Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2036 26 August 1987 Ways and Means

WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 1987

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under the Family and Youth Services Act 1987 Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1986 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Grammar Schools Act 1975-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 By-law under the Education Act 1964-1987 Statutes under the Griffith University Act 1971-1987 Ordinances under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1986 Reports— Queensland Conservatorium of Music for the year ended 31 December 1986 Brisbane College of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1986 Gold Coast College of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1986 Queensland Agricultural College for the year ended 31 December 1986 Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1986 Capricomia Institute of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1986.

SUPPLY

Constitution of Committee Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (2.33 p.m.): I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty." Motion agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

Constitution of Committee Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (2.34 p.m.): I move— "That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty." Motion agreed to. Ministerial Statement 26 August 1987 2037

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cairncross Dock Yard Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (2.35 p.m.), by leave: The Opposition spokesman on Maritime Services, Mr Bill D'Arcy, is a firm believer in that rather illogical nautical tradition—"never give up the sinking ship". Even when the water is lapping around his feet, he refuses to acknowledge the cold hard reality that the Caimcross Dock Yard is sinking further into debt. Mr Hinze: He is down at the dock now. Mr TENNI: Yes, that would be right. It is a good place for him. Yesterday in this House, Mr D'Arcy put together yet another fanciful story to explain why the tax-payers of this State should keep pouring money down the drain to support Caimcross Dock, which has lost $ 11.8m since December 1976. His reference to the fact that the dock had fallen victim to the so-called Bellevue syndrome was at least right in one respect. In common with the poor old Bellevue, Caimcross has suffered an extremely prolonged and destmctive process of white-anting at the hands of the painters and dockers. The long list of rorts, which I tabled in this House yesterday, would eat the profitability out of any enterprise. Is Mr D'Arcy's memory so bad that he forgets the fact that, as part of their industrial campaign for a shorter week and more pay, the painters and dockers left a BHP ship, the Iron Hunter, trapped in the dock for nearly three months in 1981? Whatever confidence and trast the ship-owners had in the repair unions at Caimcross at that time was certainly erased for ever by that particular incident. Is Mr D'Arcy's memory also so poor that he cannot recall the long and unsuccessful fight that the Port of Brisbane Authority has had in order to introduce even one sensible innovation—a mechanical sweeper to clean up the tonnes of refuse and dirt that gathers on the dock floor when ship hulls are cleaned? The painters and dockers still insist that the best method to use is the costly and traditional process of sweeping the dock floor with hand brooms. I can assure Mr D'Arcy that the State Govemment intends putting the broom through Caimcross, but not in the manner in which his union mates want this Govemment to do it. As late as yesterday I met with representatives of the Metal Trades Industry Association and gave them the firm assurance that I would welcome a private-enterprise submission to take over the ranning of the dock yard. If the Federal Government declines the right of first refusal, which is provided for in a joint State/Commonwealth agreement, this Govemment will, of course, also seek other expressions of interest. This makes absolute nonsense of Mr D'Arcy's claim that some secret deal has been strack to dispose of Caimcross. In regard to the equally absurd claim that the fleet of vessels using the Brisbane River will be left without repair facilities, quite clearly if there is sufficient work for a slipway to operate commercially, I have no doubt that Peters Ship Repairs or any other qualified repairer will seek to serve this market. The honourable member has made much of the report by consulting engineers, Macdonald Wagner, who were asked to report on the cost and work needed to make the dock caisson stmcturally sound for the next 10 years. Last month an inspection by that company indicated that some $30,000 to $40,000 could be spent at that time to rectify a particular fault in the caisson that had deteriorated faster than others. However, the company indicated that there was no guarantee that that expenditure would provide any further life for the caisson until the next inspection 2038 26 August 1987 Ministerial Statement in the next month or two. The $2m bill to give the caisson a 10-year life-span can simply not be justified in the light of the dock's heavy losses. It is my firm intention that, when expressions of interest are called, copies of the Macdonald Wagner report will be given to all genuinely interested parties. No ships have been legitimately tumed away from the dock, as was claimed by the honourable member. However, in faimess to ship-owners, once the decision was taken to close the dock, quotations submitted for new work were recalled and the owners were fully advised. The only firm booking in 1987-88 is still the Port of Brisbane Authority's own dredge, the Sir Thomas Hiley. Mr D'Arcy's reference to the many successful docks operating in Australia is as empty as the Caimcross order book. The New South Wales Labor Govemment poured millions of dollars in loans into the main competitor for Cairncross, the Newcastle State Dock Yard. No-one knows if those loans will ever be repaid, and the Labor Govemment has now been forced to look to private enterprise in fact to ran that dock yard. The Queensland Govemment has no intention of following that shining example of "good management" by pouring tax-payers' money down the drain to keep a loss- making venture afloat. The honourable member should be the last person to suggest that the decision to close Cairncross has not been carefully and fairly considered by the Port of Brisbane Authority.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Imposition of Bag Limits on Amateur Fishermen Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (2.40 p.m.), by leave: I am aware of agitation by amateur fishermen suggesting that I am about to impose bag limits of 10 fish per person and three fish per species. Mr Burns: You will be in a lot of trouble if you do, I'll give you the dram. Mr HARPER: I am aware that the honourable member has been circulating petitions seeking to have the Govemment not carry out this exercise. I am trying to assure the House that there has not been, nor is there, any intention to do so. So the honourable member can save his time. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is making a statement. Mr Burns: You have never taken any notice of the QCFO in your life. Mr HARPER: I suggest that the honourable member would more profitably devote his time to fishing rather than agitating the fishermen. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will continue. Mr HARPER: I take this opportunity to allay concem being incited in amateur fishermen. I have taken a number of measures to preserve Queensland's fisheries, and I do not intend to impose any additional restrictions on amateur fishermen at this time. The terms of the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1984 and the Fisheries Act 1976-1984 provide for the control and protection of the fish resources of Queensland. Authority does exist for the determination of protected species and for control of the taking of specified fish, either by size and/or number of such fish. Currently, bag limits operate in Queensland on barramundi (5), Australian bass (2) and spanner crabs (20). No female sand or mud crabs or egg-bearing spanner crabs are permitted to Questions Upon Notice 26 August 1987 2039 be taken. (Capacity exists in the legislation to prescribe bag Umits for any species of crab, black marUn or any species of fresh-water fish. On 9 July a bag limit for recreational fishermen of five barramundi was introduced into the Gulf of Carpentaria. This was identical to that which has appUed on the east coast of Queensland since June 1985. This bag limit was introduced because increased pressure had been placed on the barramundi fishery through illegal netting and activities in the river systems on the gulf and east coast and difficulties were occurring in enforcing a bag limit for only part of the State. Research has shown that the vast majority of genuine recreational fishermen are not disadvantaged by the limit on barramundi. It is correct that the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation reviewed a program to place bag limits on recreational fishermen of 10 fish per person. This proposal was under consideration by that organisation because of its concem that quantities of fish caught by a small number of recreational fishermen were entering the commercial trade either by legal avenues under section 35 of the Act or by illegal sales, by-passing the permit system. In contrast, strict management policies had been imposed on the commercial fishing sector in terms of the number of boats which are licensed to fish and the payment of significant annual licence fees. Although the Commercial Fishermen's Organisation has every right to put forward a point of view on behalf of its members, a decision in these matters rests with the Minister. Rumours that a bag limit would be imposed on fin species other than barramundi, Australian bass and the existing limit on spanner crabs are both mischievous and unfounded.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Construction of ICI Chlorine Plant at Lytton Mr BURNS asked the Minister for Industry and Technology— "With reference to his announcement that ICI will be given permission to build a chlorine plant on the site of the old quarantine station in the Lytton Electorate— (1) Was ICI originally offered a site in Lytton or did ICI approach the Govemment for that particular site? (2) Did ICI threaten it would not bring another industry to Queensland if refused a Lytton site? (3) When did the Queensland Govemment finalise the purchase of the quarantine station from the Commonwealth, what was the price and what was the total area purchased? (4) How much land at the quarantine station will be allocated to ICI, what price will ICI pay for this land or what deal did the Govemment give ICI? (5) Is the quarantine site subject to the Brisbane Town Plan and, if so, what is its zoning? (6) Will the Govemment remove this area of Govemment land from the provisions of the Brisbane Town Plan as it did in relation to the Lytton Industrial Estate and other Govemment industrial estates in the area? (7) In light of his statement that delays in making this decision has lost ICI $2m dollars and that ICI will save $875,000 a year as a result of this decision, how did ICI arrive at these figures? (8) Has there been any shortage of chlorine in Queensland whilst the Govemment pretended to allow locals to have a say? (9) Will chlorine be cheaper in Queensland as a result of the plant constraction? 2040 26 August 1987 Questions Upon Notice

