, as was borne out by the statistics. He continued— "As at 20 April, 1990 the Tribunal made final determinations in some 791 separate matters of complaint—not always, let me hasten to add, to everyone's entire satisfaction, but that defect is inherent in all complaints systems: such is the nature of the beast! There are some 66 matters still outstanding. Of the matters so far determined, 122 resulted in recommendations for criminal, disciplinary or other action." That is, things such as warnings issued to or apologies made by the officers concerned. Judge McGuire made one other important point on page 7 of his closing remarks. I think that it is worth repeating, because it relates to the police area. As all honourable Legislative Assembly 1334 10 May 1990 members know, at the moment the Queensland police force is going through this difficult period of reform. Because of circumstances, morale in the force is ebbing and flowing. Judge McGuire said on page 7— "The police are the guardians of the people; the keepers of the peace. They are"— and I think this is a fascinating definition— "the citizen dressed in uniform. This concept is reiterated by Lord Denning in his Hamlyn Lecture 'Freedom Under the Law' in which he says: The police are not regarded here as the strong arm of the executive, but as the friends of the people." Judge McGuire further stated— "The profession of policing, like the profession of judging, is an exposed profession." I guess it is a bit like politics. He continued— "It is exposed to public scrutiny and public criticism. Anything to do with law enforcement is, of necessity, public business. There has to be police, just as there has to be judicial accountability." That is some very sound common sense from Judge McGuire. As I said, his guidance and experience led almost to the evaporation of that messy backlog which faced the tribunal. The delays of the former tribunal were not only embarrassing but caused the total erosion of public confidence in that old tribunal's operations. This was before Judge McGuire took up his appointment. As members would know, under the Criminal Justice Act of 1989-90, from 22 April 1990, the Criminal Justice Commission assumed responsibility for police complaints. It needs to be fully appreciated by the community that there is an enormous workload in this police complaints area, and I intend to deal with that on a number of occasions in this address. A major problem arises when it comes to providing resources to deal with this area. Nevertheless, the Criminal Justice Commission has already started investigations into a number of cases and has quickly come to grips with this important area of its activities. It has obviously received new complaints and is dealing with them as well as the 66 complaints left over from the previous tribunal. The police complaints responsibility now comes under the Misconduct Tribunals area of the CJC's responsibility. These tribunals have the power to review decisions on disciplinary matters involving the police force and make original administrative decisions in relation to allegations of official misconduct on the part of police. At this time it is appropriate to place on the public record that the whole question of police complaints is being pioneered in Queensland in a new format. This area has always been a very vexed one around the world, and the chief question has always been whether police should be investigated by police or by professional outsiders. The CJC structure, as set out in the Act, is a world first and is unique in the sense that police associated with the CJC investigate the complaints, but they are in turn supervised by civilian lawyers with investigatory experience. We have combined the best of both worlds. As I said, in essence, this is a world first and will be carefully watched by academics and police around the world, not to mention the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice and the members of this House. An important point against the police will not be dealt with by a body that is responsible to the Minister for Police. A parliamentary committee elected by this House, the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, will be monitoring and reviewing the role of the Legislative Assembly 1335 10 May 1990 commission in this police complaints area. I assure the members of this House that that committee will be reporting to this House on a regular basis and will monitor what happens in this important area. It must be pointed out that to ensure that public confidence is restored in this area of police complaints, the CJC has adopted a "breath of fresh air" approach whereby the tribunal has new staff, both civilian and police, so that the community will appreciate that the legacies of the past have not been carried over to the new tribunal. Not only do we have a new Act and a new structure, but we have new personnel as well. The old Police Complaints Tribunal was discredited publicly and indeed in the Fitzgerald report itself to which I referred earlier, which is why the employment of these new staff members has guaranteed a fresh approach. In a technical sense, Division 4A, which is the complaints section of the Act, establishes a complaints section within the Official Misconduct Division where this work will now be carried out. Section 2.27 (2) states— "All complaints or information concerning misconduct of the Commission shall be furnished to the Complaints Section." Section 2.28 talks in detail in relation to the complaints section. Section 2.32 of the Criminal Justice Act also sets out the composition of the Misconduct Tribunals and the appeal procedure. It states— ". . . the Commission shall establish and maintain a panel of three persons, at the least, who— (a) have served, or are qualified for appointment, as a judge of— (i) the Supreme Court of Queensland; (ii) the Supreme Court of any other State or a Territory of the Commonwealth; (iii) the High Court of Australia; or (iv) the Federal Court of Australia; and (b) hold no other office in any unit of public administration (other than an office held ex officio) or in the Commission. (2) Persons to be appointed to the panel shall be nominated to the Minister by the Commission and shall be appointed as members of the panel by the Governor-in-Council, by notification published in the Gazette. (3) Appointment to the panel is on a part-time basis." That is the formal structure. The Criminal Justice Commission has reported to the parliamentary committee that complaints within the police area are running at an annual rate of around 1 600. That is an enormous number of complaints. Last year the Internal Investigation Section of the Queensland police force investigated 1 045 complaints, while the Police Complaints Tribunal dealt with a further 600 such complaints. As Judge McGuire pointed out, in the final stages it ended up dealing with 791. There may well be complainants, significant in number, who have been reluctant to approach these bodies in the past but who may be less inhibited in doing so now that the complaints section has been established at the Criminal Justice Commission. This, of course, may mean that there will be an initial rush to lodge complaints, either through dissatisfaction with the processes or because of the public attention given to the CJC's complaint function. I set clearly on record my concern about the resources for this area. Legislative Assembly 1336 10 May 1990

Mr Santoro: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: I shall deal with this matter a little further, because it will concern the parliamentary committee. I acknowledge the support that I received from the honourable member for Merthyr in this regard. He is a member of the committee and understands the difficulty in this area. I will highlight the point that I am making by referring to the number of people involved. The Police Department represents 5 000 to 6 000 personnel within a wider public service of 170 000 personnel. It will be appreciated that the complaints section deals not just with police, although there is a specific section for that. Those people fit within the definition of "Units of Public Administration", which comes within the complaints section of the CJC. That excludes other areas of public responsibility, such as local government, so honourable members can get some idea of the number of people involved. The commission is of the view, as it has advised the committee, that, while the Police Department is in a unique position to attract complaints, the experience of organisations such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales is that complaints of an official misconduct across the public sector may well double and perhaps treble the number of complaints currently lodged per annum against members of the Police Department. Therein lies the enormous problem of the future. Accordingly, the complaints section will come under enormous pressure—I emphasise, "enormous pressure"—in dealing efficiently and promptly with the registration, assessment and investigation of complaints of official misconduct. As you would appreciate, Mr Speaker, because of the importance that I have given this point in my address, the parliamentary committee raised this matter at some length in its first public hearing with the commission. Mr Le Grand, who is the head of this section of the CJC and who will be in charge of this area of responsibility, had this to say, and it is worth repeating— "To summarise, the commission is acutely aware that, upon official establishment of the complaints section on 22 April with the proclamation of the remaining parts of the Criminal Justice Act, the complaints section will come under great pressure in dealing efficiently and promptly with the registration, assessment and investigation of complaints of official misconduct." He said that he had given undue attention to this matter and it may be considered that I, too, have done so today. He continued— "However, the attention should be seen in the light of the failure to properly attend to this function in the past, not only in the Queensland context but universally within Australia. For the commission to fail would irreparably damage its credibility." That is a point with which we would all agree. He continued— "The commission cannot hope to investigate all matters equally. This is certainly one of the lessons of the past. The commission has to be far more selective, and in this regard I refer to the discussion appearing in the first annual report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales wherein the Chairman, Mr I. D. Temby, QC, makes this point quite forcefully. The commission is also acutely aware that it has finite resources, and its investigative staff in the complaints area will initially consist only of those positions previously allocated to the Internal Investigations Section and the Police Complaints Tribunal—a total of 15 investigative personnel. This number of staff did not prove adequate in the past and is unlikely to prove adequate in the future. The commission regards it only as an appropriate starting point and has approached the Commissioner of Police on this basis. That basis has been accepted by him. A reading of the Act will quickly lead to the conclusion that, unlike the situation which subsists within the ICAC in New South Wales, the commission cannot pick Legislative Assembly 1337 10 May 1990

and choose which matters it will investigate but only the extent to which it will investigate." That is a very important point. He continued— "The commission's power to dismiss complaints is limited to frivolous or vexatious complaints. Streamlined procedures will need to be put in place and strictly obeyed." It is important that the CJC be given that legal obligation to in fact carry out those investigations. That is one of the ways in which we will restore public confidence in this procedure. However, in doing that, and having said that, we need to be mindful of the fact that it will place enormous burdens on this area of the Criminal Justice Commission's activities and it will be the subject of future reports from the committee to the Parliament. Mr Le Grand continued— "The commission is of the view that sufficient investigation, albeit somewhat peremptory at times, is far preferable to no investigation." That is something with which, I am sure, we all agree. He continued— "That is, to deal at some level with all complaints is far better than to deal in detail with a minor proportion and not at all with the great bulk, and to seek to write off the failure to attend to the great bulk by referring to lack of resources." Hence we saw the problems of the past. There are those people in the community who are, of course, concerned about how investigations involving CJC personnel will take place. I refer to that because there needs to be public confidence that, if complaints are made against those police officers from the CJC, a procedure exists for them to be dealt with. Again I turn to the public hearing and a particularly relevant paragraph from Sir Max Bingham, which reads— "In addition, with a view to the accountability of the commission, I should say that it is recognised that it will unfortunately be the case that there will be inevitable complaints against officers of the commission who are performing their duties. In order to deal with these complaints, the Criminal Justice Commission has been concerned to establish an independent mechanism for their expeditious investigation. To this end, discussions have been held with the Attorney-General and the Director of Prosecutions, whereby a mechanism has been established. That will involve investigation by a senior Crown prosecutor, nominated by the Director of Prosecutions, and a senior police officer to assist him, who will be nominated by the Queensland Commission of Police. Those persons will report on their decision and their recommendations to the Chairman and also to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police. In that way, we intend to ensure an independent investigation of complaints that, as I say, will inevitably be made from time to time against commission officers." I think we now have a more than adequate procedure in place not only to deal with complaints against police officers but also to deal with those people who express some concern against officers from the Criminal Justice Commission itself. I assure honourable members that they will be the subject of regular reports to this House and they will be the matter of review between the committee and the commission both in our private hearings and our public hearings. I am happy to report that the Criminal Justice Committee will meet with the commissioners of the Criminal Justice Commission on the first Friday of every month, at the very least. Some of those hearings will be public, but the overwhelming majority will be private. At those private meetings the commission will report on each one of its five divisions and their activities, and each member of that committee—which, as everyone knows, consists of representatives from all three parties in this House—will have an opportunity to pursue matters of concern with the commission that he or she Legislative Assembly 1338 10 May 1990 believes should be attended to. The members of this House who are members of the committee have certainly been fulfilling their obligations in that regard. Unfortunately, as I indicated the other day, the committee has lost the valuable services of Mike Ahern. Today I am happy to report that Bill Gunn, the honourable member for Somerset, has been elected as deputy chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee. As all members know from the report given this morning by the Leader of the House, the Honourable Neville Harper, the member for Auburn, has been elected to the committee to replace Mike Ahern. On 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 May the parliamentary committee will travel to Canberra and Sydney. In Canberra it will have discussions both with the National Crime Authority itself and that authority's parliamentary committee, as well as with other relevant Ministers and appropriate bodies. The committee will then travel to Sydney to have similar discussions with Ian Temby, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and other appropriate organisations. The members of the committee will learn valuable lessons from our interstate colleagues as well as from the lessons of the past in Queensland. This is an important piece of legislation. The procedure has already been started by the Criminal Justice Commission, which has been given a tough job to deal with. I am sure that the competence that has been shown so far by the CJC in other activities will also be demonstrated in its assumption of this responsibility. I have absolute faith and confidence in both Sir Max Bingham and Mark Le Grand to deliver that to the satisfaction of this House. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (4.10 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the Bill. The Police Complaints Tribunal was set up amidst a flourish of ideals and high expectations. Ostensibly it was set up as an independent and authoritative entity. Its aim was to deal fairly and efficiently with complaints against members of the Queensland police force, to restore public confidence in the force and improve the public's relationship with the force. The tribunal failed to achieve the foregoing objectives, for three basic reasons. Firstly, there was a lack of legislative clout, which prevented the tribunal from levelling disciplinary or criminal charges arising from its investigations. Secondly, there was chronic underfunding of the tribunal. For example, in the year 1988-89, it requested funding of $583,000, but received only $372,000. It is appropriate to underline and note the comments that have been made by the chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, the honourable member for Brisbane Central, who again stressed the necessity and utter need for adequate funding of the activities of the Criminal Justice Commission throughout its range of activities, including—and particularly for the purposes of this debate—as they relate to the pursuit of the responsibilities that the commission is taking over as a result of this legislation that is before the House today. In the 1988-89 report the tribunal chairman at the time said— "Since its establishments this tribunal has been so inadequately resourced that it has never had any real hope of fully and efficiently discharging its responsibilities." The third reason for the tribunal's failure was basically because it was treated by many people in positions of power with derision and ridicule. Many people contend that that was the major reason why the tribunal failed. The failure of the tribunal to deal to the public's satisfaction with complaints it received was such that Tony Fitzgerald made the following statement in his report. I am sure that previous speakers will forgive me if I again underline the importance of what Fitzgerald said and the importance of the sentiments contained therein. Tony Fitzgerald said— "It has lost all public confidence." That is the Police Complaints Tribunal. He continues— "It is seen as an apologist for the police force. Notably not one complaint of corruption has been made to the Police Complaints Tribunal." Legislative Assembly 1339 10 May 1990

That is a sad indictment indeed from a person who really researched his subject and dwelt on it at length. Fitzgerald went on to make one further observation which perhaps gives considerable indication as to why the tribunal failed. Persons in positions of responsibility simply did not take the tribunal seriously. On page 290 of his report Fitzgerald stated— "The Police Force's attitudes to the problems inherent in the Tribunal's work have been to ignore them, deny their existence or cover them up. The Police Unions, the Police Department and the Government have developed attitudes and policies dominated by political considerations. The Police Complaints Tribunal, like the Internal Investigations Section, from both a conceptual as well as practical viewpoint, has had the effect of masking rather than dealing with police misconduct." Against this background, it is little wonder that the tribunal failed to fulfil its responsibilities. This Bill remedies the deficiencies of the tribunal, as I have outlined, and which were outlined to a greater extent by previous speakers. The Government is to be congratulated for making this Bill one of its legislative priorities. As a member of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee I look forward—together with the chairman of the committee and other members—to overviewing the operations of the Criminal Justice Commission on this issue. I conclude by joining with the honourable member for Brisbane Central—and all other members of this House—in expressing my party's attitude and appreciation for the excellent work accomplished by Judge McGuire, who was the outgoing chairman of the tribunal in the closing days of its life. The Liberal Party is pleased to support the Bill. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (4.15 p.m.): This Bill disposes of the legal shell of the defunct and discredited Police Complaints Tribunal. I join with the honourable member for Merthyr, the Honourable Minister for Justice and Corrective Services, the honourable member for Brisbane Central and the honourable member for Tablelands in supporting the Bill. In his second-reading speech, the Honourable Minister summarised the devastating criticism made of the tribunal by Mr Fitzgerald, QC, in his report. The new method of handling complaints through the Criminal Justice Commission has been discussed by my learned friend, the honourable member for Brisbane Central. In this speech I wish to address the question of what, if anything, can be learned from this failed experiment. What does this tell us about the power of the police force in a modern society? What, in particular, does this experience with the Police Complaints Tribunal over the period from 1982 to 1990 inform us about the wisdom of appointing judges to head investigative tribunals? The power of police in modern society is formidable. In the face of violent crime, citizens increasingly turn to police for protection. We have moved a long way from village society in which the common law duties of constables were shared among the community. We have also moved a long way from the central role played by local justices of the peace in the administration of justice. In the face of growing concern by the public over crimes of violence and dishonesty, Legislatures throughout the world have increasingly handed over intrusive and coercive powers to police. It is salutary to remember that two centuries ago, a modern police force as we know it was unheard of. When Sir Robert Peel moved to establish the Metropolitan Police Force in London, concern was expressed in the early part of the nineteenth century about the impact of such a move on the civil liberties of the subjects. At that time, many citizens feared that police would become a type of standing army of olden years, unaccountable to the people and a potential instrument of tyranny on the part of the Government of the day. In the cold light of the post-Fitzgerald era, the sentiments expressed at that time do not now seem so fanciful. Queensland needs an effective police force to help to combat organised and disorganised crime but, equally, we need to ensure that police officers are servants of the law and not independent agents who are acting according to their own brotherhood syndrome. Legislative Assembly 1340 10 May 1990

The Police Complaints Tribunal Act 1982-1985 set up an apparatus that was ostensibly directed towards ensuring accountability of the force. There are many reasons for its failure. Some are structural and some have to do with the politics of the Government of the day. Much criticism has been directed at the former composition of the tribunal. Section 4 (2) (c) of the Act required one member of the tribunal to be a nominee of the Queensland Police Union or a retired police officer of the rank of senior sergeant or above. The experience of this tribunal illustrates a number of problems in having a judge appointed as a presiding officer of the tribunal. It will be convenient to summarise these problems as a confusion of judicial and administrative roles, a lack of accountability and prejudice to the good standing and independence of the judiciary. Given the nature of the legislation, a confusion of judicial and administrative roles was inevitable. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is the function of the Executive to administer laws and it is the function of the judiciary to hear and determine disputes according to law. In modern times, however, Governments have increasingly used judges in administrative and quasi-administrative roles—often in an attempt to take the heat out of some matter of public controversy. This has the advantage of bringing the integrity and impartiality of the bench to bear upon a problem, but has the disadvantage of a combination of judicial and administrative roles leading to confusion or, indeed, something far worse. Section 9 of the Act gave power to the tribunal to direct the Police Commissioner to cause investigations to be made or to conduct its own investigations. This investigative role is a classic example of the role that the Executive characteristically performs. It is a long way from the traditional impartiality of a judicial role. It is not the traditional function of a judge to descend into the arena and ferret out the facts; rather, each party presents his or her own cause and the judge, aloof from the arena, hears and determines the disputes according to law. The blend of the two roles, judicial and administrative, can lead to the worst of both possible worlds, and in this case it did so. Unlike a court, the tribunal did not allow the complainant to be present throughout the proceedings, did not allow the complainant to cross-examine evidence led by the respondent, and was not obliged to give reasons for its decisions. In common with a court, however, the tribunal took the view, at page 92 of its 1986 annual report, that in cases involving allegations of criminal conduct against police officers, the tribunal, in assessing the evidence ultimately assembled, must be conscious of the criminal standard of proof which would be required upon prosecution; that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt in relation to every element of a criminal charge. In that report, the tribunal also took the view—in common with the courts—that the onus of proof rests on the person bringing the charge. Moreover, it is curious that up until 1986 the report of the Police Complaints Tribunal appeared in the annual reports of the Police Department. The requirement under section 9 (d) of the Act for the tribunal to report to the Minister again posed a problem in that a judicial officer was reporting to the Executive. A similar problem arose in the duty of the tribunal under section 10 (3) (a) to report to the Police Commissioner in cases in which the tribunal had declined to make an investigation in respect of a particular complaint. The second problem caused by having a judge head such a tribunal was the lack of accountability. It is very difficult for anyone in public life to criticise publicly a judge. It is even more difficult for practising lawyers to criticise publicly a judge before whom they may have to appear. It may be said that it is possible to criticise the conduct and operation of a tribunal without criticism of the presiding officer in his or her judicial capacity, but this is a nice distinction, likely to be lost in the hurly-burly of public controversy. It is important for us to remember that it took a great deal of courage for the initial critics of the tribunal to raise that criticism in the public arena. History owes a special debt of gratitude to those critics, such as the Honourable Wayne Goss in his former role as Labor Lawyers President and as shadow Minister, and Mr Terry O'Gorman of Legislative Assembly 1341 10 May 1990 the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. The change in public opinion and the ultimate realisation of the terrible flaws in the tribunal would not have been possible but for the bravery of those who spoke out when they did, at a time when it was not popular to do so. Their protests in such cases as the infamous case of Barry Mannix made it possible for us today to see our way through to a new era in the handling of police complaints. The third main problem one can identify is the prejudice to the good fame and independence of the judiciary. It does little good for the independence of the judiciary to have a judicial officer presiding over a publicly discredited body. In this regard, I respectfully endorse the comments of the honourable member for Brisbane Central and the honourable member for Merthyr on the fine work done by His Honour Judge McGuire. It should be noted, moreover, that His Honour's learned predecessor, Judge Morley, in the eighth report of the tribunal dated 5 April 1989, gave a truly stirring example of the independence which this difficult position required. That report gives an extraordinary account of the fetters placed on the tribunal by the former Government, including, in the words of the report "the irritatingly insufficient budget afforded to the tribunal by the Government of the day". That report went on to make the bold but vitally necessary statement that "an unresourced tribunal is a misrepresentation to the public". This illustrates the undesirability of involving the bench in public controversy on matters of administration, investigation and policy rather than matters of law. Since the 1930s, the Victorian Supreme Court has taken the view that it would not provide judges to be royal commissioners, for that very reason. To its credit, the previous Government, in its dying days, acted to remove judges from appointments to many quasi-administrative boards. In some areas, it must be said, the practice of appointing judges to preside over administrative tribunals has been a success; for example, in the Commonwealth and Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunals. But the experience of the Police Complaints Tribunal in Queensland shows the great harm that can flow from that practice. There is no room for complacency. If we do not learn the lessons of modern Queensland history, we shall certainly be doomed to repeat them. I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (4.28 p.m.): I rise to speak on this Bill today because the Police Complaints Tribunal and the failure of that body caused some terrible—I use the word "terrible" with forethought—happenings in this State, probably a number of years ago rather than in the immediate past. Today, after seven or eight years of horror for me personally and for some 18 people, most of them from north Queensland, after great deliberation, I have decided that certain matters should be placed on record. These events centre around towns in north Queensland where 18 people, some of them among the most prominent people in Queensland, gave evidence in cases. Six of those 18 people are now dead, allegedly from suicide. In three of those cases, it is extremely doubtful as to whether they were suicide cases. Even if they were suicides, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the suicides were related to the events that occurred in north Queensland. The other 12 people had criminal charges brought against them. Being one of those people, I went with knees trembling and heart shaking—I have no shame in saying that on the public record—before the Police Complaints Tribunal. At the time, there were very few people in the State of Queensland whom I trusted or had the courage to talk to. I rang a senior police officer who is now one of the most senior police officers in Queensland and gave him all the information that I had. One of the people about whom I had given the information had that information in his hands within half an hour of my making the telephone call. That is one of many incidents which I recall at the time. Legislative Assembly 1342 10 May 1990