(10) As his statement says that the local people had to be hurt in the interests of the whole State, what benefit will accrae to the whole State as a result of the siting of the chlorine plant at Lytton and not Karrabin?" Mr McKECHNIE: (1) When ICI Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd initially approached the Department of Industry Development (DID) in May 1986 about the establishment of a small caustic soda/chlorine plant for south-east Queensland, DID suggested a number of sites to the company, including the site originally considered on the Lytton industrial estate. Following the raling-out of this site by the Government, ICI was requested to consider altemative sites outside the Lytton area. The old quarantine station site was reserved in case the other sites proved unsuitable or uneconomic. (2) ICI pointed out that it had hoped for a decision earlier this year and that delays would cost the company money. In October last year, the Govemment had agreed to the constraction of the chlorine plant on the Lytton industrial estate if an impact assessment study proved the plant was safe by international standards. ICI was then subjected to further delays while an audit was conducted by the UK- based consultants, Cremer and Warner, on the original impact assessment study. It would be natural to conclude that, having gone through this lengthy process and being denied its original site, ICI's confidence in further investment in Queensland would be severely shaken if the Government then declined its application to build on the old quarantine station site when all other options had proved unsatisfactory. Not only would ICI's confidence in Queensland be shaken, but also other investors would feel the same way. Members should note that both the Confederation of Industry and the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia support the Govemment's decision. In contrast, the Brisbane City CouncU has again deserted business—this time by rejecting the proposal before the draft impact assessment study was released for comment. (3) Purchase was completed on 30 June 1987. The purchase price was $2,650,000 for 23.8 hectares. The Port of Brisbane Authority purchased a 4.7 hectares portion of this for $524,864, leaving a balance paid by Department of Industry Development of $2,125,136 for 19.1 hectares. (4) The area of land to be made available to ICI is approximately 4.06 hectares, subject to final determination by survey. This land will be made available to ICI for its project. The company will be required to enter into an agreement to purchase the land after it has met the required development conditions. The purchase price will be based on market values as determined by a registered valuer. However, should the development costs to the State and the acquisition cost of the land plus charges exceed that market value, the company will be required to pay the higher cost—that is, there will be no cost to the Govemment. (5) Yes. The land is zoned Special Uses (Quarantine). (6) The Lytton industrial estate is zoned in part General Industry and in part Particular Development under the Town Plan for the City of Brisbane. Action has been taken to rezone the departmental lands on the old quarantine station site to Particular Development. (7) The increased costs are based on increased expenditure by ICI as a result of delays in granting approvals for the project to proceed. These include— (a) extra costs of transporting chemicals to Queensland until the new plant is commissioned; and (b) increased capital costs due to inflation. If the plant were located at Gladstone, transport costs for chlorine and other products to Brisbane would amount to an additional $875,000 per annum. These costs would have to be absorbed by consumers of the plant's output. Questions Upon Notice 26 August 1987 2041

(8) ICI has indicated that during summer periods the increased demand for chlorine from (Queensland and New South Wales severely taxes its Sydney production facilities. Growth in demand in Brisbane will only add to ICI's problems in maintaining this long supply line. ICI has proposed the Brisbane plant to forestall such problems in the future. The Govemment, through my department, has sought and received submissions on the impact assessment study from a wide range of authorities and interested parties, including local residents and action groups. The company was required to address itself to every legitimate concem expressed in this process. This it did. In addition, the Govemment sought and obtained an independent audit of the study by Cremer and Wamer Limited of London, a firm of intemational consultants who are highly experienced in this field of assessment. In their report, Cremer and Wamer concluded— "The site is suitable for a chlorine plant from a public safety point of view and that the separation distance from residential areas is more than adequate when judged against criteria used elsewhere." The Govemment and its specialist advisory bodies have thoroughly examined the analysis of the plant's safety aspects and has satisfied itself that the siting of the plant at the old quarantine station does not detract from the safety of the Wynnum and Lytton residential areas. (9 and 10) Because of the siting of this plant in Queensland, there is a positive benefit to the State and its public health and industry costs by aUeviating the expense of transporting from Sydney the chlorine and other chemicals. It provides another example of our desire to minimise the costs of providing Govemment services, while at the same time providing new and continuing employment opportunities. It also indicates to other potential investors that Queensland offers a stable, rational, planned environment in which manufacturing industry can plan for its future. The Queensland Govemment supports the creation of wealth and jobs—unlike the Opposition, which, once again, has shown itself to be anti the process and chemical industries. In conclusion, today's Daily Sun published an editorial which is relevant to the matters that the honourable member has stirred up and mentioned in his question. That editorial impugns my character. I guard my words very jealously, but that editorial quotes me as having, just before the July Federal election, gone to great lengths to assure the people of Lytton that the plant would not be built on their doorstep. That is completely untrae. As a matter of fact, in a previous edition of the Daily Sun I was reported as refusing to rale out a site in the Bowman electorate. I will not waste the time of the House with all of the other quotes from the local paper and the Courier- Mail which stated that I specifically refused to rale out a site in that area. I consider the editorial to be probably the lowest form of joumaUsm that I have had to face while I have been a member of this House. I inform the House and everybody present that that editorial is patently untrae. I regard it as impugning my integrity and I wiU be consulting my soUcitors and lawyers about it.

2. Impersonation of Constable Graham at Mackay Court Hearing Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police— "With reference to the honourable member for Mackay's allegation on 6 August in this House that a Constable Graham of the Queensland Police Force was impersonated by someone else at a court hearing in Mackay conceming Henry Alexander Patterson in which he asserted that Constable Graham was on duty in Dalby on the date of the court hearing— Has his investigations proved the honourable member's allegations to be factually accurate?'

78381—68 2042 26 August 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Mr I. J. GIBBS: On behalf of the Deputy Premier, the answer is as foUows— The allegations made by the honourable member for Mackay are currently under investigation by the Police (Complaints Tribunal. As soon as the findings are known, I will be pleased to advise the honourable member.

3. Quarantining of Properties Supplying Contaminated Stock Fodder Mr LEE asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the drastic crisis in the two billion dollar beef industry in AustraUa (and in Queensland in particular) due to the use of pesticides, some of which have been used illegally causing chemical contamination and residue and to the fact that 26 properties have been quarantined to date— (1) What action has been taken by the Queensland Govemment to trace and quarantine the properties that supply any contaminated stock fodder? (2) As some of these properties are already known to the Queensland Govemment, will the Govemment take immediate action to quarantine the supply and sale of stock fodder to both graziers and lot-feeding beef industries? (3) Since it is feasible that frait and vegetables are being supplied to the public, possibly from these very same properties, much of which may have been sprayed with these pesticides, what action will the Govemment take to police the use of pesticides and ensure that no crises occur in this industry?" Mr HARPER: (1) When violative levels of chemicals under the Stock Act have been detected in livestock, the property from which the animals originated is placed in quarantine. Every effort is then made to assess the extent to which other animals on the property are affected and to trace the source of contamination. Where the trace-back indicates the source of contamination is stock fodder obtained from other properties which do not ran livestock, every effort is made to enlist the support of the management of those properties to ensure that pesticide levels in fodder which they are using or supplying do not exceed acceptable residue levels. (2) Currently there are limits conceming how far trace-back procedures for sources of contamination can go when it appears that off-property fodder could be involved. (3) As soon as the current problem was identified, the Queensland Govemment took prompt action to severely limit the use of pesticides which were causing contam­ ination in livestock. On 29 June the Stock Regulations of 1935 were amended to prohibit the treatment of stock or fodder for the use of the specific organochlorines that were causing concem and to prohibit the application of those chemicals to premises or anything used or intended to be used for holding or keeping of stock or fodder. In addition, on 15 August 1987, regulation C 401 of the Poisons Regulations of 1973 was amended to include the pesticides of concem, namely, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane and heptachlor, and to ensure that a person could not buy, obtain or use these chemicals except with the written approval of the Director-General of Health. I assure honourable members that I am keeping this matter under constant review and every effort is being made to ensure that our trade in meat and in livestock is not jeopardised by the inappropriate use of pesticides.

4. Government Slaughter Charges Mr LEE asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the current Queensland Govemment levy of a $9.66 slaughter charge on all cattle killed in Queensland— (1) Will there be an increase in this levy due to the illegal use of pesticides which the Govemment has allowed to be used in Queensland? Questions Without Notice 26 August 1987 2043

(2) Will this levy cover future testing procedures for chemical contamination?" Mr HARPER: (1) The levy of $9.66 slaughter charge on cattle killed in Queensland is a livestock slaughter levy and export inspection charge made by the Commonwealth. It is payable on cattle handled at abattoirs registered as export establishments. The levy covers charges for four areas of activity—Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) administration; Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) research; national cattle disease eradication and export inspec­ tion charges. The portions of the levy for AMLC administration, AMLRDC research and for national cattle disease eradication are also payable on cattle handled at domestic works. In addition, a State fee of $4.50 is payable on cattle killed at these works to cover State meat inspection services. At the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in Sydney on Friday, 14 August, it was agreed that industry was to be responsible for funding the intensified sampling program of carcasses and meat to test for chemical residues at export works and for any sampling program introduced in domestic works. In view of this decision by the Australian Agricultural Council, I do not anticipate that there will be any increase in the present slaughter levy imposed by the Commonwealth or in the fees presently charged by the State under the Meat Industry Regulations of 1973 to cover testing for pesticide residues in meat. There is no proof yet available that the pesticides currently being detected as residues are the result of illegal use by producers. The honourable member will recall that, when this emergency first arose, prompt action was taken by the Queensland Govemment to ban the sale and use of offending chemicals. An appropriate brochure on pesticide residues titled The Big Threat was released over my signature soon after this. It was widely distributed throughout Queensland and mention was made of its contents in many media outlets. (2) My understanding is that the present levy has not covered, and will not cover, testing procedures for chemical contamination of meat. I take the opportunity to bring to the notice of honourable members that I have consulted the Govemment's legal advisers and I will be consulting industry to establish whether cost-sharing should be brought about by Govemment regulation. I am doing that because I am aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with what is seen as an injustice in the present system that requires those with up to six head of cattle to pay $3 per head and those with numbers in excess of six head and up to 100 head to pay $20 in total. I will be discussing with industry whether cost-sharing should be brought about by Govemment regulation. First of all, I want to establish the constitutional ability of the Government to bring about such a cost-sharing arrangement. Most importantly, I wish to ascertain whether industry itself would choose to have that form of cost-sharing implemented by Govemment regulation rather than retain the present virtually voluntary—although in actual fact it is compulsory—system that is being brought about by meat-processors in order to share the cost of that inspection service amongst those supplying meat.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Public Funds Scandal; Auditor-General's Report Mr WARBURTON: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the public funds scandal that saw one person previously under the Premier's jurisdiction and two persons previously under the jurisdiction of the former Minister for The Arts, Mr McKechnie, gaoled for either misappropriation or misuse of public funds. I also refer to the Auditor-General's final report on this scandal, a report that is presently being held by the Premier. 2044 26 August 1987 Questions Without Notice