It must be remembered that the goodies cannot manufacture evidence. Because they are goodies, they are not prepared to tell lies and manufacture evidence. However, the baddies do not hesitate to manufacture evidence. So, unless we had hard evidence, we could not have these people put in gaol. They would not hesitate to manufacture evidence against us. We, of course, were placing ourselves in the greatest possible jeopardy. So to protect myself, I appeared before the Police Complaints Tribunal. I want it put on the record that I expected criminal charges to be laid against me at some time during that year because at that stage, of the 18 people involved, four were dead and two were to die within the next couple of years—allegedly by their own hand. Of the other seven, eight or nine people—whatever number it was—there were only two against whom the police did not take action at that stage. I am talking only about certain police—most certainly not all police. In fact, of those 18 people, I think three or four were police officers, and they are now fairly senior police officers. One of them is one of the most senior police officers in Queensland. Honourable members will notice that I am being careful not to mention any names, because one wonders whether the show really is all over. I hesitate to use the names, even though some of the people involved have given me permission to do so. I have chosen not to use any names in this place. Like the previous speaker, I do not hesitate to praise Mr Goss, who came in very late and was not one of the 18. He most certainly made a small but significant contribution—which I personally appreciated very much at the time—in attempting to defend and protect us from the jeopardy in which we found ourselves. I gave evidence before the Police Complaints Tribunal. I think there is probably some sort of psychological reaction involved in this, but the fact is that I have a complete blank on what I said at that meeting. I was a Minister at the time. A senior member of my staff accompanied me. She cannot recall what was said at the meeting, either. When she came out of the meeting, her face was white, she was shaking and she was having great difficulty controlling herself. She said to me, "I have no recollection whatsoever of what you said. I put a mental eraser through it as soon as I walked out of the meeting." In fact, the only person who could remember what I said was the secretary of the Police Complaints Tribunal. He said that I went in fear of my life. If honourable members think that that was an excessive statement, I point out that the head of the police force in Queensland made exactly the same statement concerning exactly the same year—1974. Here were a Minister of the Crown and the senior police officer in the land—Commissioner Whitrod—making exactly the same statement. In fact, I must correct that and say that I am certain that I did not say that, because at the time I did not think that my life was in jeopardy. In retrospect, considering the facts that are on the record, maybe that was true. I am talking about facts. These people are dead; they are in their graves. Their death certificates reveal that they are supposed to have committed suicide. Of course, the investigation should all be a matter of public record somewhere as well. The matter of public record is interesting. I went away from that Police Complaints Tribunal meeting thinking that I had provided myself with some form of security. I thought that if they came at me I could say, "Of course, I expected this." In fact, I said that to the Police Complaints Tribunal. Two years ago I found out, to my horror, that in fact all of those tapes were erased. I am told that other evidence existed as well at the Charters Towers Police Station, which was burnt virtually to the ground. Most certainly the part of the police station that contained the records was burnt. That is what I am told by police officers who are serving there—some of whom, I might add, are very courageous men. I must state again for the record that I thought I was protecting myself by appearing before that tribunal. The protection I refer to was the record of what I had said at that tribunal meeting. Even though I could not remember it and the member of my staff who was with me at the time could not remember it, I assumed that what I had said Legislative Assembly 1343 10 May 1990 was written down and that I was protected. I found out that it was not written down, that it was on tapes, and that those tapes were in fact erased. At what point in time they were erased, I do not know. The senior police officer who was also involved informed me that the tapes had been erased. In fact, that came out at last year's hearings. So here we have a Minister of the Crown and the Commissioner of Police in Queensland allegedly saying that they went in fear of their lives. As I have said, that was not what I said. I went in fear of my liberty, if you like. I did not think that I had to be in fear of my life. The Government felt that the tapes were providing some form of protection, but in fact that protection was not being provided. I can tell members of the Government, who are now in the driver's seat, that if they get caught in this sort of situation it is not easy to do anything about it. I repeat that we as a body cannot simply decide that a person is guilty unless there is some sort of evidence on the record. Coupled with that—and I do not hesitate to admit it—is simple human fear. For someone to stay out there in the arena, placing himself in the sort of jeopardy in which we were obviously placed, is an act of very great courage. I do not hesitate to say that mine was giving out on me very, very much as time went by. I have already complimented the now Premier of the State, as has a previous speaker. I think it is very, very sad that we seldom read or hear in this House praise of Bill Gunn, the former Deputy Premier of this State, because he knew the facts that I am disclosing today in this Chamber. Bill Gunn proceeded, despite great danger to himself, and he proceeded with great courage and, I might add, great skill. If this State is a safer place in which to walk today and a happier place in which to live, then the thanks go to no other person than Bill Gunn. I do not hesitate to put on record the highest possible praise for that man. There are periods in history when our institutions are placed in jeopardy constantly and continuously. No structural answer to the problem exists. Evil exists in the world, and sometimes that evil can move into the ascendancy. When it does, great courage and skill are required to overcome the problems that arise. At this time it behoves this House to reflect on other aspects of the Police Complaints Tribunal and the other institutions in this State and the way that they were or were not protected by this Government. I have named one person who I believe showed remarkable personal courage and skill, namely, Bill Gunn. Mr Palaszczuk: Another one? Mr KATTER: No, he is the same person who I have named on three occasions. I have also named the Leader of the Government, who is nowhere near as prominent as Mr Gunn, although he does deserve praise and I do not hesitate to praise him. Doug Jennings was renowned throughout Australia as a corruption-fighter. He chose ultimately to join the National Party. Mr Palaszczuk: Bad choice! Mr KATTER: Let me come to grips with what the honourable member is saying. The National Party confronted problems. Other Governments in Australia have problems to confront. Let me examine how the Labor Party, of which the honourable member is a member, has dealt with problems in other States. Mrs Edmond: The Liberals kicked him out in Victoria. Mr KATTER: The honourable member can take that matter up with the Liberal Party. I am not interested in defending the Liberal Party. I cite the case of Juanita Nielsen in New South Wales. A very grave difference exists between a Government's being able to apprehend and weed out corruption when it gets into the system and flagrantly taking a decision to do nothing about it. Juanita Legislative Assembly 1344 10 May 1990

Nielsen was doing a series of articles on Abe Saffron, who at various times, I am informed, was in partnership with two very big bank-rollers of the Labor Party. I have never used specific names in this House, and I do not intend to start now. If honourable members wish to indulge in that sort of thing they can read Bob Bottoms' books to find out whom Abe Saffron was in partnership with. Those people were personal friends of the Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Welford: Come on! Mr KATTER: In her book, D'Alpuget stated that the Prime Minister has friends in big business. Mr Welford: Come on, Bob; you are better than that! Mr KATTER: I expect loud, raucous screams from Government members, because I am going to inflict some very real and genuine pain upon those courageous corruption-fighters who fought the corruption from the grandstands. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr KATTER: For the benefit of the lady with the loud voice, I point out that D'Alpuget describes Mr Hawke as a friend of many prominent big-businessmen, the most prominent of which is Mr Eddie Kornhauser. When Mr Hawke expected to be assassinated he included in his will words to the effect that "Mr Kornhauser, I expect, will look after my family as he has done throughout my life-time." In that very same book, Mr Kornhauser was said to be a partner of Mr Abe Saffron. Juanita Nielsen did a series of articles on him. Lo and behold, she vanished from the face of the planet. After seven months of the police and the Government doing nothing in New South Wales, two journalists decided to carry out their own investigations. The first person they questioned said, "Do you want to ask me about Juanita Nielsen?" They said, "That is right." He then went to the telephone, made a telephone call, returned and continued the interview. Within 10 minutes, two police turned up and apprehended those two journalists for drunkenness. I do not intend to bore members of the House by citing many stories. However, Mr Kornhauser was described as Bob Hawke's best friend. Mr Welford: What has this got to do with the Police Complaints Tribunal? Mr KATTER: It has an awful lot to do with the Police Complaints Tribunal. The institutions that were supposed to be protecting people in New South Wales were not intact. The corruption-fighters and the ALP Government in New South Wales were nowhere to be found. One must suspect that they were on the other side of the fence. Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: The squeals will get a lot louder as I continue with the story about what the ALP does when in Government. Unfortunately I have not been able to gain the exact figures, but in Western Australia, for reasons that will become obvious, the Government decided to buy the so-called petrochemical project. When honourable members lost the right to debate the introductory stage of Bills, they were told that they would be able to range widely during the second-reading debate. However, many honourable members who have been members of this Parliament for five months have yet to be allowed to speak during a debate or to ask a question. When speeches at the first-reading stage, which traditionally allowed members very wide latitude, were discontinued, members were informed in the minutes of this House and in Hansard that very wide latitude would be given in the second-reading debate. I am taking advantage of that latitude today. Legislative Assembly 1345 10 May 1990

I am speaking specifically about corruption and the institutions needed to fight it. This State had an institution which proved itself very ineffective. Today, we in the Opposition will be supporting the abolition of that institution. I view with some considerable degree of joy and share the enthusiasm—in this case, that of the Government—for that abolition. Let me return to my remarks about Western Australia. That State's Government decided to purchase a petrochemical project in that State. I asked the Leader of the National Party in Western Australia, "What exactly did the Government buy?" He said, "They bought a few acres of land at Kwinana. Some people say that it is valued at half a million dollars. But, in fairness, I think it was valued at about $1m. Do not quote me on the figure, but I think it is about $1m." He said also, "They bought an expression of interest letter from Mitsubishi worth absolutely nothing. Some people will say that the software"—and there was software associated with the deal—"was worth nothing at all. I take the position that the software was worth about $1m." The Western Australian Government bought $1m of software and $1m worth of industrial land at Kwinana. Having visited Kwinana, I think that the whole of Kwinana would be overvalued at $1m. As I do not want to make disparaging remarks about our sister-State in the west, I will not continue in that vein. The Western Australian Government purchased $2m worth of assets for approximately $400m. That is what corruption is about. Corruption is about Juanita Nielsen vanishing off the face of the planet and using rich connections—the people responsible for it—without any investigation whatsoever being carried out in New South Wales. When the National Party Government in this State realised that it had problems, it gritted its teeth, took the bit in its mouth and acted. It was not the ALP Government that acted, it was our Government that acted to do something about it. The National Party Government was the Government that acted, and acted successfully, at very, very great cost to itself. Returning to the Western Australian situation, I asked the Leader of the National Party, "Where did the money go?" Again, I am not one for naming names; I have never done it in this House and I will not start now. But those honourable members who are curious—it is all a matter of public record—will not have any difficulty finding out. They will have to find it out themselves, as I will not show it to them. Two people were involved. One ended up with $170m in his pocket and the other ended up with $160m in his pocket. Both of them were very prominent bankrollers of the ALP in Western Australia. The situation was considered so serious by the Prime Minister that he had one Premier stand down. However, it was realised that that was not enough, so a second Premier was stood down. It was hoped that by doing this the Government would be able to overcome the gross problems outlined in what is now known as Western Australia Inc., but which mainly centre on the purchase of the petrochemical plant in Western Australia. I quickly cited two classical examples of corruption in that State. This State spent a fortune producing a document called the Fitzgerald report. That report cites only one specific case with evidence, etc., and that is the case involving the Citra deal which, if it is accepted that it was a case involving corruption, concerned an amount of $200,000. That should be compared with the performance of Western Australia Inc., which concerns $400m in one single case. I do not intend to take up the time of the House referring again to the infamous Amann Aviation deal, which resulted in a certain prominent bankroller of the ALP putting $25m in his pocket. Still there has been no action by the Government, by any member of the ALP or by any of the Federal parliamentarians to rectify the terrible situation that occurred in the Amann Aviation case. When we look at the situation throughout Australia, we see that there are certain people who acted with great courage and great commitment. In all fairness, I admit to Legislative Assembly 1346 10 May 1990 the involvement, albeit very much at the end and in a very small way, by the leader of the Government. I do not want to hesitate to praise him. But in saying that, I ask honourable members to compare the single example that was cited in the Fitzgerald report with the tapestry and history of corruption in the State of New South Wales under a Labor Government and the very, very public situation that has existed for a protracted period of time in Western Australia. Having done that, I think that those of us who have survived the holocaust of the last seven or eight years can walk with very great pride in what we achieved in Government. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (4.52 p.m.): Sitting here listening to that lengthy drivel that had absolutely nothing to do with the Police Complaints Tribunal, members who are in the House at the moment must have the greatest sympathy for those poor members of the public service who are the Minister's advisers and who have to sit here with their legislation and listen to members of the Opposition such as the member for Flinders go on with that sort of rubbish. Mr Katter: That was a very intelligent statement. Mr WELFORD: It showed a good deal more perception than the honourable member showed about the matters to which he referred. The Police Complaints Tribunal, established in 1982 and approved through legislation passed in this House in April that year, commenced operation on 1 May of that year. The previous speaker basically did in this debate what the State Government in 1982 tried to achieve with the Police Complaints Tribunal; that is, conceal, or put a veneer over, the real problems that were occurring in the police force back at that time by raising red herrings and side issues and talking about everything other than the real problems that were then occurring. During 1982 and in the years prior, numerous complaints were made about police misconduct, including claims of corruption made by two former police officers. For a number of years those allegations had been raised in this House by the late Mr Hooper. The previous speaker spoke about the courage of the previous Government in coming to terms with police corruption, but one has only to look back at 1982 to see the courage that the National Party Government, of which the previous speaker was a member, had when those issues of corruption were just as relevant as they were in 1987 when, finally, the previous Government was railroaded into doing something about it. Mr Coomber: Has there ever been an inquiry in New South Wales? Mr WELFORD: The honourable member for Currumbin should know full well that what occurs in New South Wales has absolutely nothing to do with the Police Complaints Tribunal and why it was set up in Queensland. His logic is appalling. He is as bad as the previous speaker, who went on about events in other States that have absolutely no historical relevance to what this House is addressing. By all the time referring to other States, the honourable member uses the guilt-by-association argument. Mr Coomber interjected. Mr Katter interjected. Mr WELFORD: Honourable members can talk about other States. Mr Katter: Is he not the Prime Minister of Queensland as well? Mr WELFORD: What does the honourable member mean by "Prime Minister of Queensland"? Mr Katter: I was speaking about the Prime Minister. You said it had nothing to do with the State. Legislative Assembly 1347 10 May 1990

Mr WELFORD: The honourable member is having trouble. He has lost his marbles completely. Honourable members will feel sorry for him. As I said, I suspect that the honourable member for Currumbin will use the same fallacious arguments as those honourable members who have used this debate not to address the difficulties of the Police Complaints Tribunal but to try to drag red herrings across the trail. When that tribunal was set up, at the outset it had a defective structure and it was destined to fail. The problems that the tribunal had and the prospective failure that was evident at the time of its inception were raised in this House but at that time no-one in the Government took any notice. In 1982 the late Kev Hooper called for a royal commission; the inquiry ultimately occurred in 1987. It took until Mr Fitzgerald's inquiry to document the corruption in an independent way. It was in 1982 that members of the Labor Party in this House raised what were obvious defects in the operation of the Police Complaints Tribunal; they became real problems for the Government because it failed to do anything about them during the life of the tribunal. Over a number of years the policy of secrecy and the provision that did not require the decisions of the tribunal to be disclosed became a real burden for the Government. The details of the complaints lodged were never disclosed. Those problems were raised in 1982, but again nothing was done about them by the previous Government. One of the consequences of the secrecy provision and its associated problems was that very soon after its establishment members of the Council for Civil Liberties and other people who had made allegations about corruption very quickly came to the view that to go before the tribunal would not offer them the security that would be associated with an independent tribunal. That is precisely the point that the previous speaker was making. The tribunal consisted of representatives from the police union, and the member for Yeronga has already mentioned the difficulties associated with a judge being on the tribunal. That created a structure which was inherently inadequate for the task. The Act contained oppressive provisions—they provided for imprisonment—to deal with people who made what were called vexatious complaints. As the honourable member for Yeronga mentioned, there was no such thing as a non-custodial penalty for making a complaint that one was unable to subsequently substantiate to the very high level of proof that was required. Very oppressive penalties could be imposed under those provisions. Another problem was that the tribunal was not seen to be sufficiently independent of the police force, and the police force at that time was the subject of very serious allegations of verballing and the like. Those very same problems that were occurring in the court system generally and in the criminal justice system particularly were just as likely to be suffered by complainants who might have chosen to go before the tribunal. There are some infamous cases that illustrate clearly the inadequacy of the tribunal over that period. One was the case of Lorelle Saunders, a police officer who was convicted on the fabricated evidence of other police officers. She was assaulted in prison. She took her complaint to the tribunal. In 1983 Kev Hooper mentioned in this House that the tribunal was incapable of initiating a proper inquiry into those allegations. The honourable member for Yeronga mentioned the Barry Mannix case. In November 1984 a confession was fabricated by police officers against Barry Mannix alleging that he had murdered his father. He was later released when another prisoner confessed to that murder. Again, the tribunal was singularly incapable of dealing properly with that situation. Then there was the case that the Queensland Law Society itself put before the tribunal. Detective Barry O'Brien was alleged to have bugged a conversation in the Legislative Assembly 1348 10 May 1990

Southport Watch House between a solicitor and his client. Part of the reply which the then secretary of the tribunal sent to the Law Society reads— "The Tribunal does not and cannot condone what Detective Sergeant O'Brien did. However, it sees great difficulty in making any effective recommendation for punitive action against Detective Sergeant O'Brien in that his actions seem to have had the endorsement of the Commissioner. . ." What a woefully inadequate response that was, and it was widely publicised throughout the legal profession. Considering how inadequate and how much an abject failure the tribunal was in dealing with such important matters, it is to this Government's credit that we have now reached the stage at which we can put the failure of this legislation and the tribunal well and truly behind us. I have already mentioned the structure of the tribunal. Indeed, it is the constitution of the tribunal that was raised as a problem in 1982 and which subsequently brought down the effectiveness of the tribunal itself and destroyed what credit the then Government might have tried to derive from the tribunal's operations. It was the problem of this structure that destroyed the independence of the tribunal and was the key element of the criticism that Commissioner Fitzgerald identified in his report, when he said— "The Tribunal is an illustration of an administrative body with the superficial trappings of quasi-judicial impartiality and independence, set up as a facade for Government power. Even when those appointed to such bodies are beyond reproach, ultimate power is retained by the Government while a generally unsuspecting community is deceived. The Police Complaints Tribunal is a sophisticated example of the device. . . . Despite its title, the Tribunal's role is wholly dependent on the very institution into which it is meant to be inquiring. Until recently the Tribunal had no resources from outside the Police Force and was only granted some as the result of this Inquiry. It has no power of determination and it can only make recommendations to the Minister which, if acted upon, almost always involve reference of the matters back to the Police Force. The Tribunal adds nothing of substance, but is a mask to disguise the reality. Lest the mask slip the deception is secured by secrecy provisions." Later in the report, Mr Fitzgerald said— "Nevertheless, the Police Complaints Tribunal has structural deficiencies. It is dominated by a police representative and a former public servant, which is quite unsatisfactory. It is also unsatisfactory for magistrates, who regularly have to decide questions of police credibility in the courts, to be members of the Tribunal." It was the structure of the tribunal that destroyed its independence and it was this key element of independence which, I suggest, was the source of the tribunal's major problems. Commissioner Fitzgerald, as I think the honourable member for Brisbane Central mentioned, went on to point out that not one substantial complaint of corruption was ever made to the tribunal and, despite what the legislation said, the tribunal never made any attempt to initiate investigations into those allegations. Clearly, as a result of its problems, the tribunal had no public confidence and it was seen as a political device to suppress what would have been genuine inquiries into serious allegations of misconduct. Consequently, Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended its abolition and, as has already been pointed out in this debate, the Criminal Justice Act which establishes the Criminal Justice Commission will now provide for the investigation of the more serious matters of complaint affecting police misconduct. Legislative Assembly 1349 10 May 1990

The important distinguishing feature about the Criminal Justice Commission is that it does have those key elements of independence which the tribunal lacked. Of course, it is that feature of the commission, which was recommended by Commissioner Fitzgerald, that ought to ensure that the Criminal Justice Commission deals with official misconduct complaints much more effectively than the tribunal was ever able or seen to do. I have already mentioned, and I reiterate, that there were also occasions on which reports of the tribunal would come to the Minister for Police. One would have thought that, perhaps, that fact alone would have been sufficient to render some accountability to the conduct of the tribunal. But that always failed because on every occasion the Minister for Police made a deliberate decision to simply refer most of those issues back to the Commissioner of Police. The consequence was that whatever hidden agenda the previous National Party Government might have had for the tribunal, in terms of using it to achieve some semblance of independent assessment of complaints about misconduct to take the heat off the Government, that was never achieved, for the reasons that I have mentioned about the structure and independence of the tribunal. The tribunal was misconceived from its inception and was an abject failure in its subsequent operations. It is to this Government's credit that it has finally had the opportunity to put this slumbering sentinel to rest. Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (5.7 p.m.): The Police Complaints Tribunal was described by Mr Tony Fitzgerald, QC, in his report as— ". . . an administrative body with the superficial trappings of quasi-judicial impartiality and independence, set up as a facade for Government power." He recommended at page 315 of his report that it be abolished. This Bill represents another swift action on the part of the Goss Government to implement another Fitzgerald recommendation. The Police Complaints Tribunal will be abolished and complaints such as those that the tribunal considered in the past will be considered by the complaints section of the Official Misconduct Division of the Criminal Justice Commission. At page 290 of his report Mr Fitzgerald said that the Police Complaints Tribunal was a device whereby the unsuspecting community was deceived. Presumably the community was deceived that complaints of police misconduct were being investigated and dealt with by an independent body, whereas in reality--as Mr Fitzgerald described it—the review of police conduct was retained by the Government. From 1982 to date thousands of Queenslanders have been disappointed or enraged that their complaints to the Police Complaints Tribunal came to no satisfactory end. How could this be otherwise when, firstly, it relied on police officers to investigate cases; secondly, the tribunal had no power to determine cases but could only make recommendations that could easily be shelved when referred back to the police force; and, thirdly, the tribunal consisted of a police representative, a former public servant and a judge, again opening the door for police/public service domination of what was supposed to be an independent body? Because of the problems I have cited, all public confidence in the Police Complaints Tribunal had been lost, as was stated by Mr Fitzgerald at page 292 of his report. I turn now to consider the Bill before the House. Clause 4 repeals the Police Complaints Tribunal Act 1982-1989 and the Police Complaints Tribunal Act Amendment Act 1987. It abolishes the Police Complaints Tribunal. Clause 5 (1) (a) vests all tribunal records and property in the Criminal Justice Commission. Clause 5 (1) (b) deems all incomplete tribunal matters to be complaints of misconduct pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1989 and are to be dealt with under that Act. Clause 5 (1) (c) imposes a continuing obligation of secrecy on tribunal personnel. Clause 5 (2) authorises the Criminal Justice Commission to use tribunal records and information, notwithstanding tribunal secrecy requirements. Clause 5 (3) tidies up any difficulties that may have arisen where tribunal personnel disclosed information under section 14A of the Police Complaints Legislative Assembly 1350 10 May 1990

Tribunal Act prior to the commencement of this legislation. Such disclosure under section 14A would have been made, for example, to the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. This legislation represents the further pursuit of Fitzgerald reforms on the part of the Goss Government, and I support it. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (5.11 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the winding-up of the Police Complaints Tribunal. I will deal with the contribution made by the member for Tablelands, the shadow Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. I sincerely thank him for the support that he gave to this legislation. In his contribution he feared that a bucket-tipping exercise would take place here today. It was never the intention of members on this side of the House to embark on that sort of a campaign. This has been a very constructive debate. The honourable member for Tablelands referred to my second-reading speech and objected to my criticism of the previous Government's record in relation to the Police Complaints Tribunal. The only reference in my speech that could be construed in that light was the statement that the tribunal was chronically underfunded and underresourced by the previous National Party Government. There is ample evidence on the public record to support that contention. For example, in the tribunal's 1989 annual report Judge Morley, as chairman, together with the remaining members of the tribunal, stated quite clearly that the tribunal was underfunded and underresourced. I appreciate the fact that the member for Tablelands has indicated the Opposition's support for this legislation and his acknowledgment of the comprehensive scope of its drafting. I, too, am looking forward to better police accountability in the future so that the well-being of Queensland society can be advanced. I sincerely thank the member for Brisbane Central for his contribution. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of Criminal Justice, he spoke authoritatively and detailed the approach that the CJC is taking towards the question of handling complaints of official misconduct by police officers. His contribution showed conclusively that the work of the complaints section of the Official Misconduct Division within the CJC has been placed on a sound footing. This section will play a crucial role in advancing public confidence in our police force. We are all indebted to the honourable member for his knowledgeable contribution to the debate. The member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, also made a valuable contribution and covered in some depth the deficiencies of the tribunal. I appreciate the congratulations that he offered to this Government on the introduction of this legislation and thank him for his supportive comments. The member for Yeronga made a very valuable contribution and thoroughly analysed the reasons for the failure of the experiment which was the Police Complaints Tribunal. He cited, for example, defects in the structure and composition of the tribunal, such as having a serving judge as chairman. His contribution stands on the public record as a thorough critique of the fatal weaknesses in the tribunal, and future students of the political and legal history of Queensland would do well to use his speech in their research on this topic. I particularly appreciate the honourable member's comments on the use of serving judges on tribunals. The difficulties posed by the use of serving judges in such positions was clearly highlighted by His Honour Mr Justice Thomas in his learned work Judicial Ethics in Australia. I thank the honourable member for Yeronga for his contribution. I thank the member for Flinders for his contribution, which consisted of his personal experience with the tribunal. After recounting that experience, he proceeded on a tour around the place. He spoke about everything from people disappearing off the planet, to Western Australia, New South Wales and everywhere else. The more the member for Flinders went on, the more he confirmed the opinion held by many people that he is a Legislative Assembly 1351 10 May 1990 rebel without a clue. In spite of that, I thank him sincerely for the experiences that he has related to the Chamber. The member for Stafford also made a valuable contribution to the debate, for which I thank him sincerely. He mentioned that the previous Government was indifferent to complaints about the Police Complaints Tribunal even in the early days of its operations. For example, I was present in the Chamber when the late Kevin Hooper made complaints about the police. I well remember the details of the complaints he made. I believe that history will record the contribution that Kevin Hooper made to this State. The member for Stafford mentioned that problems were being caused by the inappropriate application of secrecy requirements by the tribunal and dependency on the police force. He also emphasised the inadequacies of the tribunal. Again, I thank him for his contribution to the debate. The member for Cooroora complemented the outline of the tribunal's defects and showed how each provision of the Bill is designed to achieve the objects and effective abolition of the tribunal. In conclusion, I thank all honourable members for the constructive contributions they have made during the debate. History has been made by a body that was severely criticised by Mr Fitzgerald and it will now pass into the annals for posterity. I think it will be to the benefit of society that the matters that have been referred to are now dealt with by the Criminal Justice Commission. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, by leave, read a third time. ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (5.21 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Adoption of Children Act 1964-89 in certain particulars and for another purpose." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Ms Warner, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (5.22 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Madam Deputy Speaker, these amendments to the Adoption of Children Act constitute the largest change to the regulation of adoption since 1935. In that year, the State Children's Department was made the sole agency through which adoptions could be made. Legislative Assembly 1352 10 May 1990