In view of the Premier's promise to make public the report, I now ask: when does he intend to honour his promise by either tabling the Auditor-General's report in the House or releasing it for public scratiny? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Honourable members will recall that when I made my ministerial statement to the House on 18 Febraary 1986—incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition let me know that he would ask the question—I stated that the Auditor- General had made certain recommendations which I had directed be implemented. One of those recommendations was that the report be referred to the Solicitor-General and the Police Department for examination and determination as to whether, and on what basis, action under the Criminal Code or any other law should be instigated. This has been done. The persons concemed were charged and brought before the courts. They were found guilty of certain offences and were sentenced. Justice has been carried out; I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree with that. No doubt certain comments will be made in respect of this matter when the Departmental Accounts Subsidiary to the Public Accounts are laid upon the table of the Legislative Assembly later. Because all the details and all the requirements of the report have been carried out, I see no need for the original report by the Auditor-General on his investigations to be tabled. Fire Services Levy Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Minister for Administrative Services, I point out that as a result of the introduction of the present fire levy scheme, the shortfaU in collections has risen to about $40m, under the noses of three National Party Ministers, namely, Mr Tenni, Mr Muntz and the present Minister, Mr Neal. The Minister is aware that, in many instances, property-owners in Queensland are refusing to pay the massive increase in the levy which this Govemment has imposed and that many local authorities are refusing to move against people who are not paying. I ask: how and when are the Minister and his National Party colleagues in Cabinet going to clean up this mess, and is there to be any change to the present scheme? In particular, is there any trath to the ramour that consideration is being given to imposing a levy on registered vehicle-owners in Queensland? Mr NEAL: I advise the Leader of the Opposition that I am well aware of some of the statements that are being made by a few local authorities. However, in the main, I am quite happy with the response that I have received from local authorities in relation to the coUection of the fees. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that a number of members of the Opposition—in particular, the member for Windsor and the member for Murramba— are quite openly supporting civil disobedience by people who are refusing to pay the levy. As far as the levy is concemed—it is public knowledge that there was deficit funding for two previous years and that over those two years that deficit funding was about $34m. As far as the levy for this particular year is concemed—I have taken steps to increase the levy. That is a matter of public record. I have made many statements about it. The local authorities have been informed as to what the levy will be for each of the categories for this particular year, and there will be no change in those levies. In relation to any change that may be made—a whole host of options are available, and that is a matter for the Government to decide at a later date. World Heritage Listing of North Queensland Rainforest Areas Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: what role has been played by members of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament—including the five ALP members who at present represent seats in north Queensland—in the proposal by the Hawke Federal Govemment to place huge areas of north Queensland on the World Heritage List? Questions Without Notice 26 August 1987 2045

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In reply to the honourable member, I must say that it is to the etemal shame of members of the Labor Party who represent different areas of north Queensland, including those in the House of Representatives and the Senate, that they went round north Queensland making the people believe that there was nothing in the Prime Minister's statement that action would be taken after the election. People have informed me that they believed that this was just a front for the election, as so often happens with the Labor Party. I am informed that these members of the Labor Party spread that idea or that concept round north Queensland. People have said that because of what they were told they thought that it would never come into being, so they voted for the Labor Party. However, I said to those people, "You know jolly well that you cannot trast the Labor Party. It says one thing and does another." These members of the Labor Party worked very hard to ensure that these policies, which they knew at the time of the election would be implemented, are implemented. It is to their etemal shame that on that basis they worked hard to deceive the people of north Queensland and now they are determined to throw them out of a job. I have not heard one member of the Opposition say that he is sorry about it and that he regrets his actions. They ought to jolly well do so. Members of the Opposition have got a tiger by the tail. I would hate to be in their position of trying to hang onto it. Question-time Mr FITZGERALD: My second question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education as Leader of the House. Last evening, an honourable member tried to create the impression that members do not have the opportunity to adequately question Ministers of the Crown in this Parliament. I ask: how does question-time in this House compare with that in other Parliaments operating under the Westminster system? Mr Burns: He's not here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr POWELL: I am flabbergasted by the honourable member for Lytton's saying that I am not here. I am sorry that his mind is so involved with the taking of fish from the sea. I heard the speech made last night by the honourable member for Murmmba, and was rather intrigued by the logic he used. Honourable members opposite, as well as other members in this Parliament, possibly do not understand what happens during question-time in other Parliaments, but I would have thought that, having had experience in the Federal Parliament, the honourable member for Murmmba would not have had the temerity to speak in the manner in which he did last night. In the Federal Parliament the Leader of the House may, at any time during question-time, move that the remaining questions be placed on the notice paper. The Parliament then moved on to other business. In this Parliament, one hour is allotted for question-time. That time is never curtailed, except on allotted days. Mr Mackenroth: And Tuesdays. Mr POWELL: If the honourable member for Chatsworth would close his mouth and open his ears and perhaps use them in the ratio in which they are placed on his head Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr POWELL: —he may then understand what is being said. During the last session of this Parliament, an average of 22 questions per question- time were answered by Ministers. I am led to believe that that figure is roughly three times the number of questions answered during question-time in any other Parliament in this country. It is time that members opposite, who carp and cry about the use of 2046 26 August 1987 Questions Without Notice