Further changes in 1964 were an attempt to bring in standard adoption laws across Australia. These changes, for the first time, created total anonymity between the birth parent or parents and the adoptive parents. The objectives of total confidentiality were— 1. To protect adopted persons from the stigma of illegitimacy. 2. To protect the anonymity of the birth parents in the hope that they would later marry and have children within marriage. 3. To protect adoptive parents from public focus on their infertility and from intrusion by a birth parent or birth parents. 4. To allow the adoptive parents to raise the child as though the child was born to them in lawful wedlock. In part, these measures were introduced to protect the interests of adopted children by providing them with security during their childhood years. However, the principal concern was to protect the interests of adoptive parents, and the assumed interests of birth parents. Over the last 25 years, Queensland has become a more tolerant society, so the stigmas of unmarried motherhood, illegitimacy and infertility are no longer as significant. Adoption practice over this time has proved that the allied principles of anonymity for adopted persons, a clear break for birth parents, and a pretence of blood relationships for the adoptive parents are not in the interests of any of these parties. In particular, they work against the interests of the least powerful parties, that is, the child and the relinquishing mother. Experience shows that most adopted persons become anxious for information about their birth and adoption. This anxiety for information often grows during the adolescent struggle to establish an individual identity, or may be sparked by a life crisis, such as the birth of their own child. Research has shown that adopted people lack intangible things which most people take for granted such as a physical, mental, temperamental or aptitudinal likeness to parents and a place within the heritage and history of a family. Adopted people can suffer insecurity, poor self-image, depression and a failure to establish lasting relationships as a result. The welfare and interests of the adopted person should be the primary concern in any adoption system. Adopted people argue they have a right to their birth information as have other adults, and that, as they were not party to the decision that information would remain secret, they do not feel bound by it. The situation of relinquishing parents has changed. The Status of Children Act has long since abolished the notion of illegitimacy, legally equating the relationship between an ex-nuptial child and its parents to that of a nuptial child and its parents. As well, the social shame of giving birth to a child outside marriage has now largely dissipated. Research has shown that relinquishing parents suffer long-term negative effects, especially the grief of loss. During long-term consultation by officers of my department, many adoptive parents have expressed support for these measures. The concerns of some adoptive parents about the opening of adoption information appear to be based on the fear that a birth parent will disrupt the life of the adoptive family. As well, some adoptive parents may believe that the adopted person's search for knowledge constitutes a rejection of the adoptive family. Those fears are not supported by research and experience, which shows that the relationship between the child and the adoptive parent appears not to be supplanted or adversely affected. The firm principle on which this Bill is based is that all adult persons have the right to know their identity or the identity of their child. That is, while individuals have a right to privacy, they do not have the right to prevent people from knowing about their identity. This Bill will give people the right to object to any attempt at contact, but not the right to exclude another person from that knowledge. This legislation is not Legislative Assembly 1353 10 May 1990 a radical departure from the principles which govern adoption in other States of Australia and in other countries around the world. In 1987, an adoption contact register was established to enable reunions between birth parents and adult adopted persons. To enable a reunion to take place, the birth parent, the adult adopted person and the adoptive parent must register their particulars with the adoption contact register, except where the adoptive parents are dead, cannot be located, or are incapable of giving consent. If the birth parent is dead, lost, or incapable of consenting, full or half siblings of an adult adopted person may apply to the register. This system has a number of problems. Firstly, the emphasis of the register is on arranging reunions, rather than on providing information. Many people wish to know the names of relatives, without necessarily wishing to contact them, and for those adopted persons whose birth parents are dead there is no mechanism to permit the disclosure of the names of those birth parents. Secondly, reunions generally cannot occur unless adoptive parents register their consent. Many adult adopted persons object to a requirement that they gain parental permission to obtain information they regard as their entitlement. This Bill will repeal those provisions which establish the adoption contact register. It will give adult adopted persons and birth parents an unqualified entitlement to receive identifying information. The Bill provides that, on registration with my department, adult adopted persons will receive— (1) the name of their birth parent at the time of giving consent to adoption; (2) the parent or parents' date of birth; (3) the name, at the time of adoption, of any other full or half siblings over the age of 18 who have been adopted; and (4) a certificate entitling them to receive a copy of their original birth certificate from the Registrar-General. If the birth parent or the adopted sibling makes a request in writing, that person's current name and address may also be provided to the adult adopted person. Birth parents, on registration with my department, will receive— (1) the name of the adult adopted person; (2) the name of the adoptive parents at the time of the adoption; and (3) a certificate entitling them to receive a copy of the adopted person's amended birth entry and the original birth certificate. If adult adopted persons make a request in writing, their current name and address may also be provided to the birth parent. Relatives and adoptive parents of adopted persons will have a qualified entitlement to identifying information. Under the new Bill, birth parents and adult adopted persons may object to contact with the other party. During the six-month period commencing on 1 September 1990, adopted persons and birth parents will be allowed to register an objection to contact. The provisions allowing the disclosure of identifying information will commence on 1 March 1991. Objections to contact may be lodged after that date. A person who contacts or attempts to contact a birth relative, despite their objection to contact, will commit an offence against the Act. The Bill further provides that, for all adoptions occurring after 1 March 1991, no objections to contact can be lodged after the adopted person attains the age of majority. The Bill will also amend the Adoption of Children Act in other particulars. It will reintroduce a provision that one of the conditions of recognition of an intercountry adoption be that the adoptive parents be resident or domiciled in the country of adoption Legislative Assembly 1354 10 May 1990 for a continuous period of 12 months before applying to adopt in that country. All other States and Territories are introducing similar provisions as a means of discouraging people from making illegal arrangements for the adoption of foreign children. The Bill will allow the director-general of my department to accept from the Minister for Immigration a transfer of guardianship of foreign children adopted into Australia. Currently, the Minister for Immigration is the guardian of such children until an adoption order is made, but delegates guardianship to the director- general. A transfer of guardianship would more effectively clarify the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities. The Bill will allow adopted persons to benefit in birth relatives' wills, by appointing the Public Trustee to act as trustee for those persons, and obtain information that will allow the benefit to be received by the person for whom it is intended. As well, the Bill will repeal provisions allowing for the adoption of persons over 18 years. Need no longer exists for these provisions since provisions for seeking dispensations of consent to adopt have been enhanced, and since we have instituted a capacity to enable foster-parents to continue to receive financial support after adoption. In line with proposals existing in other States and Territories, the Bill will allow for the extra-territorial application of offence provisions on the publication or advertising of Queensland adoption matters. In conclusion, may I say that these provisions have considerable community support and have operated successfully in other States and countries. My department is ready to assist any people who have concerns with the application of this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned. SUGAR ACQUISITION ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Sugar Acquisition Act 1915-1989 in a certain particular." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.34 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Sugar Acquisition Act has continued to be of fundamental importance to the Queensland sugar industry since it was enacted in 1915. It is the clear policy of the Goss Labor Government that raw sugar will continue to be acquired by the Queensland Government as long as it remains important for the effective marketing of the State's sugar crop. As I have announced previously, a wide-ranging review of the industry is currently in progress, under the chair of Noel Fitzpatrick, with Fred Soper and Don Watson as members. The working party is presently hard at work and is scheduled to report to me by the end of this month. It is reasonable to anticipate that industry adjustment will occur following the Government's consideration of the working party's report. Legislative Assembly 1355 10 May 1990

As the industry is significantly regulated, structural adjustment will almost certainly involve legislative amendment. However, in the case of the Sugar Acquisition Act, it is not possible to wait to implement these reforms, as important marketing functions of the Sugar Board will expire on 30 June 1990, because of the application of a sunset clause, namely, section 4C. The intention of the Bill, therefore, is to extend the sunset clause until 30 June 1991 to allow the Sugar Board to continue to market the Queensland raw sugar crop in an efficient manner for this season. During the intervening period, the overall legislative requirements of the industry will be assessed in the light of the working party's report. In the course of that review, I will take steps to ensure that the industry's marketing function will be soundly based. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Stephan, adjourned. COAL MINING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (5.36 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Coal Mining Act 1925-1989 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Vaughan, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (5.37 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Bill before the House is intended to correct duplication in the occupational safety laws applying to construction projects on coalmine sites. These sites are currently covered by two pieces of legislation, the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mining Act, administered by two different departments. In the past, this has meant inspectors from two different departments policing two different sets of laws on one mine site. A decision was made to rectify this in 1988. It was agreed by the two departments that the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations would police its legislation—now the Workplace Health and Safety Act—during the construction phase of surface installations at new coalmines. It was also agreed that this legislation would apply to major new construction work on existing mine sites. The construction project would be excised from the general mine site until it was completed. Once complete, it would become part of the general coalmine site where occupational safety is administered by the Resource Industries Department under the Coal Mining Act. The Coal Mining Act 1925-1989 was amended accordingly and the amendment assented to in April 1989. However, that amendment failed the test during the construction of a coal-preparation plant at a mine in southern Queensland. Crown law advised that the provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mining Act were deficient and did not delineate properly the jurisdiction of the two pieces of legislation. As a result, to overcome the problem the two departments set to work with Crown law to develop further amendments to both pieces of legislation. Legislative Assembly 1356 10 May 1990

Changes will be made to the Workplace Health and Safety Act which, together with the passage of this Bill, will complete the process. References to the second schedule in the Coal Mining Act 1925-1989 are redundant because the Second Schedule was repealed in 1981. Those references will be deleted by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. DRUGS MISUSE ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 March (see p. 464). Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (5.40 p.m.):There are really only two important aspects of the proposed amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act. The first relates to the Government's policy of ensuring the removal of the mandatory life sentence, which was introduced by the former National Party Government, and its replacement with a policy of sentencing of terms of imprisonment of from 1 to 25 years. It is quite obvious that the ALP will put this forward as a very positive method of stopping the drug trade. Of course, honourable members would realise that this soft policy will allow the courts to sentence people to far shorter terms of imprisonment than were allowed under the original legislation. The former National Party Government was determined to indicate to the courts its very definite attitude and to tell them that it felt strongly about people who traffic in drugs. The National Party Government was responsible for the tough line that was taken against the illicit drugs trade in this State. It makes no excuse for that or for having introduced what are still generally recognised as the toughest drug laws in Australia. Obviously, the public believes that the ALP is going soft on drugs, and quite obviously it is. Even though the Minister has said that he will review the sentences of 21 people who are serving life sentences, it is quite obvious that those sentences will be lessened rather than increased. It must be remembered that, early to mid-way through the past decade, the Labor Party was toying with the idea of special policies on marijuana and its decriminalisation. Honourable members would remember that happening during Keith Wright's term in this Parliament. That is the policy of the Goss Labor Government. However, during the election campaign last November, the Labor Party quite dramatically resiled from that policy. Because the issue quickly became a hot potato at that time, the Labor Party disassembled that policy and referred the issue to the Criminal Justice Commission. A marijuana joint is not the stand-alone problem that it once was perhaps 20 years ago. However, in today's highly integrated drug world of crack and angel dust, it is much more of a problem than it may have been in the past. Its use is indisputably a path to hard drugs. The National Party will do all that it possibly can to stop anyone who is involved in the trafficking of drugs. Honourable members would be aware that Queensland and Australia's vast, far north east coast is the doorstep to Australia for many drug-runners. Our expansive coastline makes this State and nation vulnerable to drug-running, whether it is via trains, boats off sea lanes or planes on remote northern airfields. Because I spent two years in the Torres Strait islands, I realise how vast and remote that area is. Honourable members would realise that it would be nearly impossible to stop completely the running of drugs in that area, especially with modern technology which leads to more modern boats, more modern aeroplanes and more modern facilities that allow people to dump drugs on our northern coast. Legislative Assembly 1357 10 May 1990

According to a special report that was published recently in the Sunday Mail, the value of illicit drugs that filtered into Australia last year totalled $6,000m. Of that sum, about $1,200m worth of heroin made its way into the country via the wharves. Reports have been received of small craft, such as power boats, yachts and trawlers, having been involved in picking up smaller drug consignments that were dropped by arrangement in the shipping lanes off our coast. That is happening all along the coast, particularly in the vicinity of the Barrier Reef islands, the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. A recent Federal police report outlines the magnitude of drug-trafficking in Queensland. For example, early last year, seven 10-litre drums full of cannabis were found floating in the sea off Cooktown. Another drum that washed ashore had been emptied. Each of those drums would have contained 50 kilograms of cannabis. Police believe that the drums may have come adrift from a yacht during bad weather. On another occasion, in a ship at Townsville 2.5 kilograms of heroin that was destined for Western Australia was found. Last year at Mackay 14.3 kilograms of heroin was found in a container ship that was bound for Sydney. Late in 1988, 1.3 tonnes of hashish was found in a yacht at Hook Island in the Whitsundays. Ample evidence exists that, while efforts to combat the illicit drug trade have been far more effective than they were in the past, the odds of detection are still heavily in favour of the drug criminals. The hundreds of thousands of containers that flow through our ports make it a physical impossibility to check each one. Likewise, the sheer volume of traffic at major airports makes detection very difficult. The previous legislation was recognised by both criminals and the judiciary as being tough. It has forced some drug-traffickers to relocate outside the State border. Obviously, the public is very concerned about this softer approach to hard drug trafficking that the ALP is quite obviously showing. Today, I read a report that claimed that corporal punishment is supposedly to be abolished in all Australian schools. Mr Foley interjected. Mr LINGARD: I am talking about the corporal punishment of children. I know the schoolteachers involved in this school. Mr Welford: You enjoy belting kids, don't you? Mr LINGARD: Yes, but I ran a school of 2 000 students who did not put a mark on a desk, who did not put a mark on a chair and who did not drop a paper on the parade ground. The honourable member should ask the teachers in this area. He should ask the teachers in that school. Mrs Edmond: Where were the marks—not where they could be seen? Mr LINGARD: Where were the marks? There was not a mark on a chair, on a desk or on a toilet wall. Mrs Edmond: What about on a child? Mr LINGARD: If any child wants to mark a desk after being told continually that he is not to mark the desk, he deserves corporal punishment. The honourable member reflects the soft attitude that the ALP is displaying. It is the same as the soft attitude that the ALP is displaying on drugs. By bowing down and saying,"Yes", the ALP is displaying a soft attitude that will cause the decline of morality and encourage the use of drugs in this country. By the sound of it, it was principals such as me who had to support weak teachers like the honourable member. Mrs Edmond: Yes, principals like you. That's what we are worried about. Mr LINGARD: Strong teachers certainly had to support teachers such as the honourable member. When all the psychology had been gone through and everything Legislative Assembly 1358 10 May 1990 possible had been done, the final thing was corporal punishment. The honourable member knows that, as a teacher, she sometimes would have depended on it. Mr Welford: You're a tough man. Mr LINGARD: What is wrong with that? Mr Welford: You're tough. Mr LINGARD: Yes, and the honourable member ridicules it. He tries to ridicule that sort of thing in exactly the same way as he tries to ridicule the National Party's policy on drugs and drug-trafficking in this country. One of the major reasons why the Labor Government has brought this Bill forward is the fairly widely held view within the legal fraternity and the judiciary that the element of discretion was removed by the previous Government's stance on mandatory sentencing. We see weak people who then bend over backwards because these people say, "As a Government, you cannot do that to us as a judiciary." I say that it is up to the Government to say to the courts, "This is our policy. You should enforce that policy on a particular thing such as drug-trafficking." If the ALP is not prepared to tell the courts its policy on a matter such as drug-trafficking, then it deserves to be told the feeling that is in the community, namely, that the ALP has gone weak—weak on drugs and weak on very strong discipline. Obviously, the job of the solicitor and the barrister in relation to drug charges is to try to do the best by their clients and achieve for them the most lenient treatment possible from the bench. The question must be asked as to whether it is the legal fraternity and the judiciary who should be setting the agenda of society in relation to the drug threat that faces us or whether it ought to be the feelings of the people, reflected through the Legislature, which impose community standards on the legal fraternity and the judiciary. Our view is that the Legislature is elected to reflect the wishes of the people and therefore has the responsibility of making the laws which our justice system must administer. The drug menace is real and honourable members opposite know that it is real. In the United States, it is a threat that now dominates the thinking of Legislatures and law-enforcement agencies. Anyone who visits Los Angeles must be completely sick when he sees the actual open begging and other things which occur on the roads and on the streets in that city. I was there with the present Deputy Premier and Mr Wharton and we were shocked to see it. It is all right for people such as members opposite to sit back and say that there should not be strong discipline, that there should not be strong control, and what a great person someone is if he wants to portray some sort of strength. Their other reaction is to allow this sort of thing to continue. That is just not on, because the role of people such as ourselves is to be extremely strong. As I was saying, in the United States the drug menace is a threat that now dominates the thinking of Legislatures and law-enforcement agencies. The marijuana-smokers of the sixties and the seventies have become the cocaine-sniffers of the eighties and the nineties. Cocaine and heroin from South America, Central America and Asia now constitute a multibillion-dollar a year business in the United States, and it is destroying a generation. It is naive to think that we are going to be somehow immune from that threat in the future. The centres of south Asia, from which the United States draws so much of its supply, are far closer to us than they are to the United States. Over the past 10 years in particular, heroin has become a major part of the Australian drug culture. We have not, and will not, escape the worst impacts of the traffic in that drug. Members will be well aware of the deep community feelings stirred recently in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast, in particular, over the expansion of methadone clinics. Many people share the view that the provision of methadone as a legal alternative to heroin is somehow a way of addressing the problem. In fact, it is not. It simply changes the supplier from the black market to the local, taxpayer-subsidised clinic. Addicts are not cured; they have simply been withdrawn from the black market. Legislative Assembly 1359 10 May 1990

Mr Beattie: Are you opposed to methadone clinics? Mr LINGARD: In Queensland today, there are thousands of narcotics addicts compared with hundreds just a few years ago. Whether we want to believe it or not, we are in the grip of the drug industry. I did not say that I was in favour of those things. The honourable member did not quite hear what I said, so he started to run away with another comment. He knows that I did not say that. But I am warning that any softening on those sorts of policies leads to these sorts of things. As I said to those members on the Government back bench who criticised me for supposedly being very proud of the fact that I could run a high school in the way in which I did, I am very proud of that fact and very proud of strong discipline. Mrs Edmond: You are proud of the fact that you beat kids. Mr LINGARD: I say to the honourable member that she is probably one of the weaker people. It is people like her in high schools who say, "I cannot stop the smoking in my school; therefore I will have a smoking room." We have seen that of weak people. We have seen people who say, "I cannot stop it. Let's have a smoking room. That is a way of overcoming the problem. " There were never any smokes in my school, and 2 000 kids attended it. I can tell the honourable member that, because I was prepared to go around in the morning and check the students' ports. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mrs Bird interjected. Mr LINGARD: You prove, lady, that there were ever any of those things in my school. Mrs BIRD: I rise to a point of order. I ask the honourable member to refer to the women in this Chamber as members. We deserve the right to be referred to in the same way as the honourable member is. On this occasion, I seek the honourable member's apology. Mr LINGARD: I was not referring to the honourable member for Whitsunday, but I accept her comment, and I apologise. Mrs EDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker—— Mr LINGARD: I have apologised. I cannot apologise to every one. Mrs EDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am just waiting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Woodgate): Order! Has the honourable member risen on a point of order? Mrs EDMOND: Yes. The honourable member for Fassifern should make it clear which of the three female honourable members on this side he was referring to. Also, I think all of us, not just one, deserve to be addressed as "honourable member". We do not say, "You fellows over there." We expect something better from the honourable member. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha to resume her seat. Mr LINGARD: Late last year the National Party drew attention to the fact that drug-dealers were operating near schools. The media scoffed at the suggestion in much the same way as the then Opposition did. However, when asked what their principal concerns are in relation to the risks to their children, most realistic parents will say that drugs are right on the top of their list. Legislative Assembly 1360 10 May 1990