question-time, examine themselves and the type of questions they ask. In other Parlia­ ments, when questions are placed on the notice paper, they are not necessarily answered the next day or even the next week. In the Federal sphere, it can take up to 12 months to have a question answered. That does not happen in this Parliament. If the complaints of the honourable member for Murramba are to be satisfied, he should simply write a letter to the Minister concemed. He will probably receive a reply more quickly than he is able to jump up in this House and ask the question. It is a furphy raised by Opposition parties in the Queensland Parliament; it is inaccurate. The facts speak for themselves. Proposed ICI Chlorine Plant at Lytton Mr BURNS: I have a question without notice to the Premier. I refer to statements made by the Premier's former National Party candidate for the Federal seat of Bowman in relation to the proposed ICI chlorine plant at Lytton. He stated— "This National Party Govemment is bewildering. I think McKechnie would believe anything ICI put in front of him." Did both the Premier and Deputy Premier on different occasions meet with local deputations Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. Mr BURNS: I only quoted it out of the paper. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr McKECHNIE: I interpret that comment made by the honourable member that 1 would not research anything given to me by ICI Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BURNS: Did both the Premier and the Deputy Premier on separate occasions meet with deputations of local people from the Lytton area in relation to the ICI chlorine plant? Did the Premier leave them with the impression that because there were so few jobs he was not worried about the plant being on that site? On the morning that Cabinet met, those people rang the Wynnum-Redlands Herald and told that paper that there would be no chlorine plant in Lytton because it would be situated outside the metropolitan area. If those statements, as reported by members of the National Party in Wynnum, are trae, what did ICI do on that day at that late stage to convince the Premier that the chlorine plant should be located at Wynnum and that the people of Wynnum should be dumped? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I have never promised anybody that it would go here, there or anywhere. That was not a matter under my jurisdiction. I cannot remember when it was that I met the people from the chemical company, but I spoke to them when they first came up with the concept of the plant. I said that the Queensland Government was always interested in investment, employment and jobs in this State. That is as far as my involvement goes. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I meet about a dozen deputations a day, sometimes seven days a week. Although I cannot remember, I am sure that when I met those persons I did not make any promises of that nature. As I said, I meet a large number of deputations. The honourable member knows the situation. Mr Burns: I'm listening to you. Keep going. Questions Without Notice 26 August 1987 2047

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member will be much wiser if he does. Everybody wants something from a Govemment. Sometimes, some people do not want anything from it. The honourable member said, "Put it somewhere else. Put it up at Ipswich." Mr Burns: Kingaroy. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member said, "Put it at Kingaroy— anywhere." Similar comments were made about the constraction of a new gaol. Most people in country towns would welcome such a proposal because it would provide an opportunity to gain employment. Mr Burns: Why didn't you put it there? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am not going to be answerable to the honourable member. The fact is that Cabinet had a full and frank discussion on the matter and made a decision after very careful consideration and on the recommendation of the Minister. Discussions were postponed at different times to obtain further information. I have already issued a writ on the honourable member. He should not repeat outside what he has said in this Chamber. If he does, he will receive another writ. Mr BURNS: Mr Speaker, is he allowed to threaten me when I am going about the duties of looking after my constituents? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will ask his second question. Mr BURNS: I hope that threat goes into Hansard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! As the member is now disregarding the authority of the Chair, I wam him under the provisions of Standing Order 124. Mr BURNS: I have a question without notice to the Speaker—the Premier. Honourable members interjected. Mr BURNS: Well, I do not know about Standing Order 124, but if Mr Speaker is fair dinkum about Standing Order 124, I should be on my way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I bring to the notice of all members of the House that, in my opinion. Standing Order 124 stands separate from Standing Order 123A. Standing Order 124 was in operation before 1950. Standing Order 123A came into operation after 1950, and there is no need for me to go through Standing Order 123A to get to Standing Order 124. The member for Lytton is wamed of the provisions of Standing Order 124. He will ask his second question.

Suncorp Building Society Home Loan Interest Rates Mr BURNS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to yesterday's announcement that the Suncorp Building Society will cut interest rates on new home loans to 14.5 per cent but has refused to cut interest rates on existing home loans to the same level. I now ask: is this new home loan interest rate of 14.5 per cent purely a sales gimmick to get new home-buyers in? On what basis has Suncorp discriminated against existing borrowers by refusing to cut interest rates for existing loans to the new level? Will the Premier and Treasurer immediately direct Suncorp to stop that blatant discrimination and offer all home loan borrowers the benefits of the lower interest rate of 14.5 per cent? 2048 26 August 1987 Questions Without Notice

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: One would think that the honourable member would know what the position is. He has been a member of this Assembly for a long time. He was in the Chamber when legislation distancing Suncorp from the Government was introduced. Suncorp has nothing to do with me or the Government. It rans its own business. It is separated entirely from the Govemment. Suncorp makes its own decisions. The honourable member should go to Suncorp and direct his question to it. The matter has nothing to do with me or the Govemment. The honourable member ought to know that. Mr Burns: And you're not worried. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, I am. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has completed his answer. Voluntary Employment Agreements; Dino's Dial-A-Pizza Mrs NELSON: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs, I point out that yesterday, during the Matters of Public Interest debate, the honourable member for Bulimba gave examples of alleged exploitation of employees in an attempt to suggest that the proposed voluntary employment agreements legislation, which is to be introduced into this House, would condone such actions. I ask: will such alleged examples of exploitation be possible under the proposed agreements? Mr LESTER: I want to make it very clear that, under the present legislation, it is illegal to enter into contracts that provide conditions that are inferior to present award conditions. My department has been claiming from employers amounts of up to $800,000 a year. Under the proposed voluntary employment agreements, certain guide-lines will have to be met. If anybody attempts to go outside those guide-lines, obviously he will be accountable to the law. I also want to make it very clear that the State Industrial Commission will have real jurisdiction over this matter. In fact, the Government foreshadows certain amend­ ments that will make it absolutely mandatory that no agreement will be registered with the State Industrial Commission until such time as all is seen to be in order and it meets Govemment guide-lines. I could mention other aspects of the proposed legislation, such as the protection of young people. Any voluntary employment agreements that do not come within the guide­ lines will be illegal and will be accountable to the law. It is as simple as that. I am concemed that the honourable member for Bulimba spoke yesterday about Dino's Dial-A-Pizza. Of course, that is a very reputable Queensland company. As the Minister for Small Business, I must very strongly defend the activities of that company. I understand that it has four outlets in Queensland and, as far as I am aware, it plays everything straight down the line. It seems that the honourable member was indeed referring to Dino's Dial-A-Pizza in South Australia. Apparently, that company has entered into contracts that are of a questionable nature. It operates in a State that is controlled by an ALP Govemment. I am very concerned that that sort of thing is going on. To be fair to the honourable member for Bulimba—I believe that he did not do his research sufficiently enough to realise that people might have thought that he was speaking about the very reputable Queensland company. I trast that the honourable member will clarify this matter in the House and apologise without reservation to that (Queensland company, which employs a number of people thiough its four outlets. At times honourable members are a little ambitious and try to knock the Queensland Govemment and sm^ business in Queensland. Questions Without Notice 26 August 1987 2049