The survey of the issues that concerned Australians, which was prepared by the Clemenger Advertising Group last year, identified drugs as one of the main issues. So, what did the previous Government do about it? In December 1985, it introduced the Drugs Misuse Bill and allowed the Bill to lay on the table of this House for eight months. That represented the first attempt in Australia to strike a major blow against the illicit drug trade. The legislation contained the deterrent of mandatory harsh sentences. Although Labor members may dispute this, it effectively forced some of the larger dealers and operators in the drug scene to move south of the border. It pushed them out of our territory. Mr Foley: Where is a shred of evidence to support that proposition? Can the honourable member advance any evidence to support that proposition? Mr LINGARD: I refer to a Commonwealth report titled Illicit Drugs in Australia, which states that the Queensland Drugs Misuse Act and the severe penalties contained therein was the reason for dealers holding only small supplies of heroin for immediate sale. Mr Foley interjected. Mr LINGARD: I will refer to a couple of paragraphs from that report, so I ask the honourable member not to interject until after I have made that reference. For the benefit of the House, I will quote directly from the report, which the honourable member asked me to do— "The main trend in heroin retail sales was towards dealers holding only small supplies available for immediate sale. This applied particularly in Queensland and is attributed again to severe penalties under the State's Drugs Misuse Act of 1986." Furthermore, as recently as 19 March 1990, the officer in charge of the New South Wales Police Drug Enforcement Agency Unit said that, because of the tough drug penalties in Queensland, a large part of Queensland's marijuana was grown in northern New South Wales. When the honourable member gets a comment like that, he sits there and shakes his head. The officer in charge of that New South Wales drug unit said that it was safer for growers to cultivate the drug on the northern New South Wales coast and to then transport it across the border for sale. More than a third, by value, of the marijuana seized in New South Wales last year was taken from the northern New South Wales coast. Obviously, now is not the time to reduce penalties. In 1988, for example, the volume of heroin seized in Australia increased by 60 per cent. The demand for the stimulant cocaine increased. Limited quantities of the drug were available in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. During a two-week fact-finding mission in the United Kingdom and the United States of America Senator MacGibbon found that the drug markets in those countries were saturated with cocaine and other illicit drugs. He warned that Queensland's drug markets were set to be swamped as international drug cartels dump an oversupply of illegal substance into Australia. His findings are supported by a report from the Australian Federal Police that heroin and cocaine would be increasingly available. The tough penalties presently contained in the Drugs Misuse Act would complement the soon-to-be-announced tightening of security measures on Australian wharves. The local heroin trade is worth between $700m and $1 billion and is financed largely by crimes such as the robbery of homes, the stealing of cars and armed hold-ups. I congratulate all those people who were involved in Operation Trident on the magnificent success of that campaign. However, it was disappointing to see the report in the Courier-Mail on the night preceding the raid stating that the raid was to occur. That raid occurred between 3.30 a.m. and 4.30 a.m. and that edition of the Courier-Mail was on the streets for sale at 1 a.m. that morning. That is ridiculous. Even though Commissioner Newnham, in a letter to the editor, complimented the Courier-Mail for holding up the release of that report—it could have been released earlier—to publish a Legislative Assembly 1361 10 May 1990 report such as that at 1 a.m. when the raid was to occur between 3.30 a.m. and 4.30 a.m. was extremely dangerous for the people involved. According to the New South Wales Bureau of Statistics and Criminal Research, heroin addiction is the biggest single motive for the commission of crime involving property. Reports indicate that the most lucrative profits in the heroin trade are made by overseas manufacturers and Australian wholesalers. After being cut up by wholesalers and sold in street deals, a kilogram of heroin has a street value of $2m. I remind Labor members that when this legislation was introduced, their party supported it in principle, and it is pertinent to note that the legislation which the House is presently debating has not been changed greatly from the earlier legislation, save for the clause about mandatory sentencing. That is the significant amendment in this Bill. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr LINGARD: There is nothing in this Bill that we have not heard before from the Labor Party. The reasons for Labor's opposition to mandatory life sentences in 1986 were very thin and its reasons today are just as flimsy. Labor, aided by some sections of the legal fraternity and the media, has consistently ridiculed the mandatory life provision in the 1988 legislation. It says that it interferes with the judicial discretion. I believe that Labor overlooks the fact that, when our legislation was introduced, the aim was to place those people who peddled or those people who dealt in the hard, life-threatening drugs as being akin to those people guilty of murder, because they can really be compared with murderers. Murder carried and still carries a mandatory life sentence, yet no such concerns have been voiced about the supposed interference with judicial discretion in the area of homicide. We introduced the present drugs misuse legislation for a very special reason. There is no doubt that it has served a very valuable purpose. I have already quoted examples of Australian authorities agreeing with that opinion. In the latter stages of our Government, we were moving towards amending the legislation to allow for some flexibility. While the legislation may have been considered by some to have been too harsh, our party's position was that, as a result of the horrendous consequences of the supply of illegal drugs within our society, severe penalties were and are required to deter those who supply and distribute these drugs. As I said before, large amounts of money are involved in the drug trade. Consequently, people are prepared to take the risk of selling drugs for the high monetary rewards. There has been much concern over the Mr Bigs. I believe that the ALP is aiming its 25-year sentence at those particular people. However, that is not our criticism. Quite honestly, I believe that very few Mr Bigs will be sentenced to a 25-year term. Over the next three years I will continually refer to the sentences that I believe are very lenient. I am sure that honourable members will agree that most of the sentences that will be imposed over the next three or four years will be for 10 years or 15 years. While the Government might try to tell the public that people will be sentenced to 25-year terms, very few will be given such a term. Labor criticised the present legislation saying that people cannot be sentenced to 25-year terms. Government members know as well as I do that if a person is guilty of an extremely horrendous crime, a judge has the ability to put them into prison for life and to say that they must remain in gaol for life—never to be released. Honourable members opposite know that that is possible under the present legislation. If it is the case that the Government wants to sentence those people to a 25-year term and say that they are not allowed to be released, maybe we would have agreed. We looked at the period of 25 years and said that, even if the Government were to provide that 75 per cent of the term must be served, we would have agreed. But the Government has not done that and we believe that it has not done it for a very special purpose. The Government knows that there are many cases in which it believes there should be some leniency and I instance the case of the lady who had a baby and therefore Legislative Assembly 1362 10 May 1990 had a special reason for trafficking in drugs. She said that she needed the money. I know that there are anomalies but there will always be anomalies and I believe that those anomalies in the trafficking of drugs cannot and should not be considered. As I said before, large sums of money are involved in the drug trade. Consequently, people are prepared to take the risks. The big dealers would not be able to continue profitable trade if there were not an ever-increasing number of recruits. The Mr Bigs are not on the streets getting people hooked on drugs. That work is often up to those who, for the most part, already are hooked themselves. To feed what is a very expensive habit few people, particularly after some period of debilitation, have the means to support their habit from legal gains. The cost of a heroin habit can be round $1,000 a week. So the drug trade breeds not just its own personal disasters, and fortunes for those higher up the pyramid, but it also creates many other problems for society as a whole. Addicts resort to crime, to prostitution or to selling in order to support their own habit. That is how the drug trade grows. The person who turns a son or daughter onto hard drugs will not necessarily be a menacing character who emerges from the shadows of a dark doorway; it may well be a girlfriend or a boyfriend or somebody who sidles up to them at a party or at a disco. The chances are that that person is an addict and supporting the habit. And so it goes on. These people are the supporters of the Mr Bigs. They are not, as certain sections of society now wish to view them, more victims than criminals. Quite honestly, I believe that, in a few cases, Government members will say there are anomalies and that the people involved should not be given life sentences. I believe that they are criminals and that is the basic belief of the National Party. If any person, for whatever purpose, needs money and is prepared to traffic in drugs, we believe that he is guilty of a most serious crime and is not to be penalised by a one-year sentence, as the Government is saying. We believe that the penalty should be much more severe. Those people are the heart-beat of the drug traffic, and that traffic must be dealt with from both ends. By all means, concentrate great efforts on the Mr Bigs but, as every capitalist down through the ages knows, if there is a demand it will be filled, and a small part of that flow chart is the small dealer. These people do not deserve favoured treatment because of that. At the same time a general tone has developed that prison ought to be more of a rehabilitative or constructive process than it has been in the past, and I agree. This particularly applies to recent occurrences under the Labor Government because prisoners, including some killers and rapists, seem to be able to acquire leave passes for all sorts of spurious reasons. Mr Milliner interjected. Mr LINGARD: I added that because the Minister is in the House. It is fair to say that a great majority of Australians are deeply concerned about the question of drugs. They would prefer it if some of our judges hardened their hearts. I return to the statement that I made previously—whilst the legal people who will speak after me in this House tonight will say that it is not the role of parliamentarians or legislators to tell the judges that they should impose a mandatory life sentence, the Opposition believes that in the case of drug-trafficking and murder, regardless of what the judge says, parliamentarians should tell them, "We believe that is such an horrendous crime that you must impose that sentence." The Labor Party has gone right away from that concept. This amending legislation states that the penalty will be anything from 12 months up to 25 years. Under this legislation, if the judge believes that there are some extenuating circumstances, and that this lady needed to peddle drugs to feed the little child beside her, the judge can take pity on her and only give her a 12-month sentence even though she is guilty of trafficking in drugs. The Opposition disagrees with that approach. The Opposition believes that if a person is guilty of trafficking in drugs then Parliament should be able to tell the court what the minimum sentence will be. Legislative Assembly 1363 10 May 1990

The American ambassador, Melvin Sembler, recently made some statements about this issue, which he is well qualified to make. He says that very serious penalties are required. He served as a delegate to former President Ronald Reagan's White House conference on a drug-free America. Indeed, the law must be harsh to deal with these crimes. The Opposition makes no apologies for its harsh attitude towards drugs. The legislation that is before this House tonight contains particular flaws that have been brought about by the Labor Party's relying to too great an extent on the views of the legal fraternity rather than the views of society. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr LINGARD: The honourable member should be in his correct seat before he interrupts. The Minister purports that the amendments that he proposes will actually make this State's drug laws tougher and in his second-reading speech he gave some examples of sentences that tend to support his view. He maintains that penalties meted out under this legislation—which have been taken from precedents interstate where similar laws are in place—actually support this view. We on this side of the House oppose that proposition. If the Labor Government wanted to make this legislation tougher it could have included a non-parole period. It has been left completely open to the law courts to do exactly what they want, or for a judge to set a term of 25 years with a parole period of five years, or something similar. If the judge believes that the prisoner is a Mr Big and there is an anomaly, then the judge might sentence him to 25 years and fix his own parole period on the sentence. That is ridiculous. The Opposition says that, as far as the trafficking of drugs is concerned, there are no anomalies. The result is that this legislation weakens the war against drugs. It reduces the pressure against the peddlers of drugs and the deaths that they cause. There is no guarantee that a drug-runner who is sentenced to 25 years under this legislation could not be paroled out on good behaviour in 10 years. The Opposition suspects that this Bill is largely a sop to the Socialist Left and a bid to achieve uniformity with other States merely for the sake of it. There is no doubt at all that this legislation weakens the law against the illicit drug trade. It is certainly not as tough as the mandatory sentencing provisions of the previous Government. As I maintained earlier, consideration must be given to the views of society on this issue. Lawyers and judges have views that also should be heard, but there should be no automatic assumption that, because Mr Goss' peers believe in a particular course, that it is the right one. The public is deeply concerned about the drugs issue and Government members are well aware that acceptance of the existing legislation is very high indeed in very large sections of the community. There are people who disagree. Mr Beattie: Very high indeed. Mr LINGARD: Very high indeed, and the honourable member knows it. In the game of politics all a candidate needs is 51 per cent. It is simply not good enough that, for the sake of peer pressure or of establishing uniformity, the existing legislation should be completely forsaken. The Government must convince the public that its stance is in fact tougher. The Opposition says that it is not tougher; it is softer. Peddlers could well get off with lesser sentences under these proposed amendments. Drug-trafficking is one of the greatest evils threatening our society and young people, and the law must reflect that fact. I refer to conversations I had with former back-benchers who completely opposed my attitude to strict discipline and strict control. Mr Welford: Fascism. Mr LINGARD: Yes, the honourable member can talk about fascists; Lee Kuan Yew and all those other people. Mr Welford: Lingard. Legislative Assembly 1364 10 May 1990

Mr LINGARD: Yes, the honourable member can talk about Lingard if he likes. The honourable member can say that, because I kept all the desks perfectly clean and did not allow one piece of paper in the schoolgrounds, that has nothing to do with education. If the honourable member goes to England he will see people sleeping in doorways under pieces of cardboard and on mattresses with blankets, and he can say that they have every right to do so. If he goes to Singapore he can say, "Isn't it beautiful, clean and tidy? Isn't that awful Lee Kuan Yew a terrible fellow for making the people clean up the river and putting all the Catholics who opposed his legislation in gaol?" The honourable member will think Singapore is beautiful, clean and tidy and how magnificent it is to travel on the metro there and not see one single cigarette butt or any filth at all. It is beautiful to go to Singapore and not see anyone spitting in the street. If the honourable member goes to Los Angeles, London, Athens or Rome he will see different things there. People like him do not have the guts to get up and say, "You cannot do that. I will not allow you to do that." The Opposition is saying, "You cannot traffic in drugs. We will not allow you to traffic in drugs." The Opposition believes that sentences must be very strict and not the weak, soft sentencing that this Government wants to implement through this legislation. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (7.45 p.m.): This is important legislation. Earlier today, a member of the Liberal Party gave members on the Government side of the Chamber a bucketing for the level of interest taken by Labor members in a debate, yet I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party has only now entered the Chamber. Prior to that, there was not a single Liberal Party member in the Chamber. Government members: Shame! Mr INNES: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, my absence lasted precisely 40 seconds while I went to the Parliamentary Library and back—at the run. Mr WELFORD: I am pleased to learn of the honourable member for Sherwood's new sprinting prowess. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Fassifern, demonstrated his own idiosyncratic blend of fascism and ignorance when discussing this Bill. It is the type of consistent characteristic in debate on these issues that Labor members have come to expect from members of the National Party. It was just a rehash of the debate that they engaged in when the legislation was first introduced. It must be conceded that some of this legislation is necessary and important. It demonstrates the commitment of Labor members to strong legislation to combat serious drug crime. That commitment is equal to that of any member on the Opposition side of the House. The member for Fassifern said that now is not the time to reduce penalties. The Labor Party could not agree more with him. At the end of the day, nothing in this amending legislation will effectively reduce the level of penalties that will be imposed on drug-traffickers. As members on the opposite side of the House well know, the reality is that, even with the imposition of mandatory life sentences, judges were able to recommend that parole be available at a very early stage, and frequently did so. In fact, on occasions when judges might otherwise not have done so, they were encouraged to do that simply because of the draconian legislation that required them to impose a mandatory life sentence. The reason that the Government is amending this legislation is to make it more sensible and more practicable—not because the existing legislation is too harsh, but simply because it is too irrational. During debates on law and order issues, members on the opposite side of the House seem to confuse sound social and legal policy with petty politics. Nothing said by the member for Fassifern produced one scintilla of evidence to support the proposition that there is wide community support for mandatory life sentences. There is, however, strong community support for serious criminal offenders to be heavily punished, but the member for Fassifern produced not one iota of evidence to establish the proposition that there is wide community support for mandatory life sentences. That conclusion simply materialised out of thin air and took up residence in the vacuum between his ears. Legislative Assembly 1365 10 May 1990

The National Party's confusion of cheap political point-scoring with sound social policy is as evident in the original legislation as it is in other legislation passed by the previous Government. The attitude of members of the National Party to law enforcement and to law and order issues, generally, is largely that of a knee-jerk reaction. While it is proper and, indeed, popular for Governments to act strenuously against organised and highly commercial and lucrative trafficking in hard drugs, the previous Government's choice of mandatory life sentences as a form of penalty in the Drugs Misuse Act was simply a knee-jerk reaction that was designed to demonstrate some type of tub-thumping commitment to getting tough. Rather than simply relying on assertions, let me examine the evidence to discover how tough the previous Government really was. I digress briefly to mention another example of the previous Government's attitude to these issues. Members might recall the rather farcical news item that appeared during the silly season over the Christmas period in 1988 after some people had drowned while swimming at night on the Gold Coast. What did members of the National Party say? The National Party proposed that swimming at night on the Gold Coast be banned. That was a most extraordinary proposition, and it is as equally impracticable in its operation as is the imposition of mandatory life sentences. That is an indication of the type of knee-jerk reactions that the previous Government engaged in. Mr Lingard: That went over like a lead balloon, didn't it? Mr WELFORD: The honourable member is most humorous. The problems with the original legislation have been pointed out by reputable commentators within the legal profession and in the general community. It reflected adversely upon the Parliament and it also put at risk the confidence of the community in the judiciary and in the criminal justice system. Far from there being community support for mandatory life sentences, the fact is that over a period the continual imposition of mandatory life sentences will reduce the community's support and respect for the judiciary and the criminal justice system. I say that for the very simple reason that, if the opportunity for the exercise of judicial discretion is not afforded, the penalties imposed will not fit the crime, which surely is the issue at stake in these matters. It is not a question of being tough on drug-traffickers, being tough on the legal profession and being tough on everyone else, as the member for Fassifern tried to portray. It is simply a case of what is a rational approach to penalties in the criminal justice system. A rational approach to penalties is the same approach that has been applied by Legislatures throughout the world and by the judiciary throughout the common law world by applying penalties which fit the crime. A consistent application of that principle is the real principle upon which community confidence in the sentencing process and in the criminal justice system is founded. Over the last 10 years, this question was considered by a number of comprehensive reports. I turn, firstly, to the 1979 report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. To enlighten honourable members opposite, I will quote from the analysis that was there undertaken. After analysing the arguments for and against the imposition of heavier penalties, and in particular mandatory penalties, the commissioner stated— "It is therefore fallacious to believe that heavier penalties will automatically lead to a reduction in illicit drug trafficking or abuse. Even a mandatory sentence cannot increase the likelihood that a drug offender will be imprisoned beyond the bound of the likelihood that he will be caught and convicted. For drug offenders generally the chances of being caught and convicted are low . . ." In a moment, honourable members will see some evidence of that when I talk about the commitment that the previous so-called tough Government had towards the detection and prosecution of drug-trafficking offenders. The report continued— ". . . and many major drug traffickers, because of their insulation from actual contact with the drugs, pursue a low risk, high profit, commercial venture. It is difficult to see how even radical changes in sentencing behaviour will increase the deterrent Legislative Assembly 1366 10 May 1990

effect of the law on a prospective drug offender: the sentencing stage is the very last stage in the detection, apprehension and conviction process." Further on, the commissioner stated— "Laws which divest Courts of their discretionary power with regard to the sentencing of convicted drug offenders, or indeed any class of offender, contain an inherent potential for injustice as they place the Judge in a straightjacket wherein he is deprived of the discretion to evaluate each case on its own merits and to be merciful or harsh, as the particular case may warrant. A Court is in a better position than a legislature 'to evaluate the benefits, or detriments, of incarceration in a penal institution, as they pertain to a particular offender.' Punishment for crime should be graduated and apportioned to the offence committed." Subsequently, the Australian Law Reform Commission also conducted an inquiry into the sentencing of offenders against Federal law, handing down its interim report in 1980. The Australian Law Reform Commission also addressed the question of legislative mandatory penalties, and stated— "The usual reasons given for the introduction of mandatory penalties are that they act as a strong deterrent to certain types of criminal conduct as well as curbing an unstructured judicial discretion. However, on the few occasions on which a thorough evaluation has been made of the effectiveness of mandatory penalties, it has been found that they do not attract these desired benefits. Conviction rates tend to drop when mandatory penalties are introduced for offences such as drug use and trafficking, or possession of handguns, as judicial officers, juries and criminal justice personnel seek means of avoiding the arbitrary quality of such sanctions. The use of mandatory penalties should not be adopted as a regular procedure in the penalty provisions of the laws of the Commonwealth. Its use should be confined to the most exceptional cases and, even then, be under constant review." After a number of years of the operation of the mandatory life provisions of this legislation, we are in that very process of review right now. In our view, none of the experience which we have had in the operation of that provision since its inception has indicated that it has advanced the cause of the moral community in which we live by reducing the amount of drug-trafficking activity. Indeed, there is little evidence that the Act was applied in other than a handful of cases in which serious offenders were involved. The Mr Bigs to whom the honourable member for Fassifern referred have, by and large, remained untouched by this legislation. The simple fact that there happens to be a mandatory life penalty within the provisions of the Act has done nothing to assist in bringing to justice those people to whom we refer as the Mr Bigs. Of course, the Criminal Justice Commission will, to some extent, be pursuing those matters also. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr WELFORD: The member for Fassifern, who has a peculiar passion for violence against children, says that no-one should escape this absolute imposition of mandatory life sentence. He says that there is no excuse to justify anyone receiving less than mandatory life, provided that person falls within the quantity requirements of the Act. Perhaps he has overlooked the very provision which is already in the Act which recognises that to some extent drug abuse is a health problem as well as a problem of criminality. The Act itself refers to certain exemptions that relate to drug-dependent persons. That feature of the Act as it stands, and which is not being changed, recognises that there are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for the mandatory life sentence to be imposed arbitrarily and without exception. With respect to the illicit trade in large or commercial quantities of drugs—it is the prospect of detection and conviction which is the real deterrent against drug-trafficking, not the prospective penalties, as I have already mentioned. In his second-reading speech, the Minister pointed out why it is that the so- called toughness of the previous Government in introducing this particular penalty was as hollow as could be. It was in the detection Legislative Assembly 1367 10 May 1990 and prosecution stages that the previous Government was abjectly lacking in commitment. Under the administration of the previous Government, the Drug Squad was pathetically underresourced and—I note that this has not been mentioned till now—the Office of the Director of Prosecutions was in an appalling state of disarray. Those were the precise areas where the real deterrent against drug-trafficking could have been bolstered, but it did not happen. On that evidence, one can see that the so-called toughness of the principal from Fassifern is indeed hollow rhetoric. The disclosure over the last 12 or 18 months of the deliberate starving of resources of the Drug Squad and the Office of the Director of Prosecutions highlights the facade of the purported concern of the previous Government for families and its so-called concern about the nastiness of the drug trade. It is the administration and funding of law enforcement agencies that have the real deterrent effect on drug-trafficking. The Government has no argument with the Opposition about the need for strong penalties, and they will remain. As I have already indicated, penalties of up to 25 years will be able to be imposed. Serious offenders who have been involved in large drug hauls will still receive penalties in the upper end of that range. My own experience as a Federal prosecutor was that under the Federal legislation—the Customs Act—the Supreme Court of Queensland often imposed penalties of 18, 20 and 23 years for traffickers of large quantities of cannabis. I am not talking about heroin but large amounts of cannabis, which resulted in sentences of 18 to 23 years' imprisonment—and, I might add, non-parole periods in excess of 12 and 14 years. That was not occurring under—— Mr Lingard: Why didn't you do this in your own legislation? Mr WELFORD: That was not occurring under the legislation of the previous Government. That legislation contained no non-parole period. It provided for mandatory life without any non-parole period at all. The whole purpose of this Bill is to allow those who are best placed to assess an appropriate penalty to exercise that discretion to impose that penalty more rationally than has occurred in the past. The suggestion that the provisions of this Bill that allow for a review of the existing penalties imposed will lead to lesser penalties is mere speculation. There is absolutely no basis for that. The honourable member for Fassifern certainly adduced absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is what will occur. In fact, it is possible that the opposite could occur; there is an equal probability. The simplistic notion that honourable members often heard from members of the previous Government and which they heard again from the previous speaker tonight is that those who dabble in marijuana are well on the path to hard drugs. That is a bit like saying that, because tonight or tomorrow night the honourable member for Fassifern has a beer, next week he will be well and truly skolling metho. That is absolute nonsense. Mr Lingard: I don't know why you said it. It was nonsense. Mr WELFORD: That is the logic of the honourable member's argument. What he is saying is that, because someone might have a beer tonight, that will necessarily send that person on the slippery slope to drinking metho. That is nonsense. The previous speaker made speculative statements suggesting that somehow he had gathered all this evidence—perhaps from personal experience, who knows—that using marijuana leads inexorably to the use of hard drugs. What nonsense! There is no evidence of that, and he adduced none. The member for Fassifern talked about the vast remote areas of north Queensland, and he quite properly pointed out how difficult it is to detect the importation of drugs into this State. The only comment I make in respect of that is that it is a big job; no matter how many officers there are in the Drug Squad, it will always be a big job. However, one way in which that task can be ameliorated is by the establishment of joint task forces between the Queensland and Federal police forces, as occurs in other States. Legislative Assembly 1368 10 May 1990

The fact is that the issues raised by the Opposition in this debate and the reference by the previous speaker to a whole series of drug importations is simply crude sensationalism, which adds nothing to the rational debate of these issues. It certainly brings no credit to the arguments that the Opposition puts forward and, indeed, no credit to this Parliament, which is supposed to be the place in which these issues are debated properly and rationally. The previous speaker acknowledged the anomalies that can exist under the law but said that the Government should never consider them. The question I ask is: why in a rational process of determining penalties should the Government not consider them? The judiciary is uniquely equipped and qualified to make those assessments. It is for precisely that reason that for almost every other major offence, that discretion is there, and it is a discretion that ought to exist in this case. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (8.07 p.m.): The issues that honourable members are debating tonight are important. The whole problem of drug-taking is one which bedevils Western society in particular. We seem to struggle to find answers and, frankly, we do not find many solutions. There are people who put forward logical arguments for decriminalising drugs. They do not persuade everybody; they do not persuade me. However, the logic of apparently not being able to stem the tide creates a problem. The Governments of some jurisdictions, such as that of the United Kingdom, administer heroin. At least that knocks the stuffing out of the commercial market that is involved in the retailing of heroin. The issue here is whether, under our traditional approaches, some fine-tuning can be found to help in the fight against the drug war. The Minister has said, rightly, that insufficient resources were allocated by the previous Government. Perhaps sufficient resources to fight the drug war could not be provided by any Government. The Liberal Party and I support the view that the resources that were allocated were totally inadequate. The Liberal Party has constantly supported the plight of the police force caused by its inadequate numbers to fight crime generally. I ask the Minister, in his reply, to tell the House how many of the additional 33 police to date have been allocated to the drug squads and the various stations that he specified in his second-reading speech. I ask the Minister: how many of the 20 additional vehicles have been provided? Has the training centre been set up? What technical and electronic equipment has been bought pursuant to the enlightened—— Mr Mackenroth: My information from the police is that all those officers would be in place by 26 May. They have the money to purchase all of that stuff now. I can't tell you exactly what they have bought, but certainly they have the money to purchase it within this financial year. Mr INNES: That is very good news. Next week, perhaps the Minister could make a statement about what is in place. I am sure that everybody wants effective steps to be taken. The Liberal Party accepts the Minister's commitment and would like to see those things in place. I realise that the Minister is struggling with the problem and that any Minister whose department is short of funds will struggle. I noted that the Commissioner of the Police Service indicated recently that, because of the lack of funding, he had deferred two intakes of recruits. Mr Mackenroth: That was incorrect. What they have done is they had organised to bring new recruits into the academy before the Criminal Justice Commission amended the way that people are trained, and I would not allow that to happen because Fitzgerald recommended that there should not be any increase until the changes had come about. The Criminal Justice Commission had to approve the amendments to the training, and that is now happening. So the deferment of those two courses was not through lack of funds but through someone's eagerness to start to get an increase in police before those measures which Fitzgerald said must be in place are in place. Mr INNES: I accept the Minister's useful explanation. Legislative Assembly 1369 10 May 1990

Whenever any delay in the increase of police numbers occurs, the Drug Squad is not the only section that is affected. In electorates such as Currumbin and South Coast, where there must be a drug problem, because the Government is proposing to establish special drug facilities at least in one of those electorates, it is clear that the general policing of the area is of enormous importance in combating the drug trade. The Liberal Party and I do not agree with a statement that the Minister made in his second-reading speech to the effect that this legislation is as tough as any of the laws of Australia. Last year, the laws in New South Wales were modified. The maximum sentence that is available for serious, commercial drug activity, which involves more than 100 kilograms of marijuana leaf, 10 kilograms of cannabis or 10 kilograms of heroin, is still life imprisonment. I foreshadow an amendment that will give a judge flexibility to determine the sentence he will impose and will provide for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Liberal Party believes that the most serious cases of drug-trafficking are the equivalent of murder. I foreshadow also amendments along the line of what is called truth-in-sentencing legislation. I do not pretend to be able to present the sort of appropriate drafting in this situation; one tries to deal with all penalties and sentencing by encyclopaedic or comprehensive legislation. As a result, with legislation that is presented we tend to play around the edges. The rationale behind truth in sentencing is that one begins with the sentencing process and makes the sentence mean what it says. The Liberal Party proposes that, subject to a controlled amount of remission, namely, one month per year, a judge can impose a sentence which will stand subject to that very carefully controlled remission of no more than one month per year. That period will not be subject to parole or any form of release program. At present, a criminal probably starts his sentence not believing in the system, because he knows that whatever the judge says he will serve is not what he will actually serve. That brings me to the National Party's stance. One of the difficult things in public life and in politics is to do what is right because of the position that one knows that somebody else can take with regard to public emotions and the public scene. There is something popular about tough legislation and Governments who say, "We are going to come down on the hard drug pushers like a ton of bricks." Governments should try something new and serious in response to what is clearly a very great threat, namely, the hard drug trade and hard drug pushing. As the Minister rightly said during some press interviews, with some reservations the Liberal Party supported mandatory life sentences when they were first introduced. The Minister knows that, by the time the matter was reviewed, I had expressed misgivings and had said that, looking at the system in action, the Liberal Party did not see that the claimed effects and results might be achieved by mandatory life sentences. That is still the Liberal Party's position. I am sure that Mr Lingard has little knowledge of the courts and the legal system that he so roundly condemns. I am sure that very few members of the National Party know much about the legal system that they will implicitly condemn, and which they have condemned on previous occasions. I am sure that they have not bothered to read the findings of the Stewart royal commission into drugs and the argument about mandatory life sentences, nor the report of the Williams royal commission into drugs, which affected and involved this House and this State. Over the years some accumulated wisdom can be gained. These sorts of things have been debated. I have taken the trouble not just to accept the statements made in the Minister's second-reading speech, many of which I already knew, but to consult with both the prosecution side and the defence side of the criminal law in Queensland. I find a unanimity in approach. Both sides say that a mandatory punishment system does not work. But we do not have to consult with the law. I will return to that matter. We can look at the practice over which the National Party in Government presided. That Legislative Assembly 1370 10 May 1990

Government's rationale was that, because the public expected it to be tough on drugs, it would deprive from the judiciary the right to reduce sentences and therefore a mandatory life sentence would be imposed, the same as the sentence for the most extreme forms of manslaughter or murder. But what was the reality? One after another, National Party Corrective Services Ministers presided over a system which allowed those convicted out the other end. The National Party Government deprived the judges of the power to impose the appropriate sentences, but it set up a corrective services system whose policy was that life imprisonment, including mandatory life imprisonment, meant 13 years. It worked like a revolving door. In fact, under that Government system, those release programs are permissible. At the end of last year, Deborah Kilroy was convicted of serious drug offences. I do not think there were any changes in the rules that allowed her out on weekends within four months of her being imprisoned. She was sentenced to six years' gaol for trafficking in marijuana and supplying heroin. Mr Veivers: That was dealing. Mr INNES: Dealing, yes. She was sentenced to six years' gaol. If she had been charged under the more serious offences available, she would have been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. But she still could have been released on weekends or after 13 years just as quickly. Frankly, the stance of the honourable member for Fassifern is pure hypocrisy. He says that what needs to be invoked are the full dramatic fears that everybody has of hard drugs, saying, "This is the reason why we want to deprive judges of the right to impose the sentence they think fit." The National Party Government, its executive, its Ministers and the Governor in Council set up and presided over policies that allowed those people out upon application after 13 years in gaol. That is the standard. Mandatory life is 13 years. It used to be 12 years. I think it has been changed recently by the new corrective services consultative committee back to 13 years. The previous Government presided over these policies for release. On a number of occasions in this House I have said that I sometimes believe that the law- enforcement system—the police and the judiciary—does not know what the corrective services side is doing. There should be an annual sentencing conference, not to review any particular case and not to second guess, so that people understand what both sides of the equation involve. That will enable the people who talk only to prisoners, who know how to behave and how to impress the chaplain and the manager, to understand that behind that smooth exterior is a different person. As an example, I refer to Henry John Bartczak. He served 15 years in the air force. It can be guaranteed that he knew how to say, "Three bags full, sir." He would not have stayed in the air force if he could not say that. He impresses the manager and the chaplain and out he goes. I am sure that, had the manager known—and on my information, the manager did not know—that behind that "three bags full, sir" exterior was a callous, cold killer who was ordered by the judge not to be released, and who had smuggled threats out from gaol, things would have been different. That "three bags full; yes sir; no sir; impress the chaplain" exterior masked the reality of the criminal. The two do not come together. The person best equipped to make the decision on behalf of the community, balancing both sides, is the judge, the very person whom by his comments the honourable member for Fassifern despised. The judge is the person who sees the horror of the crime and who sees the impact on the victims, together with hearing the arguments on behalf of the accused as to mitigation and exoneration. He is the one who is there at the pinnacle of balancing the rights of the community, because he can see both sides. The gaol does not see both sides. But the honourable member has put his faith in the gaol system. I am telling him that his Government presided over a system that, unless a person had Legislative Assembly 1371 10 May 1990 committed some serious prison offence which warranted a longer term, automatically released after 12 years or 13 years a person convicted and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. That Government presided over a system that allowed unescorted release at weekends and otherwise. Let us get away from the hypocrisy. My proposals are tougher than those of the honourable member for Fassifern and tougher than those of the Minister. But at least they are fair and just. At least they start with a judgment and a decision of the judge, who sees both sides of the equation. He is allowed to sentence a person to a lesser period. People who have been in possession of three grams of heroin have been convicted and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. Can it be suggested seriously that possession of three grams which, on the face of it, a heroin addict would need himself, is the same as somebody trafficking in 100 kilograms of it? That suggestion cannot be made. These arguments have been made about murder as well. At least in murder there is a dead body to start with. There is no doubt about a dead body. But in relation to drugs, there is a heck of a difference between three grams and 100 kilograms. One is really talking about totally different offences, yet even with murder some people would suggest that euthanasia is a hell of a lot different from contract killing. Mr Beattie: I do not say that. Mr INNES: There are degrees. Mr Welford: And some jurisdictions are moving away from mandatory penalties there. Mr INNES: They are, but I am not going that far. I am saying that life imprisonment should be maintained for the most serious offences. I join with the honourable member for Fassifern—I am sure the Minister would agree—that the worst cases of the deliberate pushing of massive quantities of drugs deserve the severest penalty that members can think of and which can be imposed under our society. However, when considering the smaller amounts of drugs, the court must have a capacity to make the judgment after considering both sides. People involved in prosecutions on behalf of the Crown in Queensland have said that, whenever one has an offence for which there is mandatory life imprisonment, there is an automatic plea of "not guilty". No provision exists for a defence when it is such a very, very serious offence and there is no capacity to trade off. Those prosecutors suggest that 60 to 70 per cent of the people awaiting trial, and over half the trials pending in the Supreme Court are drug-related offences, would plead guilty if they knew that they could go to court and argue for a fixed-term sentence. This is a major problem. Another aspect is that under the present Act the police and the prosecution are exercising certain discretions. There is no question that the police are involved in dropping the heaviest charge on some people and then trading off later on and saying, "If you plead guilty to a lower charge, we will not present an indictment for the more serious charge." The police are exercising the discretion as to under which section of the Act a charge will be laid. In some situations, offenders can elect to be prosecuted under either the Commonwealth or the State Act. That procedure can lead only to trouble. Whenever the police are in a position to exercise discretions involving massive powers and penalties, the way is open for corruption to begin. Even Crown law officers, who have to certify for the indictment necessary in the case of the most serious offences, are not comfortable with the exercise of discretion. The members of the National Party should come down from their ivory tower. They should forget about the judges' ivory tower and talk to the people who prosecuted cases on behalf of the previous Government and to the police officers, some of whom were not happy with that discretion. In fact, for the first year of the operation of this legislation there was a drop-off in prosecutions and convictions. There is no demonstrable increase now. Legislative Assembly 1372 10 May 1990

Mr Welford: A 27 per cent drop-off. Mr INNES: A 27 per cent drop-off. The members of the National Party are not in Government now. They do not have to go out tub- thumping to the crazy elements in society. The members of the National Party can come back and look at reality. How is this legislation working? What in fact was the reality during their period in Government? Let us come back to some just, but still tough, decisions. I believe those tough decisions involve imposing in the worst cases, the toughest sentence possible that can be imposed but allowing for a judicial discretion. As I have said, the proposal by the Liberal Party would whittle away the discretion imposed by the previous Government, the discretion of the Minister responsible for prisons and the discretion in the prison administration. In the view of the members of the Liberal Party a bigger problem occurs in that area. It is that discretion that is letting the prisoners out. One should take away that discretion and allow the judge's penalty to mean what it says, not half of what it says or a quarter of what it says. That is the position that the Liberal Party takes. In reality it will be tougher than the approach of the National Party, a bit tougher than the Minister's approach, and certainly tougher in terms of the removal of the right of the corrective services system to release people. That system sees only the offender and in a controlled environment—and many people can perform for a controlled environment. The discretion should remain with the judge, who sees the full horror and pain for the victims and the extent of the offence that was perpetrated upon society in the first place. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (8.28 p.m.): This Bill represents a triumph of justice over the forces of barbarism. It puts an end to the spectre which has haunted this place of Bjelke-Petersenism in the administration of Queensland's drug laws. It is an end to an era of bad law and an end to a period of base politics. This law has been in place because the cynical machine men and women who have supported the National Party and the Liberal Party from the time of the inception of this legislation saw it as a matter upon which the public opinion could be inflamed. They made no attempt to put a case on the basis of justice. They made a direct attempt throughout the speeches in this House and throughout the conduct of their election campaign to play to the lowest common denominator, the politics of fear, with no attempt to aspire to a just order. It has been said by Lord Denning that the task of the law involves reconciling on occasion the competing interests of justice and order. This legislation stands like a blot on the Queensland statute book. Not only did it achieve injustice, but it has also achieved disorder in the criminal courts. This former Government, aided and abetted by the Liberal Party, presided over a period of great infamy in the administration of the criminal law in Queensland. It deserves to be condemned by history and it most certainly will be condemned. This pernicious legislation that was introduced by the previous Government was criticised at the outset by the Bar Association of Queensland, the Queensland Law Society and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. It may well be that the honourable member for Sherwood has now, as he said, consulted with both prosecution and defence to arrive at the conclusion, in 1990 when the political climate has changed, that it does not work. Well, I may remind the honourable member that the voices of the legal community were raised loud and long when this Bill was introduced, and it will stand in the infamous records of the Liberal Party that it aided and abetted the passage of this legislation when it first came before the House. It bears the historical guilt, along with the National Party, for what the people of Queensland have had to endure for these past few years. Legislative Assembly 1373 10 May 1990

It is extraordinary that on a number of occasions the Supreme Court of Queensland has seen fit to comment adversely upon the provisions of the existing legislation. On 7 April 1989, the Supreme Court, presided over by Mr Justice Thomas, considered the case of one Leslie Barker. His Honour was, at that time, sentencing that person for possessing a certain quantity of heroin. The criticism that fell from the lips of Mr Justice Thomas was a criticism of this Legislature for taking away the traditional discretion of the court. That criticism was echoed by Mr Justice Derrington in sentencing a 22-year-old mother in the case of Kerrie Ann Savarin. It is extraordinary. Members of the judiciary are there to hear and determine disputes according to law, yet so pernicious in its operation has this law been that the Supreme Court of Queensland has been moved to comment adversely on it. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that those who work in the criminal courts have expressed uniform disgust with this legislation. It has been a piece of legislation which even attracted, at its introduction, criticism from the Queensland Police Union. It is not often that the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and the Queensland Police Union agree on matters of social and legal policy. One might have thought that that alliance would have indicated to the honourable members opposite that something was seriously rotten in the state of the Drugs Misuse Bill as it then was and the Drugs Misuse Act as it passed into law. That litany of criticism was raised to an international level when the International Law Congress met at the Gold Coast several years ago and expressed condemnation of that Bill which, unfortunately, eventually became part of the law of the land. It is not a conspiracy amongst the legal profession to think that this Act is unworkable, unfair and unjust. One has only to read the provisions of the Act itself. Section 6 (a) of the Act makes it an offence to supply dangerous drugs, resulting in imprisonment for life where the drug is in the First Schedule and where the offence is one of aggravated supply. Imprisonment for life in those circumstances could not be mitigated or varied by a court. Consider this case. A First Schedule drug, cocaine—a pinch of cocaine, say—is given by an 18- year-old to his 16-year-old brother. Under this piece of legislation which, I am happy to say, will pass into history as a result of the operations of this Chamber in due course, that 18-year-old must be sent to gaol for life and no court can mitigate or vary that. That demonstrates the inanity and stupidity of that legislation. It is wrong for the honourable member for Sherwood to accuse the National Party of hypocrisy in this matter. Mr Lingard: You haven't used the word "pernicious" for a while. Mr FOLEY: I am delighted that the honourable member for Fassifern is following the argument so carefully. The National Party, in this debate, has been wrong; it has been unjust; it has been shallow; but it is wrong for the honourable member for Sherwood to accuse it of hypocrisy. It is saying the same now as it said when the legislation was introduced in 1986. It has not learnt a thing from the passage of time or from the passage of the will of the people. It may be that the honourable member for Sherwood was remembering that famous observation of Benjamin Disraeli that the Conservative Party is an organised hypocrisy, but it would be unfair to accuse the National Party of either of those qualities, and I rise to its defence. Mr Lingard: That is too deep for most people. Mr FOLEY: I am glad that the honourable member was eventually able, after a certain pause, to interject to protest that observation. The observations that were made at the time that this legislation was introduced by the honourable member for Somerset are a fine example of how one can approach the criminal law without making any effort to reconcile it with any traditions of respect Legislative Assembly 1374 10 May 1990 for the liberties of the citizen and for the long centuries of struggle in which the common law has had to develop some basis for the protection of the individual against the State. In his second-reading speech on the Bill back in 1986, the honourable member for Somerset described the legislation as it has always been; a legacy of the 1983 promise of the former Premier Bjelke- Petersen. It is salutary to remember that that promise in 1983 was supported and continued by those in the National Party up until today. It is an extraordinary thing that an organisation of human beings could be so immune to the evidence before their very eyes in the operation of a statute, and could be so immune to the arguments that must have fallen upon them from those who have contact through their families and work with the operation of the criminal courts in this area. The contributions of the honourable member for Somerset will not be distinguished from the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Fassifern here in this Chamber tonight, because they are on all fours with those arguments. They are arguments based upon the cliche of toughness. If one wanted to parody an infantile debate such as has fallen from the lips of honourable members opposite, one could not really parody it more than to use the words used by the honourable member for Sherwood when he said— "My proposals are tougher than your proposals." That really echoes the shallow, misleading way in which this whole debate has been conducted. The point is to have laws which deter crime. That is the point of the exercise; to have the punishment fit the crime. Mr Innes: Your Minister said that 25 years was tougher than life. Mr FOLEY: My learned Minister is perfectly correct in that respect. The proposal put up by the Liberal Party amounts to a simple return to the old Health Act. Its members have changed their ground. This is the party describing itself as the Liberal Party. Yesterday, during the course of the debate, we were treated to a lecture from the honourable member for Sherwood chiding the National Party for not being conservative . I recall that Mr Veivers felt absolutely grilled—I think that is the expression—by that attack. It is relevant to analyse just what contribution the Liberal Party has made. In the debate back in 1986 the honourable member for Sherwood, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, expressed the argument that it would support mandatory life. This involved the following argument which appears at page 382 of Hansard dated 19 August 1986— "It has decided"— that is the Liberal Party decided— "that something needs to be done about drugs and that the course of action adopted might be a complete departure from tradition. The consensus view is: let us try throwing the book at people who are down the line as well as at people who are up the line, because they seem to be the only people that legislation can affect." With such penetrating arguments the Liberal Party supported that piece of legislation. This country has trade practices legislation and therefore a body of persons holding themselves out by a certain description is entitled to be accountable. One is at a loss to understand how they can be fairly described as a "liberal" party when they advocated such horrific legislation—legislation that was universally disdained by the legal profession. The Oxford Dictionary describes "liberal" in these terms— ". . . favourable to democratic reform and individual liberty, (moderately) progressive. . ." Mr Innes: Emphasis on the "moderate". Mr FOLEY: Certainly not on the "liberty". It is difficult to reconcile that with the infamy of their stand, so perhaps they might be described as "conservative", which is the adjective for which the honourable member Legislative Assembly 1375 10 May 1990 for Sherwood so eagerly clamoured in the debate yesterday. Conservative parties are described in the Oxford Dictionary as follows— ". . . that which is disposed to maintain existing institutions. . ." It is difficult to see how one can reconcile that with this attack upon the traditional independence of the Supreme Court. That attack was characterised as a complete departure from tradition. Members of the Liberal Party have participated in the fettering of the discretion of the Supreme Court in a way which has been criticised by the Supreme Court, which was predicted at the time, which has worked injustices against citizens of Queensland, and which has caused delays in the court and criticism from all quarters. Dr Watson: How does it describe "Labor"? Mr FOLEY: I am grateful for the interjection from the honourable member for Moggill. The Labor Party is the greatest single vehicle for social reform in the history of Australia, at least since colonisation, and it is so precisely because it draws upon the historical reform impulse of labour in its quest for social justice. As such, the Labor Party has a commitment to liberty and justice. The only definition that one can ascertain from the Oxford dictionary to describe this body of persons who wrongly call themselves either "Liberal" or "conservative" happened to fall before me at page 769. The definition of "opportunism" is as follows— "Allowing of due or undue weight to circumstances of the time in determining policy; grasping of opportunities when they occur; preference of what can to what should be done, compromise, practical politics, adaptation to circumstances; putting of expediency before principle." Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a description of those members who sit upon the crossbenches. Mr Innes: Let us just talk about your social policy. Mr FOLEY: The honourable member has had his turn. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is a policy of reform and one of putting behind what was done by the honourable member and members of the National Party to wrongfully fetter the discretion of the Supreme Court. The honourable member has already admitted that those actions that were taken had plainly been wrong. That the honourable member retreats now to a suggestion about the old Health Act provisions is really an extraordinary change of ground. At a time when the Bjelke-Petersen menace was most threatening to the civil liberties of this State, one looked in vain for some emphasis in moral persuasion on the part of the Liberal Party. Far from seeing that, one saw members of the Liberal Party adopt a supine approach and attempt to curry favour with shallow and base politics. Members of the Liberal Party stand condemned. At a time when civil libertarians took up the fight to combat the previous Government and when much disinformation was inflaming the mind of the public, the Liberal Party had an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the moral force of arguments advanced against that injustice. The member for Sherwood's party caved in and went along with the National Party, which he now accuses—wrongly—of hypocrisy. Now the opportunity exists for a return to a law that is designed to achieve truly condign punishment. This legislation has been framed to deter would-be offenders, to punish the guilty, and to return to the age-old principle known to every schoolchild—the punishment must fit the crime. It is a principle that is so elementary that in the latter part of the twentieth century, one would not think that a strenuous political struggle would be necessary for it to be achieved. As a result of the Bill that is before the House, the opportunity will be afforded for a return to the proper approach to the operation of the criminal law in relation to drug crimes. I support the Bill. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (8.49 p.m.): The Opposition spokesman has already mentioned that the National Party has examined the amendments to the legislation in some depth. Legislative Assembly 1376 10 May 1990

Mr Prest: No big words now. Mr SLACK: I will not be using big words. I have not had the advantage of the training that two previous speakers, who are members of the legal profession, have had. That may or may not be a disadvantage for them, and it may or may not be an advantage for me not to have had that training; however, by the same token, I intend to make my own observations. Mr Mackenroth: You can make up for that by speaking for a shorter period. Mr SLACK: I thank the Leader of the House, but point out that I am as entitled to my turn to speak as he is. As I was saying, the National Party was in the process of reviewing the existing legislation that is the subject of amendment tonight. Members of the National Party readily admit that, due to the interpretation of the judges, the legislation did have some failings. One of the criticisms made of the legislation was that it provided judges with a lack of discretion in determining punishment for a particular crime. As the member for Sherwood pointed out, the judges were able to get around those difficulties. Because I have not had the benefit of legal training, I consulted quite a few lawyers and obtained their opinions on the proposed amendments. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SLACK: No. Those I approached included a Queen's Counsel and they all informed me that, in their opinion, there was no question that this legislation softened the original penalties, and that that was evident by reference to the definition of the term "life" imprisonment. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SLACK: Because he has a legal background, the member for Brisbane Central should know the definition of that term. As Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Sherwood has brought forward proposals for amendments. Those amendments suggest that life imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for the crime of drug-trafficking and that, by retaining it in the legislation, judges should have that term of imprisonment available to them as a sentencing option. I assume that the honourable member for Sherwood proposes to move an amendment to the substantive proposal that is presently before the House, which is a change the wording of the legislation from "life" imprisonment to a period of "25 years" or "20 years" in the clauses. To my mind, that proposal would not fall into the category of an amendment. The member for Fassifern pointed out that the National Party considered the option of a minimum non-parole period but rejected it on the basis that it would not be an appropriate direction to take. The possibility of a minimum term being an appropriate sentence was also considered, bearing in mind that the legislation was being softened by the Labor Government and that the amending legislation presently before the House gives judges complete discretion to impose a sentence as minimal as a one-year term, if they see fit. That would not be taking sufficient consideration of the nature of the offence as being a crime within our society. The lawyers to whom I spoke agreed that the term "life" as proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party was an appropriate sentence for the crime to which we are referring. I did not speak to one lawyer who did not concur with that point of view. Mr Beattie: How many did you talk to? Mr SLACK: I talked to quite a few reputable lawyers. I would put their legal skills way ahead of the honourable member's at any time. The honourable member for Brisbane Central might be an able orator, but his recognition within the legal profession would not rate nearly as highly as the people about whom I am speaking. Legislative Assembly 1377 10 May 1990