However, if the honourable member has made a mistake, he should be good enough to stand up in this House and say, "Look, I am sorry about those people of Queensland. I was referring to the South Australian company." I hope that he is good enough, big enough and strong enough to do that.

Hale Street Ring Road Proposal Mr DAVIS: I ask the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing: does he realise that, while he is deliberating over the matter of the Hale Street ring road, the Liberal administration of the Brisbane City Council is paying no heed to his authority in this matter by having A Government member: Are you asking this on behalf of your wife? Mr SPEAKER: Order! As long as the question is in a man's handwriting, it is acceptable. Mr DAVIS: I ask a simple question about a local issue, and this is what occurs. The Liberal administration of the Brisbane City Council, by having its surveyors working seven days a week on this project and working overtime, is paying no heed to the Minister's authority in this matter. I ask: when will the Minister be making a decision on the Hale Street ring road? Mr HINZE: In reply to the Prince Consort—Mr Thatcher—as honourable members would know, many people in the Hale Street area are greatly concerned about the future of their homes. Consideration has been given to an altemative route. Officers of the Main Roads Department are examining the proposal in an endeavour to relieve the anxiety of those people. At this time I am not in a position to make a statement. However, as soon as further consideration has been given to this matter by the officers of the department and the Brisbane City Council, I will make a statement to the House.

Release-to-work Program Mr DAVIS: I have another question about a local issue, and I direct it to the Minister for Corrective Services. I refer to the release-to-work hostel in Kennigo Street, Fortitude Valley, and to the report of problems being experienced with the supervision of prisoners at that hostel. I ask: is it trae that this year has been the worst year ever for the hostel, with over 30 per cent of prisoners having to be retumed to prison because of the commission of offences? Recently, two murderers and one rapist have been charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. One prisoner recorded a blood-alcohol level of . 16 and was driving without a licence. Another prisoner gained a licence by giving a false name and address. If those reports are trae, as I believe they are, will the Minister explain to the House what is actually happening with the supervision of prisoners at the release-to-work hostel, supervision that permits the commission of those offences? Mr NEAL: Prisoners on the release-to-work programs are thoroughly screened before they are accepted into that program. It must be remembered that the program is a final testing-ground when prisoners are reaching the end of their term of imprisonment, and prior to their release from gaol. Prison officers do not have the benefit of being able to look into a crystal ball. Therefore, they cannot be 100 per cent sure about prisoners being released. Unfortunately, there have been three failures recently. I am not happy about that. I will be considering the screening method to ensure that every effort is made to select prisoners who pose the least possible risk. The hostel system is part of a program to integrate prisoners, especially long-term prisoners, into society slowly at the end of their terms of imprisonment. 2050 26 August 1987 Questions WUhout Notice

Red Kangaroo Quota Mr HOBBS: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport: with the announcement of the closure of the red kangaroo quota on 8 August last and with the knowledge that families who rely on this industry will be put out of work along with land-owners who are being inundated by this species, can the Minister assure those concemed people that every effort will be made to convince the Federal Govemment to reject appeals by the Fund for Animals and other conservation groups and give Queensland an increased quota for the next kangaroo harvest season? Mr MUNTZ: The imposition of kangaroo quotas is another typical example of the Commonwealth Govemment's intrading into what are clearly State Govemment respon­ sibilities and bowing to pressures from the small minority lobby groups such as Fund for Animals and other small, insignificant groups that should not be heard. The Queensland Govemment should not be dictated to just because those minority groups feel that their rights have been intraded upon. The Queensland kangaroo quota submission for 1987 was based on the best scientific knowledge available, which was also supported. That stands in contradiction to the advisory committee of the former Federal Minister, Mr Cohen, because those recommendations contradicted the Federal submission and recommendations. I was surprised when the quota was quite dramatically reduced without any concem being shown for the welfare of the people referred to by the honourable member for Warrego, Mr Hobbs—those people involved in the kangaroo industry and in raral industry. For the life of me, I cannot work out how the Canberra bureaucracy would know the concems of those people, or what the kangaroo industry is all about. How would it know that the kangaroo population is being protected and always has been protected? My own advisory committee supported the Queensland Government's recommendations, but the Commonwealth Govemment went ahead and slashed quotas such as the whiptail quota from 40 000 to 10 000. I can assure the honourable member for Warrego, Mr Hobbs, and the other people of westem Queensland—whether they are involved in the kangaroo industry or in raral industry—that every effort will be made to support their claims and their industries, which must be kept viable. When next year's submission is put forward advice will be sought from people who know the industry. Once again, the Queensland Govemment wiU endeavour to convince the Commonwealth Govemment that the responsibilities for the kangaroo industry and the kangaroo quota should be left to the people of Queensland.

Privatisation Ms WARNER: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the comments made by the Premier yesterday in this House to the effect that during his recent European jaunt, two senior public servants had discussions with officials of the Thatcher Govemment on the subject of privatisation. Can the Premier Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wiU allow the question if the honourable member removes the word "jaunt". Ms WARNER: Holiday? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Repeat the question, please. Ms WARNER: European visit? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the honourable member. Ms WARNER: Can the Premier inform the people of Queensland, in particular those he was most concemed about a few moments ago—those who live in north Queensland—which State Government services he wants to have privatised? Does the Ust include such public amenities as the presently free public hospital system, fire Questions Without Notice 26 August 1987 2051 brigades, ambulance services and electricity distribution authorities? In other words— and this is significant in the light of the bid made by a group of National Party people for the Q-Net communication system—which public sector services does the Premier want to flog off to his cronies? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not allow that question. The honourable member's question may be placed on notice so that I may have a look at it. The honourable member may ask a second question if she wishes, but the first one will be placed on notice. Ms WARNER: I do so accordingly.