Mr Littleproud: An unreal expectation of his ability. Mr SLACK: The honourable member for Condamine has made a correct assumption. We investigated the imposition of a minimum term. The problem with that was that it has never been introduced anywhere in criminal law. Mr Innes: In New South Wales. Mr SLACK: I have been told that it has not been introduced, although the Criminal Code contains the words "where otherwise expressly provided". If the honourable member for Sherwood can inform me where it has been instituted—— Mr Innes: I just told you. Last year in New South Wales. Mr SLACK: I have investigated the matter with criminal lawyers and they have informed me that that provision has never been inserted in any Act. We looked at that option. Mr Innes: I will show you the Act. It is in New South Wales. Mr SLACK: Later, I will be interested to see it. However, that provision had never been applied. From our legal advice, we do not believe that the Government is softening its approach. This legislation does not soften the approach to drug-offenders. This debate is about two simple issues that concern me as a parent and all other parents. When children are born, parents are concerned that they are normal and healthy. The other concern that parents have is that their children do not become involved with drugs. Earlier, the member for Fassifern mentioned that that is a major worry of parents. They do everything that they can to make their children are aware of the pitfalls in respect of drugs. I am sure that the member for Brisbane Central would have similar concerns for his own children. In the final analysis, we can only hope and pray that our children do not become involved with drugs. Naturally, parents care about their children's education and health, but their primary fear is of drugs. When children get hooked on drugs, we know the results—misery, crime, prostitution and a short life. This debate is really about how seriously offences of drug-trafficking should be regarded. There is no doubt that we all regard it as a very serious offence. But the question is: how does one treat the poor, hopeless person who has become addicted and then sells drugs to support his or her habit? We all know where we stand with regard to the Mr Bigs or the person who cold-bloodedly sells hard drugs for profit. We have no sympathy for them and we throw the book at them; but what do we do with the others? Many of them are victims of circumstances and there is a requirement for a humane approach. However, at the same time, we must be firm. When people start selling drugs, they should be aware of the consequences of their actions. We all have to bear responsibility for our own actions. If we, as legislators, excuse people from that responsibility, we, as a society, are doomed. It is as simple as that. Mr Littleproud: They are still lethal. Mr SLACK: They are still very lethal. The end result will be that we will have more and more people who are not responsible and fewer who are. That is human nature, and we are fools if we fail to recognise it. People must be able to identify punishment for doing the wrong thing, just as they are able to identify reward if they do the right thing. The problem arises when they are unable to distinguish between the two. We have a responsibility to ensure that that does not happen. Legislative Assembly 1378 10 May 1990

Because of the consequences of selling drugs, the punishment must be harsh. In no circumstances can the selling of drugs be condoned. Our real area of concern should be for the protection of the would-be victims—the poor unfortunates who seem to be forgotten in this debate. The best illustration that I can give is to relate to our own situation as parents. Although we may have some sympathy for the type of person I describe, that sympathy would quickly disappear if we found that that person was responsible for our own son or daughter being hooked. There is no doubt, however, that we have a responsibility to address the problem of those who are hooked or those who are the unfortunate victims of the drug trade. In that regard, every effort should be directed towards rehabilitation, and encouragement given to people to seek help. The option of rehabilitation should always be there, and freely accessible. For those who do not wish to take that option, but prefer to sell drugs to support their habit, of necessity the punishment must be harsh and readily identifiable. That is why I favour a substantial minimum sentence for those who trade in hard drugs. However, I acknowledge that, for those who fall into that category, an essential part of the sentence would be a requirement for rehabilitation. I do not believe that the amendments before the House adequately address the problem. They are an attempt by the Government to justify a position that it took on the Act when it was in Opposition. The proposal in this Bill is no different to the Labor Party's proposal when it opposed the legislation when it was previously before this House. Although the Act had some failings, particularly in relation to allowing the presiding judge ample discretion when sentencing an offender, it did recognise "the relevance of the protection of the community as a sentencing factor", which is contained in section 19 of the Criminal Code in relation to life sentences. The same section also provides for consideration to be given to the aspect as to whether, if an offence is committed, the consequences to others may be especially injurious. The Bill does not make provision for that. Those comments are in relation to the term "life" and would not apply to the same extent if we adopted the amendments proposed by the Government for the introduction of a 25-year term and a 20- year term. The real failing of the legislation is that it does not provide for any minimum term of sentence. I cannot support the amendments, as I believe that the retention of the life sentence is essential if we are to seriously address the problem of illegal drug-trafficking within our community. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (9.01 p.m.): In the time that I have been in this place I have discovered that members of the National Party are long on rhetoric, short on action and short on common sense. The reality is that, if members of the Opposition had taken the trouble to listen to the Honourable the Minister when he introduced this Bill, they would know that what the Government is proposing is in fact tougher. Mandatory life allows for an application for parole after 13 years. Recently in New South Wales there were cases in which the judiciary handed down sentences under Commonwealth legislation in which the non-parole period was in fact 18 years in one case, 17 in another, 12 in another and 12 in another. The facts clearly speak for themselves. This is a tougher provision when it comes to dealing with drug-dealers, which is why I am happy to support the Drugs Misuse Act Amendment Bill. I want to say something about the record of the National Party when it comes to drugs. Honourable members heard a great deal from the member for Fassifern, who went on with drivel at great length. As a result, a number of matters need to be put to rest. The track record of the National Party on drugs is that it spent a lot of time encouraging the police force to chase the small people, the people who had a small quantity of marijuana, the people who had a pot-plant on the back veranda. However, nowhere did that Government initiate any substantive pursuit of the Mr Bigs. At no stage was any attempt made to get to the people who were involved in organised crime. There was a lot of rhetoric but there was not much action. Legislative Assembly 1379 10 May 1990

The Criminal Justice Commission will now have an opportunity not to worry about the people who have a pot-plant on the back veranda—I see that Des Booth is worried about pot-plants on the back veranda—but rather to pursue the Mr Bigs. That commission will be pursuing the people who are involved in the hard drug industry, the people whom members on the Opposition side allowed to prosper for the past 32 years. They allowed the police force to go around chasing the piddly little fellows who had a small quantity of marijuana in their pockets but they never pursued those who were involved in the big drug industry. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I can understand why the honourable member is concerned. He feels guilty and embarrassed because his Government did not do anything about it. Of course he runs off at the mouth, because he feels embarrassed. He does not want to go back to his electorate and admit that he was a failure, that when he was in the Ministry he was a flop. He does not want to go back to his electorate because he knows that his constituents will treat him with the contempt that he deserves. Let us examine the lack of resources given to the police force by this mob on the other side of the Chamber. For the last decade the Drug Squad was starved of funds and manpower. It did not have the resources to do what this mob said it ought to be doing. Now let us consider what the Labor Party has done in its short period in office. The Goss Government has allocated for this financial year $736,000 to be spent specifically on increasing staff and purchasing equipment for the Drug Squad. That mob on the other side of the Chamber did not do it; the Goss Government did it. This Government has been in office for just over five months and it has already allocated $736,000—— Mr Littleproud: You talk about it. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member is embarrassed. One only has to look at him to see that; his face is red. Of course he is embarrassed, because he could not get those sorts of funds through Cabinet. He could not even look after the Education portfolio. Mr Perrett interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If I were the honourable member, I would not interject. Is the honourable member a member of the National Party this week, or is it next week? The allocation of this money will mean that in the Brisbane area alone there will be 25 additional Drug Squad detectives. That will bring the total in the Brisbane area to 58. Presently there are 33. The number of Drug Squad detectives is being increased from 33 to 58 in Brisbane alone. That has happened within a short period of time. This Government has put its money where its mouth is. It has not carried on like an empty drum. Members of this Government do not come into Parliament mouthing empty rhetoric. This Government has actually done something. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I will come to the honourable member shortly. He will get special mention a bit later in my speech. I would not get too adventurous if I were the honourable member. I have a few comments to make about the honourable member and his school later. I will return to the real issue. At last Queensland has a Government that is allocating resources to tackle the drug problem. The CJC will tackle the Mr Bigs. The Government is allocating funds and putting its money where its mouth is. One of the big problems has been that the mob on the other side of the Chamber—and that is all they are, a mob—allowed a situation to develop in this State in which there was no sufficient justice database from which any decent criminal intelligence could start to be gathered. Legislative Assembly 1380 10 May 1990

The lack of coordinated criminal justice information in the system in this State makes it impossible to ascertain the level, nature and pattern of criminality, characteristics of offenders, responses to crime and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. That mob opposite did not even put together a database that was sufficient to enable the police force to go off and start pursuing the Mr Bigs. They were so lousy with funds that the police did not have the basic intelligence—in terms of information—to get on with the job of pursuing the Mr Bigs. If it were not for the fact that the Criminal Justice Commission—— Mr Littleproud: It is just as well you qualified that. Mr BEATTIE: When one is talking about intelligence, it would not include the honourable member. At last Queensland has the Criminal Justice Commission, which can do something about this problem. I want to examine the issue of drugs and just what is happening. In the public hearing of the Criminal Justice Committee, the commission presented a report in relation to drugs. It talked about the major team that it had set up in relation to pursuing the drug industry. That report states— "To date, the team has operated in the drug-trafficking area. Although it would perhaps be inappropriate at this time to talk about current investigations, it might be of value to speak of an investigation which has been concluded and has become public knowledge." This is the work of the Criminal Justice Commission. The report continues— "This was a joint operation with the assistance of the Queensland police Drug Squad and also in cooperation with the New South Wales State Drug Crime Commission. This operation smashed a heroin network allegedly involving members of Sydney's Lebanese community importing heroin into New South Wales and retailing it across the border into Queensland. A number of persons have been charged with trafficking offences in Sydney and they are presently the subject of committal proceedings. Two persons were charged in Queensland, and their committal proceedings start in the near future. As a result of that operation, the Chairman of the New South Wales State Drug Crime Commission, Judge Thorley, wrote to the commission recording his pleasure with the cooperation and the success of the operation . . . this is an indication of the efforts to which the commission has been going to foster a good working relationship with other law enforcement agencies." As all honourable members would be aware, the drug industry does not stop at the borders. That is why there needs to be very close cooperation between the Criminal Justice Commission and the National Crime Authority. The report continues— "Such relationships are being established with the National Crime Authority and the New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption. The commission is continuing to strengthen these relationships by disseminating relevant information and intelligence to those organisations, and they are reciprocating." I am sure that all members of this House, regardless of their political persuasion, would endorse and applaud the action of the commission and the New South Wales ICAC. However, the point remains that it has taken until now to establish a sufficiently equipped crime-fighting agency to really tackle the Mr Bigs. I am sure that all members would want that agency to be successful. Part of the problem has been that many of the hard drugs that enter this State are imported. I am not saying that a local industry does not exist. However, a large quantity of hard drugs is imported into Sydney and other southern capitals and then transported to this State. Some drugs are imported directly into Queensland, but many of them come from overseas through interstate centres. That is why the operations of the Criminal Justice Commission and the National Crime Authority are so fundamentally important; why the commission needs the resources to get on with the job; and why the criminal Legislative Assembly 1381 10 May 1990 justice database, which I mentioned before, is so fundamentally important in tackling the hard drugs and the people who are involved in that industry. In approximately 14 or 15 months' time, a report from the commission in relation to prostitution will come before this House. Honourable members are aware that overseas experience has shown that prostitution and brothels provide an outlet for hard drugs and drugs in general. When the debate on prostitution comes before the House, it will be relevant to take that aspect into account when considering the appropriate course of action. It is about time that honourable members considered these issues with their eyes open. I believe that many of us were quite appalled that a former Police Minister would not acknowledge that prostitution was occurring in this State. As well, insufficient resources were allocated to tackle the problem. The real essence of this legislation is that the penalties for drug-trafficking will be harder. Most importantly, the courts and the judiciary will be given the necessary discretion to make judgments about people who appear before them. Total faith cannot be placed in the corrective services institutions to rehabilitate offenders and return them to the community. After 13 years—which is what the current legislation provides—many of those people will be released from those institutions. A process of considering individual offences and individual circumstances must be adopted. The judiciary must be given the discretion to make appropriate judgments. I believe that all honourable members have faith in the judiciary. It is important that judges are able to do their job. The judiciary in this State is held in high esteem by all members of this House, regardless of their political persuasions. At times there have been hiccups—one of which occurred last year in relation to a Supreme Court judge. Generally, all members support the credibility of the judiciary. Let us allow the members of the judiciary to undertake the task for which they are experienced and qualified. Let us not pretend that members of this House who have no knowledge of individual cases, sentences and circumstances can make a determination about whether or not someone should be imprisoned for 13 years, or for a longer or shorter term. I turn now to a couple of matters that have been raised by my learned colleagues on the other side of the House—and I use that term very loosely. Mr Lingard: Come on! You are like a mad dog chasing parked cars. Mr BEATTIE: As usual, the very vocal member for Fassifern is beating his drum in the schoolyard. He spoke so proudly about his tidy school. When one reads history books, one learns that, in 1939, Berlin was also nice and tidy. I am sure that places such as Belsen and Auschwitz were also nice and tidy. However, that does not mean that they were right. Nor does it mean that the honourable member's hard-line, inflexible, draconian and archaic approach to the law is correct. It is about time that he removed the blinkers and realised that this is 1990. This Government wants to find real solutions. It does not want to bang a drum, which succeeds in achieving a short-term headline but does not resolve the problem in the long term. Crime involving youth gangs, theft and acts of violence, which everybody deplores, is on the increase. The only way to solve the problem is to consider it in the long-term. That will not be achieved by the short-term remedy of throwing people into gaol, slamming the door and forgetting about them. One day those people will be released, and the rehabilitation process must be considered. In the almost total darkness of the speech made by the member for Burnett, there was one beam of light, namely, the rehabilitation of offenders. There is hope for him yet. I was delighted to find one point on which I agreed with him. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Fassifern spoke in a disparaging way about methadone clinics, although he tried to back away from that statement afterwards. Methadone clinics are located in my electorate and that of one of my Legislative Assembly 1382 10 May 1990 colleagues on the Gold Coast. People in my electorate are not happy about that. I have had discussions on the issue with the Health Minister and the health workers in that clinic. The doctors and medical staff, who are very devoted people, work very hard and perform a very important task for the community. I would not do it, because I think it is one of those things for which a person has to be specially trained. The reality is that in our community there are people who are drug addicts. We cannot simply pretend that they are not there. They have to be treated in some way. A methadone program is one way of doing it. With the increasing problem of AIDS in our community, it is a matter that we all know will be debated and discussed in this House on an ongoing basis. We need to look at the people who are drug addicts, the sorts of life-styles in which they are involved, the needle-exchange program and how to deal with the problem. As the honourable member for Burnett said, indeed I have young children. Like others in this House who are concerned about the future of their children, I am concerned about the future of mine. But I know one thing, that is, the only future that we can guarantee our kids—and this is our responsibility—is one which is brighter that it is at present, and where there is a light at the end of the tunnel. If the Opposition maintains this mandatory life nonsense—and it is a nonsense—all it is doing is playing the red- neck drum for short-term political expediency. It solves nothing and it makes the problem worse. I would hope that even at this late hour there would be some common sense from the other side of the House. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (9.16 p.m.): I think the honourable member for Brisbane Central might be interested in some of the things I have to say. I am quite sure that he will agree with some of them, and that will be an interesting change. In fact, I would like to begin by saying that in recent times some of the measures that have been taken by this Government in respect of the enforcement of the law as it relates to drug offences are welcome indeed. As honourable members will no doubt be aware, I come from far-north Queensland. My area has not been immune from drug cultivation, importation and, of course, the misuse of those drugs and the crimes associated with that misuse. The member for Fassifern alluded to the State's long coastline, the problems with its surveillance, the likelihood of drug importation from South East Asia's golden triangle and from other areas in which drugs are produced as part of the national product—as an essential part of their GDP. I refer to South American countries such as Colombia. I am pleased that these "improvements" to enforcement and drug detection have been made, simply because I have some sympathy for the people who are involved in the user end of the drug industry. It is that end of the industry about which I want to address my remarks tonight. In his speech, the member for Yeronga asked, "What is the aim tonight? What is it that we are trying to do?" He said that the Government was trying to deter crime; to introduce laws that will deter crime. However, I would like to ask again in this place: what are we attempting to do here, maybe not tonight and maybe not with this Bill? What do we aspire to do in terms of our community and its problems? What will be achieved by this Bill? Not much, I suggest. Firstly, we have to identify who makes up the client group. Is the client group the criminals or the victims? As a community group who are concerned about these things, we must come to a conclusion. Who are the people about whom we are most concerned—the criminals or the victims? I suggest that we in this place should be most concerned about the user group—the victims of crime. They are the people who, if properly helped by proper mechanisms that are in place, would not become users of these insidious chemicals and substances. Therefore, this Chamber should not be indulging itself in what has been mentioned a couple of times as a petty political exercise—and I suggest that it is probably nothing much more than that. We should be spending some time debating what we can do to look after those people who we have now determined are Legislative Assembly 1383 10 May 1990 the client group. What can we do to stop the damned misery of the drug babies and the prostitutes—those who are prostitutes because of drug dependency? Mr Palaszczuk: You lock them up and don't give them any rehabilitation. That was your plan of action. Mr GILMORE: That is the sort of commonsense approach that I would like to hear from the honourable member! If he had listened to anything that I have said in recent times as the Opposition spokesman on Corrective Services, he would know that on every occasion I have been totally and utterly supportive of the rehabilitative programs that were put in place by my Government and which, I must say with some pride, have been carried on by the Honourable the Minister who is in charge of this Bill. I have been supportive of him and I have always said, particularly in the case of that most unfortunate early release which we all regret, that this one incident must not in any way detract from what is essentially an excellent program. The honourable member should withdraw that statement. It is my view that the drug problem in this world and more particularly in Queensland is no respecter of family. We have all seen what is probably the most publicised and probably one of the most horrifying experiences of a drug-related problem when our Prime Minister had the most unfortunate experience of having one of his children caught up in the drug culture. He has my sympathy. There is no way that any family can consider itself immune from the drug culture. There is nothing that any family or individual can do to guarantee that, once the children move away from home and go to university or out into the workplace and out of the immediate surveillance of the family, those children will not succumb to peer pressure or, for any other reason, come under the influence of the drug culture.Government members, having had their Labor Prime Minister involved in such a tragedy, should be most sympathetic to those people whom I consider the user group, the victims of this problem. In 1966, when I was a young man, I travelled to San Francisco during the period when LSD was a legal substance obtainable across drugstore counters. As a tourist, I was walking around the streets of San Francisco and later became lost in the Golden Gate Park. As I left from the wrong exit, I ended up in an area of San Francisco that displayed a drug culture. As a man of 20 years of age who had come from the protection and isolation of a bush upbringing, I was horrified when I walked into a street of zombies and saw people with their arms slack and with no idea that anybody was in front of them. As they shuffled along, I had to get out of their way. They were virtually unaware of the people around them. They were a danger to themselves and to everybody else. That was my first introduction to the drug culture. I have never forgotten it, and I guess I never will. The horror was complete. I fled that place as quickly as possible. I took a taxi back to the waiting ship. I can assure honourable members that I was pleased to return to that ship. Since those days the drug culture has grown, the opportunity for misuse of drugs has grown and the substances available have grown in number. Today, drugs such as cocaine, which has been around for many years, has become a cultural drug. Crack, which is a highly addictive derivative of cocaine, is a drug that causes a physiological addiction that is very, very difficult to toss after one or two uses. Amphetamines are two bob a dozen. Designer drugs such as angel dust and ecstasy are as dangerous as any other drug. Clever chemists can invent such drugs in a backroom laboratory. By making slight changes to the molecular structure of drugs, they produce a new drug which is equally addictive and equally as horrifying. All honourable members know that substance misuse is not limited to the hard drugs that I have just mentioned. Substance misuse encompasses petrol, solvents of any kind and any other substance able to produce an hallucinogenic or other effect. Legislative Assembly 1384 10 May 1990

I would like to concentrate my remarks on the measures that are going to be taken by this Government, regardless of what it is doing tonight, to assist the victims of crime, to change the culture in our society by taking away the need for drugs, and to take away the desire of our young people and others to use these substances. After all, if one could take away the need and the desire—in other words, the market—there would be no trade in drugs. The drug barons of Colombia would be broke overnight if a magic wand could be waved and our communities were so self-contained and so delightful in their structure that there was no need for drugs. What is this Government going to do about that? Is this Government going to address the problem of the street kids? One does not have to go to San Francisco to see the street kids. One only has to go down to the Valley to see them. Mr Welford: Does the honourable member want to put them in gaol for life? Mr GILMORE: One can listen to the Labor Prime Minister who said, "By 1990, no child will live in poverty." Is not poverty one of the great inherent elements in our community and one of the great causes for the misuse of substances? Mrs Bird: Family violence. Mr GILMORE: What about family breakdown and violence in the home? What about the time when dad leaves home? He almost inevitably leaves mum and the kids in poverty. There is no end to the deprivation that can be caused to a family when that occurs. In many instances, when dad leaves home he makes no further contribution to the family. Mr Beattie: The law has been changed to make sure that they do pay. Mr GILMORE: I am very pleased that that is the case. I would like to see the father of every child—whether that child was conceived in marriage, or as the result of a casual affair on the back seat of a motor bike—held totally responsible for his progeny. The money for their maintenance should be extracted from his wages, his social security or whatever income he uses for his daily sustenance. Mr Beattie: That happens now. Mr GILMORE: If that is the case, I am pleased indeed. What will this Government do in the near future to assist the Aboriginal communities in this State to overcome their problems with substance misuse? In recent times, many honourable members would have seen the television program that was centred on my home town of Mareeba. Some aspects of that program were not true, or a little bit of editorial licence was used. Nevertheless, the basis of what was said was true. There are people in Mareeba who are drinking metho. That occurs not only in Mareeba but also in all of those small towns that have a community of Aborigines living in poverty and deprivation on their fringes. Mr Beattie: It is not just them. Mr GILMORE: I know it is not just them, and it is not just Aborigines. The misuse of methylated spirits and other substances is rife, but its use is prevalent at the lower end of the social spectrum. The problem of drug misuse by the Aborigines of this State is horrifying. I do not believe that this Government will find it any easier than former Governments of this State to come to grips with the problem. Alcoholism is only one symptom of the problem. The problems go far deeper than that. The problems are sociological and, in many cases, tribal. Those problems were 200 years in the making. I have no guilt about that because I had nothing to do with it and because I am able to recognise it. I believe that I would be able to play a considerable role in the rectification of some of those problems. I trust that the Government will be able to play some of those roles and I look forward to the Aboriginal people, with some assistance, Legislative Assembly 1385 10 May 1990 getting up off the ground, off the metho and back into the mainstream of Australian life. In many ways this Bill is a hollow exercise, simply because of the matters that I have raised already tonight. Without the other measures that I have outlined, we are wasting our time tonight. We are doing nothing more than changing the substance of the legislation to give discretion back to the judiciary. Rhetoric in this place will not resolve the matter of substance misuse and therefore the associated crime, deprivation, prostitution and everything else that goes with it. Hard work, good ideas and the long haul are required to resolve these social problems that are so evident in our society and that are a blight on our society. I believe that they are ones that we can overcome. Certainly we can capture, and we need to capture, those Mr Bigs, those people who have chosen to be predatory birds preying on the unfortunate and the miserable in our society. We must capture them and we must deal with them. I understand that, because of the numbers in this place, we will deal with them under the structure of the present Bill, and so be it, as long as we deal with them. It is for those reasons that I accept the improvements in the resources available to the police involved in fighting drugs, and I do hope that we catch some of the Mr Bigs who are the most despicable people on the face of the earth. They have no place in our society. I trust that the Government of Queensland for the time being will see these measures for what they are and will see the need to take those measures for the benefit of all Queenslanders, but particularly the victims of the horrifying crime of drug trafficking. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (9.33 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to speak in support of this Bill, which will remove mandatory life sentences for drug offences. The Drugs Misuse Act, which was passed in the Queensland Parliament in 1986 in an attempt to show the Queensland people that the National Party was tough on drugs, was further amended prior to the 1989 election to perpetuate the public facade that the Nationals had all the answers in the fight against drugs in our society. It is another example of the draconian legislation left over from the Bjelke-Petersen days. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is prepared to make a more honest appraisal of the drug fight than the mere passing of legislation which has no effect on the incidence of drug abuse or drug trafficking. Unlike the Nationals, we know that there are more ways of solving Queensland's growing drug problem than merely trying to gaol everyone. This Government recognises that attention needs to be given to the detection of drug-traffickers and not merely their prosecution. To this end, our Minister for Police has already doubled the resources allocated to the drug fight. The allocation of more detectives and the provision of more radio equipped motor vehicles and photographic and recording equipment is evidence that we are prepared to use more than legislation or rhetoric to solve one of the most difficult of the world's problems. There should be no suggestion that this Labor Government is soft on drugs. However, mandatory sentences for any crime are objectionable and particularly so in the case of drug offences, because they remove from judges both the right and the obligation to take mitigating circumstances into consideration. The court then cannot take into consideration the previous record of the accused, the circumstances of the case or the degree of guilt. This Act was an insult to the judiciary and it was properly criticised by the Council for Civil Liberties, the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland at the time of its introduction. It was a piece of legislation that was typical of the arrogance of the National Party Government. That group of unworldly, mildly educated products of an unfair gerrymander believed that they knew better than international lawyers, law enforcement agencies and educators. They introduced mandatory sentences when it had been widely accepted that mandatory sentences for crime did not serve the best interests of the criminal justice system. The threat of incarceration in a penal institution does not cure a drug addict, nor does it eliminate the drug trade. Legislative Assembly 1386 10 May 1990

Despite the statements in January 1989 by the then Premier, Mr Ahern, as reported in the Brisbane Sun, that he knew the identities of several Mr Bigs in the Queensland drug underworld and was committed to getting the big boys of the drug trade behind bars, this legislation did no such thing. Instead, judges were forced to sentence hopeless drug addicts to life imprisonment. Many of the 21 people now serving mandatory life sentences in Queensland gaols are little more than hopeless drug. Under the amendments that are now proposed, the sentences of these people will be reviewed. These amendments also affect the incalculable number of Queenslanders who, in future, when fronting the courts on serious drug charges, will face a judge who otherwise would have no choice but to send them to gaol for a mandatory life term. Although we would all like to hope that our children will never be touched by drugs or the drug trade, we do not live in a perfect world and I, for one, am pleased that those who are unfortunate enough to have to face a judge for sentencing will be dealt with according to the merits of their case because this Government is making that possible. For too long, sensational stories of drug scares have been used by the National Party and the press to frighten the Queensland public into believing that our drug problem directly threatens every child in our society. They have hinted that adult heroin-dealers with pockets full of syringes are wandering around playgrounds in schools luring every child to participate in drug use. We were told that in his or her last 12 weeks of school every schoolchild was approached by drug-dealers, and that, if we did not believe these stories, we lived in a dreamland. Tonight the members of the National Party are at it again. The member for Fassifern brought out the old cobweb stories that are meant to frighten us all into thinking that our schools are full of drugs. Mr Heath: Except his. Ms SPENCE: I will come to that. Having spent 11 years teaching in this State's largest high schools, I know that these kinds of sensational stories are untrue and incredibly naive. Children are more closely supervised at school than in most aspects of their private lives. They are watched in the class room, in the playground, at sport and when getting on buses. Strangers in or around schoolgrounds are quickly identified and forced to leave. I might add that this is the case in all Queensland State schools and not only in the one at which the member for Fassifern was the principal. Our students have few opportunities to purchase drugs, and most of them have even less money to use for the purpose, even if the opportunity ever presented itself. My experience has shown that glue-sniffing and alcohol and tobacco abuse are the real drug threats to our children. These problems will not be solved by trying to convince the public that all that needs to be done is to pass some tough drug laws and our children will be safe forever. It is time that the serious problem of drugs and drug abuse was taken off the election agenda of the political parties. The game of one-upmanship in relation to how tough we are prepared to be on drugs does little to address the real problem. Every concerned Queenslander wants tough penalties for drug-traffickers and there should be no doubt that the amendments which we propose tonight make those tough penalties possible. The debate in this Chamber tonight over just who can be the toughest is little more than a child's game. We all want to be tough on drug-traffickers, but we on the Government side of the Chamber also want the punishment to fit the crime. I am pleased to belong to a Government that is prepared to allow full and proper debate of this legislation. When the National Party first introduced the Drugs Misuse Bill into this House in 1986 it gagged debate on the Bill, allowing only 6 of the Opposition's 25 proposed amendments to be debated. Mr Stephan: How many members are speaking tonight? Ms SPENCE: As many as want to speak. Legislative Assembly 1387 10 May 1990

Mr Stephan: How many are speaking? Ms SPENCE: I do not know. I have not counted them. That Government which knew so little about the principles of the Westminster system frequently refused to debate legislation because it believed that it was a waste of time. A year later, when the Act was amended, the National Party again gagged debate on the amendments. On that occasion the National Party spent two hours discussing chooks, that is, it debated all the important issues involved in the Hen Quotas Act Amendment Bill but could not even allow free discussion on the amendments to the Drug Misuse Act. The National Party, when it was in Government, had neither the guts nor the intelligence to debate important legislation in this House and the history of the Drugs Misuse Act is a prime example of its style of Government. In stark contrast, this Labor Government has allowed free speech in this Chamber on this and all other legislation. It is right that the history of this legislation be aired in this House tonight because it truly is an historic occasion that a Bill for which debate has been gagged so many times can finally be the subject of free speech. It is also historic that this draconian, tenacious piece of left-over legislation from the Bjelke- Petersen era should finally be amended by this enlightened Labor Government, which the Queensland people have seen fit to place on the Treasury benches. I support the Bill. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (9.43 p.m.): It has been an interesting debate tonight. It is always interesting to listen to the Rumpoles on the Government side engage in one-upmanship debating battles. They must have very interesting party meetings. Much of what needs to be said about this legislation has already been said and I intend merely to home in on one aspect of it, that is, judicial discretion. I feel that sometimes judicial discretion is not exercised in accordance with the feelings of the general public. Mr Beattie said that no-one in this Chamber doubted the credibility of the members of the judiciary—and I am sure that no-one does—but my concern is based on the insulation, isolation and remoteness of judges from the average person. In the last month there was a very good example of that when a judge would not allow women to serve on a jury. That is not in line with the thinking of the average person and is certainly not in line with my thinking. Mandatory sentencing provisions keep judges on the track. In my research I found a very interesting article in the Age titled "Fixing a just penalty". I quote briefly from it— "In Victoria, the maximum penalty for armed robbery is 25 years in jail. But during a recent survey of penalties meted out by the courts, the median sentence imposed"— and for the benefit of the honourable member for Port Curtis, that means the average penalty imposed— "on armed robbers was six years. Most will probably spend much less than six years in jail, thanks to prison overcrowding." I also have a table showing various offences and the gaol terms dispensed by the Victorian Supreme Court in the mid-1980s. In that State the maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is 15 years, but the average penalty handed down was 6 years, which is only 40 per cent of the maximum sentence. The maximum penalty for aggravated rape is 20 years' imprisonment, but the median penalty imposed was only six years' imprisonment, which is only 30 per cent. For ordinary rape—let us face it, this is a crime against women only—the median sentence was only 50 per cent of the maximum sentence, which was 10 years, so that the penalty was, in effect, five years' imprisonment. For wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the maximum term is 15 years. The offender usually received a sentence of five years, which is only 33 per cent of the maximum sentence. For the "small" crime of sexual penetration of a child under 10 years of age, a small penalty was imposed. The maximum penalty was 20 years' imprisonment but Legislative Assembly 1388 10 May 1990 most offenders received sentences of only three years, which is an absolute and utter disgrace. Only 15 per cent of the maximum sentence was imposed by judges in Victoria for that crime. Honourable members would well understand the disquiet that I feel when judges do that type of thing. Culpable driving is also obviously an offence that judges consider not to be a serious crime. The maximum sentence is seven years, but the median sentence imposed was only three years. It is important that concern felt about judges' discretion not always being in line with public thinking is expressed. For those of us who construe punishment to include not only rehabilitation but also imprisonment, this survey confirms that the views of the court are lenient. The study also shows that none of the offences mentioned attracted more than 50 per cent of the maximum sentence and that most attracted median sentences that were a third of the maximum sentence. With time-off for good behaviour and other remissions, people are released from gaol much sooner than the average citizen thinks they should be. The article also states— "It appears judges have been using their discretionary powers to establish informally a new penalty scale." This new penalty scale is being established along the lines of sentences that the judges feel are right and with which judges think society concurs. I simply state that I do not agree with that point of view. I do not agree with light penalties being imposed for the types of offences I have referred to, or for any crimes involving drugs. I regard imprisonment as the most severe form of punishment that society can mete out and I believe very much in the principle of the punishment fitting the crime. Earlier tonight mention was made of parental concern. As a parent of three adult children, I, too, am concerned. I believe that parents heave a sigh of relief as their children reach the stage when, at 25 or 26 years of age, they are somewhat removed from the dangers associated with drugs. While children are going through high school, parents who take an interest in their children encounter hair-raising experiences. My concern is that if a penalty is left to a judge who can exercise discretion, it will not be as severe as I and many members of the general public feel that it should be. Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (9.49 p.m.): I rise to oppose the amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act. I say that drug abuse in our society is one of the most important issues facing Governments today. It is an issue that must be addressed at all levels of society. By that I mean that it must be addressed by parental guidance, education in schools and Government legislation. I refer to the Fitzgerald inquiry and the 240- page report which devoted only half a page to the problem of drugs. I repeat that that report contained only half a page of discussion on the attack that is made on society by drug-trafficking. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that this Parliament should come up with a system that is fair and just. The system does not have to be fair. If the laws of the land are broken, the judges have to impose sentences in accordance with the penalties prescribed by legislation. That is a just system. Offenders should be locked up and the key should be thrown away. The judges have to say, "That is the law of the land, and that's all there is to it." In my view, if a person breaks the laws of the land, they are gone. They deserve to be punished. I listened to the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, who is a very learned gentleman. He must be his optometrist's best customer. Never before have I seen anyone who removes and replaces his glasses so many times over such a short period. Mr Mackenroth: Show us how he does it. Mr VEIVERS: I would like to, but I have only one pair of glasses. The member for Yeronga said that under clause 6 (a), it is an offence for a person who may be, for example, 13 years old, to take a pinch of cocaine and give it to his brother. Legislative Assembly 1389 10 May 1990

Mrs Woodgate: Eighteen and 16 it was. Mr VEIVERS: I remind the honourable member that this is my turn to speak. I am telling the honourable member that the laws of the land regard that as the starting point. The example given was that when a person takes the first pinch and gives it to somebody else, he is on his way to a mandatory life sentence. Mr Foley: Quite so. Mr VEIVERS: The member for Yeronga has had his turn. I listened to him, and now he should listen to me. Mrs Woodgate: How do you know? Mr VEIVERS: I invite the honourable member to come down to the Gold Coast and have a look at the effects of the new synthetic crack that is circulating down there. With that stuff, people do not get three or four chances; they get only one chance. People have a good bash at it and then their minds go. I expect that a member of the Labor Party will say, "Well, I've had a bit but I am still here", but I seriously inform honourable members that that drug attacks the mind and people who take it are not worth two bob. The member for Yeronga will note that I have taken off my glasses. I hope that I, too, look learned. Mr Gilmore said that in 1966 he was in America. At that time I was doing battle against the poms at the Sydney Cricket Ground, but he was lucky enough to be on a holiday. However, I go along with what my colleague has said. He drew attention to the way in which drug abuse has increased in America and has undermined American society. The problem also exists in Australia. I must stress that drug abuse is the greatest problem faced by Australian society today. In my opinion, a great deal of the responsibility for the prevention of drug abuse rests with parents, and I will take a few moments to refer to that matter. It is a sad fact that today there is a growing attitude amongst parents, whether they be married or single, that someone else should take the blame for their children's failures, misdemeanours or crimes—and drug-taking. There seem to be many people in our society today who treat their children the same way as they treat their pets. After playing with them for a year or two, the novelty wears off and they lose interest. Because of neglect and disinterest in them, those children go and do what they like. When the parents suddenly find their offspring before the courts—that is Mr Foley's area—they feel that both they and their children have been badly done by. They put up all sorts of excuses about peer pressure and social pressure and generally try to blame everyone but themselves for the shortcomings of their children. In actual fact, the problem gets right down to a lack of discipline. The children, through their clever lawyers—that is Mr Foley again—who are funded by the public purse, are quick to blame the lack of parental supervision for their sins, and they have been getting away with it. Their own responsibility is somehow said to be diminished. Those sorts of attitudes are growing because of the soft approaches by the law in many areas such as towards vandalism, theft, offences against the person—and drug misuse. All sorts of mitigation is being accepted for wrong-doings. Those people appearing before the courts are being let off with a smack on the wrist. I will not make any reference to anybody on the other side of the House about wrists. The Federal Government is making it even easier. Mr D'Arcy: Are you in favour of corporal punishment? Mr VEIVERS: Speaking of drugs—Mr D'Arcy is in the Chamber. It is good to see him here. So far as education is concerned—it is all very well for our educators to mouth platitudes about young people, about the dangers of drug misuse and about its harmful effects on the body and the mind. It could be said that the member for Mount Gravatt Legislative Assembly 1390 10 May 1990 has suffered similar effects. However, that is like telling little Johnny not to stick peas up his nose. What Johnny and Mary need to be told, and told very forcefully, is that, if they mess about with drugs, they will be subjected to very strong penal sanctions. They should be told that they will be locked up. It is all part of discipline. Education on drug misuse—use, as well as trafficking—should include specific reference to the penalties that the law imposes for the various aspects of this reprehensible activity. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I was surprised at the soft approach by the member for Brisbane Central. He has two or three beautiful young children and a lovely wife, yet he is going soft on drugs. Because of his softness, when his children reach the age of 18, they will have a tough time. It is sad, but it is a fact of life. Therefore, Governments have a tremendous responsibility to provide through legislation direction to discourage the use and promotion of drugs. Mr Prest: Who wrote this? Mr VEIVERS: It is a pity that we do not have retrospective legislation for abortion on demand. If we did, the member for Port Curtis would not be here. The people who have found themselves in power by default in Queensland—that is, Government members—do not seem to share my view at all. The Labor Government's attempt to soften the penalties for drug-traffickers is an indication of its attitude to drugs in general. Government members interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I will not be rude and say that they are a bunch of pot-smokers. Labor does not seem to care how much the drug trade grows in the community, so long as it appeases the lunatic fringe on the Left—the so-called civil libertarian groups of long-haired pot-smokers and mainliners. Labor also panders to the thinking of social drop-outs such as the Democrats. The other day, a report in a daily paper caught my eye. It was indicative of the sort of attitude that the Democrats are attempting to impose on the rest of society. The Democrats are friends of the Labor Party and got the Federal Labor Government into power. They are Bob Hawke's mates. Mr Beattie: You are trying to impress the selectors for the State of Origin. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member should listen. He has had his chance. The report in the paper quoted a Democrat member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, Richard Jones—very aptly named Richard—who was expressing displeasure at police action in the Lismore area against marijuana-users. Mr Jones was quoted as saying— "The treatment of the many thousands of long-time marijuana smokers . . . is just another form of suppression of a group of people with different customs." Different customs! Here we have a person who is condoning illegal behaviour—not only condoning it, but encouraging it and attempting to protect it. While the poor police—there are some upstairs in the gallery—have to go and catch those fools, Government members want to go soft on them and let them out of gaol. I can't believe it! If Mr Jones were supporting the actions of a group of Satan-worshippers who practised human sacrifice as a matter of custom, he would be taken to task. Mr Beattie: Oh, Satan-worshippers! Legislative Assembly 1391 10 May 1990

Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member laughs, but Mr Jones would merely be taken to task. However, illegal drug-taking—and, no doubt, drug-trading in the area—appears to be something which Mr Jones finds morally justifiable. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr VEIVERS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I need protection here. It is frightening to think that there are people with this sort of attitude to law and order such as Richard Jones, who is sitting in the Upper House of the Parliament of New South Wales. It is mind- boggling. It is even more frightening that the new Government of this State is bent on adopting the same practice. Mr Ardill: Why don't you be serious about it? Mr VEIVERS: Oh, it is the bottlebrush man. I am serious. Instead of looking to root out the drug-pushers, to hit them with the hardest penalties imaginable, and to discourage them from plying their dirty trade, the Government of this State intends to soften the penalties for drug-trafficking. The majority of Queenslanders will be outraged by that idea. If the question were to be put to a referendum, the number in favour of harsher penalties would be overwhelming. However, it seems that the Labor Party only has an ear for the minority of ratbags who want to reduce society to their own level of a drug-induced stupor. The member for Port Curtis immediately comes to mind. In all the pre-election propaganda, Labor continually denied that it would adopt a soft stand on drugs. It repeatedly claimed that it had no intention of going soft on drugs. However, as soon as Labor got into office, it gave notice that it was going to go soft in regard to penalties. It is just six months down the track and the legislative wheels are in motion. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that members of the Labor Party are pretty slow in motion, but they are in motion. The attitude of Labor at all levels to the drug issue is totally immoral. Ms Spence typified the underlying philosophy of Labor, that is, that drug use can somehow be excused and that in most cases it is really only a bit of youthful exuberance. Drugs are a cancer which is eating away at the fibre of our society. It is costing the community vast sums of money, both directly and indirectly. Yet we are supposed to feel some sort of compassion for these drug-takers. Certain woolly headed people even refer to them as victims—— Mr Ardill: You are right. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member is a fool. I do not recall ever putting a gun to the heads of these junkies and telling them that they must smoke pot or must inject themselves with heroin. They do it of their own free will, aided and abetted by the people who peddle the stuff for profit. Victims, my foot! Mr Ardill interjected. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member is not worth listening to. Drug-taking and drug-trafficking are criminal activities. If the people involved insist on continuing these activities, they must expect to feel the wrath of the law. We are not going to come to grips with the drug problem by doing what this Government wants to do, that is by watering down the penalties for trafficking. Mr Ardill: The penalty didn't work, did it? Legislative Assembly 1392 10 May 1990

Mr VEIVERS: I repeat that what we should be looking at doing is increasing the sanctions against all aspects of drugs—against users as well as traffickers. I must repeat that I am very disappointed—— Mr Ardill interjected. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member should just listen. As I was about to say, I was totally disappointed with the result of the Fitzgerald inquiry in regard to drugs. Half a page in 240 pages devoted to the matter of drugs! It is unbelievable! What the Government should be doing is increasing sanctions against these traffickers, not lessening them. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.03 p.m.), in reply: The arguments used by members of the National Party in this debate—and this is the third time that I have heard them in this Chamber—are very emotive ones. There is no doubt about that. The member who just resumed his seat referred to the Government as pandering to radical ratbags in introducing these amendments. Is the honourable member referring to people such as the editor of the Courier-Mail, the Queensland Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society, the Council for Civil Liberties, the President of the Queensland Bar Association, Mr Ian Callinan, Mr Justice Dowsett, the Second International Criminal Law Congress, the Public Defender, Sir Dormer Andrews, Mr Justice Macrossan, Mr Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Derrington as the radical ratbags that the Government is pandering to? All of those people or bodies called on the previous Government to amend the mandatory life provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act. So it is not a case of pandering to radical ratbags, it is a case of listening to what very responsible people in our society are saying and responding to that. In 1986 the Labor Party opposed the mandatory life provisions. It opposed them in 1989 when further amendments were introduced to the Drugs Misuse Act. Naturally, on attaining Government Labor has taken action to remove those provisions. I have stated quite clearly that that is not the way to do something about the drug problem in Queensland. Emotive arguments have been used by the National Party over many, many years in relation to drugs. The people of Queensland simply no longer believe them. They know that the National Party did nothing about the drug problem. This Government has done something about the drug problem. The Opposition can continue to say that the Government is soft on drugs. However, the people of Queensland will no longer believe that because they will see that the actions of this Government prove that the National Party line that Labor is soft on drugs is just untrue. The actions that this Government has taken in relation to increasing the strength of the Drug Squad and providing it with resources that it was starved of for many, many years, will prove that this Government is concerned about the drug problem and is doing something about it. The emotive arguments that I have heard in this Chamber tonight, the ones that I heard in 1989 and in 1986, do not wash at all with me. Members of the Opposition simply cannot stand up and say, "We have imposed mandatory life sentences, so we are the toughest in Australia. We are doing more than anybody else." All the National Party did was introduce a law that never worked, a law that did not do one thing to take one drug off the streets of Queensland. There is no proof whatsoever that the drug trade in Queensland abated in any way as a result of the legislation that was introduced into this Parliament in 1986 by the National Party Government. I expected the arguments that I heard tonight. I knew that they would be no different from the ones that I have heard before, and I am certain that they will be no different from the ones that I will hear in the future. I think members of the Opposition have shown by their actions that they are very slow to learn from the mistakes of the past. Legislative Assembly 1393 10 May 1990

I thank the members of my own party for their support for this legislation and for the arguments that they put up, which are certainly sound and reasonable, and which are the reason why this legislation should be supported by all members. I thank members of the Liberal Party for their support for the legislation. I understand that the Leader of the Liberal Party indicated that he would move some amendments. I think his words were that he was not really sure what they would be or how they would work. He said that he did not know how they would fit into this legislation, or something along those lines. Mr Innes: I said it is impossible to make the reforms I would like to the whole system of sentencing, so you have to play with what you get. Mr MACKENROTH: All right. If the member wishes to move amendments not only now but in the future, it would be advisable if other honourable members were given reasonable notice of them. As to other legislation that has been put through this Parliament—I believe that I have indicated that I am prepared to consider amendments. However, members make it difficult when they move amendments at the Committee stage and expect them to be considered. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58 NOES, 23 DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dispatch of Memorandum to Chairman of Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.17 p.m.), by leave: It has come to my attention that a memorandum from one of my personal staff was sent in error to the Chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, Mr Tom Sherman. Legislative Assembly 1394 10 May 1990