Commissioner of Housing, Mr Stewart Hall Ms WARNER: In directing a question to the Minister for Works and Housing, I refer to the Public Service Board inquiry into allegations made against Mr Stewart Hall in this House earlier this year, and ask: could the Minister table the report which has been said to clear Mr Hall, or, altematively, if that is not possible, at least inform the House in some detail what came out of the inquiry, lest—in the words of the editorial in the Courier-Mail on 6 August 1987—"uncharitable or suspicious people in the community might be inclined to think that Cabinet has something to hide"? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I advise the House that the Commissioner of Housing, Mr Stewart Hall, has come up tramps, as I always knew he would. He has been an excellent officer of the Govemment and an excellent officer of the Housing Commission. He has done a tremendous job in terms of efficiency and in bringing some tremendous economies into that department. I state publicly in the House that Mr Stewart Hall stands head and shoulders above the person who asked the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw those comments. Mr I. J. GIBBS: I withdraw those comments and say that Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is all, thank you. Mr I. J. GIBBS: Mr Stewart Hall's record is perfect.

Water Shortage, Townsville and Thuringowa Mr BURREKET: In directing a question to the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, I inform the House that the people of Townsville and Thuringowa are suffering a severe water shortage caused by six years of drought. The recently formed joint water authority, under its chairman. Alderman Brian Dobinson, is making a charade of the pipeline proposal which is urgently needed to bring water to the two cities. I ask: is the Minister aware of this farcical situation existing with the joint water authority and what action does he, as the Minister concemed, propose to resolve the problem? Mr TENNI: I have great pleasure in answering the honourable member. He is aware of what is happening in Townsville conceming Alderman Dobinson, who unfor­ tunately is using politics at the expense of the water supply for the people of Townsville and Thuringowa. I have no doubt that the only way in which the problem could be solved would be to remove the chairman of the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board, Alderman Dobinson. I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister for Local Govemment with a view to looking at the Act to see what can be done when the Govemment rans into the problem of people deliberately playing politics, particularly when a local govemment election is approaching. The Govemment should look very carefully either at getting those people to pull their boms in and do the job for which they have been appointed or immediately removing them and putting someone else in to take their place. 2052 26 August 1987 Questions Without Notice

I have the greatest admiration for the Mayor of Thuringowa, Alderman Dan Gleeson. I have no doubt in my mind that, if he had been the chairman of the Townsville/ Thuringowa Water Supply Board, a pipeline would be under constraction now to take water from the Haughton River to Stage 2 of the Ross River Weir. It is unfortunate that Alderman Dobinson is using the tactics that he is. They will not be of benefit to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa. Just to let the people of Queensland know—I inform the House that the Honourable the Minister for Local Govemment has agreed to give a subsidy of 30 per cent for that pipeline. Even though the subsidy was changed to 25 per cent as from 1 July this year and Alderman Dobinson has deliberately used politics to try to upset the Queensland Govemment and gain votes at the Govemment's expense, the Minister for Local Govemment still stands by his word and has offered the 30 per cent subsidy on that scheme. If Alderman Dobinson is not careful, he will probably put in jeopardy that extra 5 per cent that he is getting for nothing. The Queensland Water Resources Commission is in fact surveying the line at no cost to the joint water board. That is something that is not normally done. It is usually another extra. I have asked that the Federal Govemment come to the party and give a subsidy of 30 per cent. During the Federal election campaign, Labor Party members and candidates were saying that the Federal Govemment would in fact help them out. In fact, it has done nothing. For the Govemment to get priority listing for the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Supply Board through the Federal scheme, a proposal has to be put to it by the Townsville Water Board. The chairman is saying that the Govemment has not put that proposal forward, whereas in fact the proposal has not been sent to me by the chairman of the board. Recently he made a statement saying that the proposal was not prepared and that it would be at least three to four weeks before he could get it to me. So it can be seen that politics are being played. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member has brought that to the attention of the House so that the people of Queensland will know the trath for once. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I allow the next question, I ask the House to come to complete order. Fire Services Levy Mr WELLS: I ask the Minister for Administrative Services and Valuation: last week did he receive a deputation from people of the city of Redcliffe in relation to the recent 50 per cent increase in the State fire levy? Did he fail to give the delegation any undertaking that there would be no further increases in the levy? Did he indicate to the delegation that he anticipated placing a fire services levy on motor vehicle registration? Did the delegation advise him that many citizens of Redcliffe have paid the fire levy at the old rate as a protest against the increase? Will his department launch prosecutions against those citizens? How many more times will the Minister slug Queenslanders to pay off the debts caused by the incompetence of his administration? Mr NEAL: I did meet a delegation of people from RedcUffe protesting against the fire services levy. I think it is interesting to note that the honourable member for Murramba has been critical of that levy. What must be bome in mind is that the matter concerns the funding of an essential service, but the House has heard not a squeak from the honourable member for Murramba about the shocking waste of tax-payers' money by the Federal Labor Govemment, which has funded such weirdo groups as the gay rights movement and wild women surfers, and made grants to unions for dubious causes. I wonder whether, when the member for Murmmba was a member of the Federal House, he was instmmental in obtaining funding for at least one of those odd-ball groups. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's comments have no relevance to the question. I ask the Minister to keep to his answer to the question. Revocation of State Forest Areas 26 August 1987 2053