The memorandum in question was distributed to all subdepartments which fall under my jurisdiction. My research officer is currently compiling a report for me on the progress of each subdepartment in pursuing the policies of the Government. The memo seeks details of action that has been taken, or is being considered, to achieve those goals. I shall table that memorandum and some accompanying letters. Unfortunately, that memo was incorrectly and inadvertently sent to the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, chaired by Mr Sherman. Of course, EARC is an independent statutory commission, answerable under the Electoral and Administrative Review Act to this Parliament. This Government is firmly committed to the independence of EARC. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for this unintended mistake and any misunderstanding it may have caused for the commission. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. SUGAR EXPERIMENT STATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 March (see p. 471). Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (10.18 p.m.): I rise tonight in this debate, not being sure how late we will be sitting. The order of things seems to be somewhat out of kilter. A number of most important factors need to be taken into consideration in this debate. Although the Opposition certainly supports the intent of the Bill, it has a number of reservations and concerns. I think that they should be brought not only before this House but also before the cane-growers and millers of this State who are involved in this very, very important area of the sugar industry. The role of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations ranges across the full spectrum of the industry in this State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! Will honourable members please resume their seats? Mr STONEMAN: As I was saying, the sugar experiment stations bring together a great deal of expertise and serve the whole range of the industry throughout the State. The previous Minister, the Honourable Neville Harper, gave an undertaking to expand the Sugar Experiment Stations Board. To put that into effect in a practical sense, he appointed immediately two members. As we are well aware, this Bill formalises those members' positions on the board. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. I cannot hear the honourable member who is on his feet. Mr STONEMAN: This amendment formalises the appointment of those two additional members whom my colleague the Honourable Neville Harper agreed to appoint some considerable time ago. The enlargement of the board is not only reasonable but also very justifiable. Under those terms, the Opposition supports the Government in its introduction of this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to the former board members for the service that they have given to the industry over the years, and also to the continuing members. I pay tribute to Mr Jim Pedersen, who recently replaced Mr Nev Churchward as the grower member on the old board. Mr Pedersen is well known in the industry throughout the State, particularly in the Mackay area and at the Plane Creek mill, for which he is a supplier. The other board member from the industry per se is Mr Graham Patch, who is a miller representative from the cooperative mill at Tully. He is very well known and highly respected throughout the State. As I said, the former Minister, Mr Neville Harper, agreed to the addition of two members to the board. They have now served on the board in an advisory capacity for Legislative Assembly 1395 10 May 1990 some 12 or 18 months, sitting in at all meetings and playing a full and active role. But their presence on the board needs to be formalised. As I have said, the Opposition supports that formalisation. During the past 12 or 18 months, the two members who served in that advisory capacity were Mr John King of the Marian mill at Mackay and Mr Joe Bugeja, who is well known as a farmer throughout the cane-growing industry but is particularly well known in the Burdekin district as a farmer and as a member of the cane-growers executive. I believe that it is reasonable that the board membership of those men be formalised. Tonight that process will take place. However, I have a number of major concerns about the Bill. One wonders whether or not the Minister understands the implications of the amendments that he is proposing. I believe also that it is necessary that this House understands that the processes of consultation have been non-existent. It has been extremely interesting for me to communicate with the various components of the sugar industry and to discover that the amendments that have been introduced were given to them only when I faxed a copy to the Queensland Cane Growers Council. That is the first that they knew of the wording or intent of this amending Bill. Mr Casey is a great one for denigrating people. I well remember the occasion when he was quite critical of the fact that I commenced to read the wrong speech for the first Bill I introduced into this House. Anyone can make a mistake. I remind honourable members that for the first time in 47 years this State has as its Minister for Primary Industries a man who has no association and, I say with conviction, no understanding of any of the primary industries he represents. A Government member: More than you mob ever did. Mr STONEMAN: It is reasonable that the Minister's colleague should support him. The fact is that this State has a Minister who is responsible for the huge industries that form the primary industries portfolio. The sugar industry is a major component of not only the economy of this State but also the whole nation. It is responsible for a huge amount of job production and industry-generated manufacturing throughout this State and nation. There are countless thousands of tractors and machines manufactured for the sugar industry. New manufacturing industries have been created, such as the manufacture of cane-harvesters, and that requires a great deal of support from the Government. Over the years, that support has certainly been provided. For this Minister to condemn the previous Ministers for Primary Industries—two of whom are in the House, namely, the Honourable Neville Harper and I—and the previous Government for not bringing this Bill forward at an earlier stage underlines his lack of knowledge and capacity to come to grips with the matter. I wonder what the people of western Queensland, particularly the pastoralists in the grazing industry who are now at the will and whim of this Government, are going to say when old "blowfly" Ed visits their region? He is a man who is critical of everyone. Yesterday, the Minister made a statement to the House. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the Minister believes that one can overcome a blowfly strike by drenching sheep. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is speaking on a Bill concerning sugar experiment stations and I believe that blowflies do not have anything to do with the Bill. As it is a wide- ranging debate, I leave the matter to the honourable member. Mr STONEMAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I defer to your comments, but may I say that I was protecting myself. The Minister was interjecting and bringing into question the fitness of the previous Government and its Ministers to administer the Act. I suggest that it is quite reasonable to raise the point that the Minister does not know what he is talking about. Legislative Assembly 1396 10 May 1990

I will raise the blowfly matter. That statement will appear on the records of this State and it will be a matter for ridicule for many years to come. I point out to Mr Casey that people in glass houses should not throw stones. The Minister was very quick to interject and to heap scorn on me in this House for a mistake, and was allowed to proceed with that interjection. He has made a mistake because he does not understand the industry he was talking about. That is fair enough, but, as I said, I believe that people in glass houses should not throw stones—least of all the Minister who has had no contact whatsoever with his area of responsibility. He is the first Minister for Primary Industries for 47 years to have no personal understanding of or background to his portfolio. It is to be expected that he will make mistakes, but he should not denigrate others for so doing. Honourable members should look at the background to this Bill. Originally, the Honourable Neville Harper and I introduced legislation to expand the board. In the process of developing that expansion, it became apparent that there was a need for further study to understand the implications of that expansion and whether or not certain procedures inherent in the Sugar Experiment Stations Act at its inception should also be examined. I understand that the Minister has rationalised some of those changes and may have even pre- empted the findings of the working party that he set up to consider industry restructuring. I believe that is another subject which is relevant and one to which I might refer later. In coming to the conclusion that this legislation need not be rushed through the House until certain areas were examined to reflect the whole of the sugar industry, it was obvious that there was no real need to bustle the Bill through. I can inform the House and the sugar industry that I believe that no-one has suffered because this Bill has not come forward until this time. Because funds cannot be taken out of board expenses, the Queensland Cane Growers Council and the Australian Sugar Milling Council have had to pay the travel costs of those members whose appointments have not yet been formalised. That has been a minor problem. I appreciate their cooperation, particularly with the previous administration. However, first and foremost, one needs to understand that it is the responsibility of the board of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations to serve the industry. The additional members have been sitting alongside the full-time members and have been able to participate in the discussions. My understanding is that there is never any need for a formal vote to be taken because a consensus is always reached. Although Mr Bugeja and Mr King were understandably keen to become full-time members of the board, they were at least able to assist the industry to progress. I commend them and their organisations for the support that they have given. I find it difficult to come to grips with the fact that the Minister is changing the whole intent of the legislation. The addition to the board of one milling and one growing representative does not require the extensive amendments that the Minister is introducing without discussing their implications with the organisations involved. The Minister, in taking this action, is being nothing more than contemptuous of those organisations, particularly as the board understood that there would be other implications. The Bill provides that the Minister can nominate the approved organisations from which the additional membership will come. The present legislation clearly defines the organisations from which nominations can come. One comes from the Australian Sugar Milling Council and one comes from the Queensland Cane Growers Council, which is a statutory organisation. Therefore every grower has to be a member of it. The National Party Government has always supported that process and has historically supported all of the structures of the industry. That has been the basis upon which the sugar industry has flourished. It is probably the only industry that has such stringent controls over board membership and production. Legislative Assembly 1397 10 May 1990

Under this legislation, this new Minister is saying, "I want to give myself the power to approve who is a grower, who is a miller, and from which organisation the members of the board will come." It could be any mickey mouse organisation established at any time in the future. I am sure that the present Minister is honourable and means what he has said. He has assured the milling and growing organisations all over the State that he will honour his undertaking to renominate the present members of the board. But what happens following a change of Minister? The law is the law, and it dictates that the Minister of the day may approve the organisations and select members from them. He could approve any organisation he likes. There are no constraints on him other than the fact that the organisation must be connected with the sugar industry. A small, break-away milling organisation could fall into favour with the Minister of the day and he could approve it and appoint its nominee to the board. In addition, he could move away from the established practice that has served this State and industry so well for the last 75 years and approve a mickey mouse organisation which has only a few members and appoint its nominee to the board. There is no way that that could not happen under this legislation. The Minister is giving himself the power to approve an organisation. The only stipulation is that it be an approved grower organisation and an approved miller organisation. That is not acceptable to the Opposition, and it is not acceptable to the vast majority of millers and growers in this State. The fact that they are not making a song and dance about it is immaterial. The way that the Minister proposes to open up this legislation is irresponsible. The Minister might claim that he does not know what will happen in the future; no-one knows that. But, in the future, the Minister could bring this legislation back before the House and make any amendment he likes. At the moment he is simply saying that he does not know what will happen in the future, so he will make it high, wide and handsome. To the industry, that is quite unreasonable. The farmers who have operated in the security of this industry must be wondering what will happen to the peaks, assignments, acquisition and all of the other things if this Government is going to continue to bring forward loose arrangements without any consultation. The Minister must admit that there has been no consultation. If he wishes to claim otherwise, I will be interested to hear him. The changes in this industry over the years have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. We are living in volatile times. This industry has been supported by the National Party down through the years and it will continue to be supported by the National Party. For the short time that we will be in Opposition we will fight tooth and nail against the way that this Government is seeking to destroy primary industry in this State. It is interesting to note that the other destroyer of confidence, the Minister for Land Management, is sitting next to the Minister for Primary Industries. People throughout the length and breadth of this State are wondering what the heck is going on with the freezing of land tenure, which affects the sugar industry. Not one person with any knowledge whatsoever of the practicalities of the operation of the pastoral industry in this State is sitting on that review board. That affects confidence in the sugar industry, pastoral industry, and primary industries generally. This ham-fisted approach is sending out a signal about the structuring of this Sugar Experiment Stations Act Amendment Bill. The Act is being opened up to such a degree that it is almost incomprehensible, which is reflected in other amendments affecting graziers, cane- farmers and even the little guy out there on the street who does not happen to be a farmer. The Opposition has a long way to go on this legislation. Under the terms proposed by the National Party prior to the last election, there was to be a process of increasing the involvement of practical people in the day-to-day operations of the Department of Primary Industries and of the administration of primary industries generally, thereby serving industries right across the board more effectively Legislative Assembly 1398 10 May 1990 than in the past. That is not to say that down the years primary industries have not been particularly well serviced by previous Ministers and administrations of the National Party Government and those prior to that coalition Government. I wish to remind honourable members and the Minister that it was my intention to overcome the anomalous situation that has arisen through this outlandish drafting and to put in the department people with day-to-day, hands-on involvement and knowledge of the industry. I know that Mr Casey has some wonderful officers and I pay tribute to the thousands of men and women within the Department of Primary Industries who work in close liaison with organisations and parallel groups, such as the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. I pay tribute to the work, support and unstinting dedication of all of those officers, from the heads of department down to the divisional heads, the liaison officers and the groups of people out in the field, such as those in my own electorate, in Mareeba and the western areas throughout the State. I am sure that the Honourable Neville Harper would agree that the way in which they have applied themselves to their tasks over the years has been over, above and beyond the call of duty. It is still reasonable to say that improvements can be made. It was my belief that the liaison processes needed to be fine tuned. To that end I had proposed—and the National Party Government had accepted as a part of its policy going into the election—that there be a small secretariat established within the Department of Primary Industries so that the necessary advice to overcome the glitches in this legislation could be given. The correct message must be sent out to the industry and the glitches in the legislation must be overcome. That secretariat was to have few personnel but, above all, it was to have a practical knowledge of what the day-to-day problems, concerns and beliefs of the industry were. It was to be a bridge-building exercise to bridge the gap of understanding that has been blown wide open by Mr Casey's contempt for those organisations displayed by his refusal to have consultations. Instead of appointing an inquiry to pick up the good work done by the Commonwealth—but nevertheless work that could have been done more effectively and efficiently through the means that I proposed—a ministerial sugar industry body or advisory committee was to be set up. Mr Casey: What's this got to do with BSES? That's what you are supposed to be talking about. Mr STONEMAN: That is exactly what I am talking about. The problems in this legislation are created by a lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of how the industry operates. The Minister does not realise what he has done, and I suppose we must feel sorry for him. Most of all, we must feel sorry for the industry, which, under the terms of this legislation is at risk. If a secretariat and a ministerial advisory committee had been set up, these matters would have been thrashed out before they came into this House. There would be understanding. There would be a consultative forum which would have brought all the people together so that the implications and concerns could be discussed, and people could put their points of view, rather than the Minister coming to this House and steamrolling legislation through by again using his numbers. The Government has the numbers and, unless common sense prevails, the Minister will not pick up these points. If he is genuine in his expressed concerns and wishes to support the industry, he will pick up the suggestions that I have made. So far, the indications are that that is not the case. It must be understood that a very powerful principle is at stake here. It indicates that the Minister is not prepared to consult, nor is he prepared to concede that he does not understand the implications of what he is doing. Queensland has a statutory body called the Queensland Cane Growers Council, of which every cane-grower is a paying member. That organisation is the shopfront of the growers of this State. However, under this amendment, that organisation's designation has been removed from the Act and those whom it represents are mixed in with all the other organisations. I do not mean to depreciate the role, validity or basis of the existence of the Australian Cane Farmers Association, another group altogether. That is Legislative Assembly 1399 10 May 1990 a voluntary group of cane-farmers who are able to operate under their own terms and conditions. In fact, I applaud the constant statements I hear made that that organisation will amalgamate with the Queensland Cane Growers Council. I would like that to happen, because one body is far more effective. Far too often there have been competing bodies in primary industries which at the end of the day have not really acted effectively. I hope that in the not-too-distant future there will be a coming together of voluntary and statutory organisations. After all, every cane-grower who is a member of a voluntary organisation is first and foremost also a member of the statutory body. Is the Minister saying that the statutory body no longer is sufficiently accountable, that it does not represent the cane-growers of this State and that reference to it should be struck from the statute-book? That is what the Minister will achieve with this legislation. Let the thousands of cane-farmers in this State be aware that Mr Casey has written their organisation out of this legislation. The effect of this legislation is that if the Minister so decides, the Queensland Cane Growers Council will be written out of the operation of the Sugar Experiment Stations Act. I am sure that the Minister is genuine and that he will proceed with formalisation of the appointment of John King and Joe Bugaja to the board as nominees of the Australian Sugar Milling Council Pty Ltd and the Queensland Cane Growers Council. Mr Casey: What are you arguing about then? Mr STONEMAN: I point out to the Minister that tonight members of Parliament are making a law—that is what we are doing here—and we are not enshrining in that law a commitment to the appointment of industry representatives. The Minister's statements will not become part of the law. I have no doubt that he will stand up and say, "I will give the commitment again. I do not know what the honourable member for Burdekin is talking about." I can visualise the Minister's doing that. He will also tell me about the speeches that he has made at such-and-such a council and such-and-such a forum, but the fact will remain that when the legislation is proclaimed, it will do exactly what I have said it will do, that is, delete any reference to the statutory organisation that is representative of the growers involved in the sugar industry in this State. This amendment will strike from the Sugar Experiment Stations Act reference to the cane-growers council. I credit the Minister with having the fortitude, intelligence and integrity to change his mind and include reference to the council in this legislation. I will listen to his reply with interest and note whether or not he recognises the Queensland Cane Growers Council, thereby maintaining 75 years of recognition that has been instrumental in allowing the sugar industry to continue along an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, path. Mr Casey: You disappoint me. I thought you were finished. Mr STONEMAN: The Minister will have to wait a little longer. Discussion on this legislation constitutes a learning curve for the Minister. He will probably find out a little bit of information about the sugar industry, and I will be delighted to teach him. When the Parliament discusses legislation relating to the pastoral industry, I will be able to refer to Hansard and discuss similar issues again. By that time, perhaps the Minister will have realised that problems will be caused when there is a lack of industry representation. As I said earlier, after throwing stones, it is difficult to reverse the action and get them back again. The Sugar Experiment Stations Act supports the sugar industry at the base level right throughout this State. A remarkable range of activities that has come to the attention of the world is carried on by those organisations. The station located south of Cairns has a remarkable plant-breeding process that has been developed under unique and innovative conditions. The procedures have evolved from practical knowledge gained by sugar experiment station staff and have been supported by the board. Each sugar Legislative Assembly 1400 10 May 1990 experiment station area has developed its own expertise, and the industry as a whole benefits. Over the years, a number of people have not been able to operate within the structure of the sugar experiment stations. As a result, the sugar industry has lost a considerable number of personnel. That disappoints everyone involved in the industry and certainly gave previous Primary Industries Ministers—including me, Mr Harper and Mr Turner—cause for concern. Under those circumstances, it was considered that, prior to the introduction of amendments to the legislation, a more detailed review should be carried out to find out the type of support needed by sugar experiment station boards. I point out that the Government's contribution to the operating costs of sugar experiment stations is less than $1m out of a total annual cost of $10m. In spite of that, the Minister and the Government of the day have control of the organisation. The Minister is chairman of the board. I do not know how often the present Minister will be able to attend board meetings, but I do know the scope of his portfolio and his involvement in many other organisations will probably make it impossible for him to chair a meeting. If the Minister does manage to chair a meeting, he will probably only do so in a token sense. Previous Ministers found that to be the case. When I was Minister for Primary Industries, I had come to the conclusion that the Minister should be removed from the position of chairman of the board. I believed, however, that the department should retain nominal membership. I point out that the Minister has final responsibility for the activities of the board and oversights all of the activities that the board undertakes in fulfilling its statutory obligations. The Minister will probably only be able to chair meetings spasmodically, but he will still nominally hold a position that he does not fulfil. Quite frankly, I think that is unreasonable. In bringing forward this amending legislation, that was a matter that should have been carefully addressed. The Minister says that he is trying to act expeditiously and is trying to take action that the previous Government would not take. He also says that he is aware of what is happening in the industry. I would like him to justify his retention of chairmanship of the board, bearing in mind that the Minister is an ex officio member and that a nominee of the Minister will also be a member. The present Minister has also brought forward an initiative of Mr Harper's—and I applaud him for doing so—by including appointment to the board of a member who has special qualifications. The Opposition has no objection to that. However, if the Minister casts a deciding vote, he will have total control over the operations of the board. Apart from all that, the Minister will be so busily involved in the totality of his department's activities that he will probably never get to go to a meeting, except in a token sense. The Sugar Experiment Stations Board is such a vital part of the industry that it should have a chairman who is able to carry forward from meeting to meeting the implementation of its policies. I am certain that my colleague Mr Harper would agree with me in that respect. The Minister needs to recognise why the former Government was considering a range of other amendments to this legislation. Mr Ardill: But you didn't do it. Mr STONEMAN: There is the wise old sage of the sugar industry from Salisbury. It is delightful to hear that another Government member is taking such an interest in the sugar industry. I wonder how many other Government members have any interest at all in the great sugar industry? Certainly, it is a great revenue-earner. When the next election comes round, Government members will rush to the sugar areas to wave the flag and talk about what it has achieved. At that time, will the Minister tell the cane-grower bodies that the Queensland Cane Growers Council will no longer be mentioned in this legislation? I do not intend to take up the time of the House. However, I point out that, when Mr Casey was in Opposition, regardless of the hour of the night, he would have used Legislative Assembly 1401 10 May 1990 up his allotted time castigating the Government and telling all sorts of unbelievable stories without equivocation. Yet tonight he attempts to tell me that I should not be arguing the case for the growers and the millers—the industry—who will be so affected by these amendments. The Bill strikes at the core of the principle of recognition of the statutory grower body in this State. At the moment, there is only one milling body. That may not always be the case. It could well be that, in time, there will be a break-away group or an individual. The law will prescribe that the Minister of the day nominates the representatives on the board. The Minister may not be Mr Casey; it probably will not be him. Following his outlandish statements yesterday and the passage of this Bill, he has a limited tenure. He has to account for a number of other things. Mr Casey has more expertise in the area of poker machines than he has in the area of the Sugar Experiment Stations Board. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The honourable member will confine his remarks to the Bill. Mr STONEMAN: I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Because the Minister is responsible for the sugar industry, it is reasonable to research his background and ascertain his knowledge. It is not realistic to just accept that he understands the sugar industry. I will not canvass all the other issues. If the Minister survives, there will be many other occasions on which I will be able to deal with those issues. I agree with my colleagues that it is entirely unlikely that he will survive. I will defer further comment until the Committee stage. The Opposition will be interested to see whether the Minister accepts the amendments that it proposes. The Minister is going to change the law, yet his statements in support of those changes have no basis in law. Not only will the Bill strike the millers and the growers by name from the Act; it will also set up a situation which will allow someone who is not connected with the organisation that originally nominated a board member to be appointed to the board. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the implications of the Bill. In his reply, I ask the Minister to inform me how he proposes to administer the clause that strikes out the requirement that a member who deputises for a full-time member need not come from the body from which the original appointment was made. The deputy could be that person's wife or the man in the moon. He could pick someone off the street. Mr Casey: It wouldn't be you; I know that. Mr STONEMAN: That is probably right. Mr Harper interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I was just coming to that. It could well be that additional departmental personnel will go on to the board. The board could become a total departmental operation. I challenge the Minister to prove to me that the proposed amendment to the Act will not allow that situation to develop. The Act states unequivocally that a deputy has to come from a similar organisation. He has to be a representative of either the cane-growers or the millers. The Minister is removing that provision. If a member of the board got a burr under his saddle and had a falling out with the organisation which he was representing, there is nothing in the Bill to stop him from proposing as his deputy Billy the black fellow, Joe Blow, his wife—anyone. He could pick a name out of the air and, after receiving the approval of the Governor in Council, that person could become his deputy on the board. As my colleague the Honourable Neville Harper said, it could be and probably would be someone from the department. That is not to diminish the role that the Legislative Assembly 1402 10 May 1990 department plays or to impugn the integrity of the people within the department. However, the fact is that the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations Board and the operations of the experiment station are largely—in fact very largely—financed and funded by the millers and the growers. Mr Harper: It belongs to the industry. Mr STONEMAN: It belongs to the industry; the honourable member is correct. Yet the Minister has introduced amending legislation that will allow control to be taken away from those people who own it. I do not believe that that is reasonable; the Opposition does not believe that it is reasonable. However, rather than continue to labour the point, I say that it is only fair that the Minister address that matter in his reply. I look forward with interest to hearing the basis upon which the Minister has rationalised these changes, why he has seen fit to strike the names of the cane-growers organisation and the milling council from the legislation, and why he has seen fit to open it up so that anyone can become a deputy without any relation to or contact with the original nominating body. As I have said, even that process has now been removed, so that if the Minister of the day—be it Mr Casey or anyone else—so desires, he can go out and approve any organisation. There are no guidelines for approval. The Minister can approve any organisation and then accept a nomination onto the board from that organisation because that nominee has been so approved by the Minister. I know that the Cane Growers Council and the components of that council throughout this State are not happy with that provision. I believe that because they are reasonable men and because they are prepared to give people a go, they are not making a song and dance. I am not sure whether that would be the case if the wider implications of this Bill were really known by the grassroots of the industry. That does cause me concern. It certainly concerns me that the Minister was prepared to move an amendment that had not been arrived at as a result of the consultative process, so that understanding was widespread. That was always a part of the cooperation that was achieved under the National Party administration, and it was going to be widened even further if the result at the last election had been different. The people of this State made a decision, and that is reasonable. The Government has changed. However, I do not believe that in changing the Government, the people believed that such situations would arise as honourable members are seeing tonight in this Chamber. I implore the Minister to give consideration to going back to the basic structure of identification of the members of the board so that the true reflection of the structure of the ownership of the experiment stations can be cemented in the legislation. I implore the Minister to do that. I also suggest very strongly that the Minister will be opening up a huge can of worms with this appointment of delegates to deputise for members. I will be very interested—as will the whole of the industry—to hear the rationale and the reasoning behind the Minister's introduction of this very important but seemingly minor amendment. I make the point again that it seems to be a minor amendment and has in fact been heralded by the Minister as a minor amendment, simply because it is putting in place something that the previous Minister, the Honourable Neville Harper, and I had given an undertaking to do. The Minister is hiding behind a veneer of respectability by saying, "We are just doing what you guys could not get around to doing." In fact, this changes the total principle of the Act. The veneer of respectability is given by formalising the appointment of those two very, very solid and good friends of the industry and of mine, Joe Bugeja and John King. I applaud the capacity that has been left in the legislation to provide for the appointment of someone with special qualifications. That is very necessary in this day and age. However, I say to the Minister that the industry and the Opposition are waiting to hear the rationalisation behind his introduction of this amending legislation. Legislative Assembly 1403 10 May 1990

I foreshadow that, subject to the attitude of the Minister in his reply, I will move amendments at the Committee stage. I will not table them at this stage. However, I do say that the Opposition finds it totally untenable that the names of those two organisations have been struck from the legislation. The Opposition cannot accept the fact that the structure of the board in relation to the deputy chairman can be so changed as to make it in no way able to define or reflect the wishes of the industry which, after all, makes the great financial contribution to this very necessary facet of sugar production in this State. Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell, adjourned. The House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. Legislative Assembly 1404 10 May 1990