Mr NEAL: I was just referring to a few of those points. In answer to the question, I must say that I gave no undertaking about what might happen in the future with the fire services levy. I said that, because local authorities have to send out the notices and must know what the levy will be for the year, the levy that has been set for this year will remain as advertised. During the V/i hours that the deputation was with me, a whole host of areas were canvassed by the delegation and by me. Members of the delegation put up all sorts of ideas and asked all sorts of questions about costs. They expressed their concem about the administrative costs of operating fire services. They saw that as a major area of concem. I informed them that payments to board representatives amounted to 0.5 per cent of overall administrative costs. Total administration costs amount to 2.5 per cent. That includes pay-roll tax, pay-roll costs, statutory charges such as water, sewerage, power, fire levy—we even pay it—telephone, fire alarm systems, Telecom, stationery, postage, travel, accommodation, training and equipment. They are some of the admin­ istrative costs involved in the ranning of the fire brigades. I indicated earlier that a number of options were canvassed. By way of a question to the members of the delegation I raised the possibility of a small levy on motor vehicle registrations. The Government is considering at least 13 or 14 options. In my answer to the Leader of the Opposition I said that it would be a matter for the Govemment to decide at a future time. That is where the matter rests. I am not in a position to say what those final options may be. 1 wiU now deal with prosecutions. I understand that at least one local authority is commencing proceedings to retrieve the outstanding fire services levies. I am also aware that provisions in the fire services legislation for the collection of those levies are no different from the provisions in legislation covering local authorities for the collection of outstanding rates. Mr WELLS: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I was going to direct a question to the Premier and Treasurer, but he does not appear to be in the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member may put the question on notice. Whereupon the honourable member proceeded to give notice of his question. Mr ALISON proceeding to give notice of a question— Mr SHERLOCK: I rise to a point of order. I understand that questions on notice are not to be read to the House but merely summarised to save the time of the House and to give the maximum time for the answering of questions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have always asked for questions on notice to be read, but I have allowed them to be summarised. The member for Maryborough wiU continue. Whereupon the honourable member proceeded to give notice of his question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

REVOCATION OF STATE FOREST AREAS Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (3.45 p.m.): I move— "(1) That this House agrees that the proposal by the Govemor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act of:— (a) All those parts of State Forest 611, parishes of Beerwah, Canning and Toorbul, described as Areas 'A', 'B', 'C, 'D', 'E', and 'F as shown on plan FTY 1330 prepared by the Department of Mapping and Surveying and depositing in the Office of the Conservator of Forests and containing in total an area of about 22.874 hectares—and. 2054 26 August 1987 Revocation of State Forest Areas

(b) AU that part of State Forest 34, parishes of Clemant and St Giles described as Area 'A' as shown on plan FTY 1317 prepared by the Department of Mapping and Surveying and deposited in the Office of the Conservator of Forests and containing an area of about 267 hectares, be carried out. (2) That Mr Speaker convey a copy of this Resolution to the Minister for submission to His Excellency the Govemor in Council." These proposals make provision for the excision of land from State forests near Beerburram and Ingham. I would like to mention at this juncture that both proposals have been carefully considered by the Conservator of Forests and have his endorsement. Tuming now to the proposals before the House—the first involves the excision of areas totalling about 22.874 hectares from State Forest 611, parishes of Beerwah, Canning and Toorbul. The major portion of land sought for excision is intended as a site for locating a complex to service the needs of the travelling motorist following completion of the new four-lane section of the Brace Highway between Beerburram and the Caloundra tum-off. At present no facilities, apart from emergency telephones, exist for some 55 kilometres of highway extending northward from Burpengary. Since completion of this section of highway numerous representations have been received calling upon this Govemment to make available a site for the establishment of roadside facilities in the general area. There is no doubt that a need exists for this type of service facility and, prior to calUng for expressions of interest from developers, discussions were held between officers representing the Departments of Lands, Main Roads and Forestry to determine a practical location to accommodate this type of development. On completion of this investigation the view was held that a parcel of State forest land in the immediate vicinity of the Johnston Road/Brace Highway intersection should be adopted as the site for any proposed roadhouse and tourist facility. This area is situated near the midpoint of the new highway and lies in close proximity to Wild Horse Mountain, which has significant tourist potential. To provide for traffic flow from either direction, it is considered appropriate that development be permitted on both sides of the highway. The total area proposed for development comprises about 14.421 hectares and at present carries stands of commercial softwood plantations. The Department of Forestry will arrange for logging of those stems not required for retention by the successful applicant. To provide safe access for both north and south bound traffic to the nominated site, it is proposed to have small parcels of adjoining land totaUing about 3.743 hectares opened as road. The total area proposed for excision will have no significant adverse effect on the management of the balance of the reserve. I am of the opinion that considerable benefit will accrae to the general public by the provision of this type of development and fully support its implementation. The balance area sought for excision comprises two small parcels of land totalling about 4.71 hectares. The proprietors of Lot 1 on RP137037 have held discussions with the Department of Forestry with a view to exchanging part of their freehold land for the relevant sections of the State forest. The freehold property is surrounded entirely by State Forest 611, upon which the department has established pine plantations. The land comprising 4.862 hectares, which the owners are prepared to make available to the Crown by way of exchange, has been cleared and is well suited to plantation establishment. The parts of State forest sought for excision lie adjacent to the proprietors' freehold property and carry plantation pines. The owners have indicated their desire to retain some of the stems for aesthetic purposes. The balance will be logged under a salvage operation. Both parcels of land the subject of exchange are considered to be of equal value. The proprietors have agreed to bear all costs in the matter. As the proposed exchange will be mutually beneficial, I support its adoption. Revocation of State Forest Areas 26 August 1987 2055

The final proposal provides for the excision of about 267 hectares from State Forest 34, parishes of Clemant and St. Giles. The area, which presently forms part of a special lease held by the Endeavour Foundation for grazing purposes, is now being sou^t by the foundation for development for aquaculture purposes. It is located on the coastal side of the Brace Highway between Townsville and Ingham. Aquaculture is viewed by the foundation as a fairly labour-intensive operation and has the prospect of providing several suitable jobs for the dependants of the Endeavour Foundation. Under the proposal, the farming of giant perch (barramundi), black tiger prawns (leader), giant fresh-water prawns and tiger and banana prawns is intended. The foundation has entered into a joint venture with Aquaculture Industries (Queensland) Pty Ltd for operational purposes. A short-term special lease has been granted to the foundation over a section of that land sought for excision to permit the implementation of a pilot project. Results to date indicate that the project has long-term viability. The proposed excision area carries very little hardwood milling timbers and, as such, its revocation from the forest estate will not have any adverse effect on sawmillers drawing Crown timber supplies from this region. It does, however, carry a quantity of roundwood, and attempts will be made to dispose of this timber by way of salvage sale. Should this not be possible at the time of clearing, its assessed value will be sought from the lessee company. Upon excision, it is proposed to grant special lease tenure over the subject land in terms of the Land Act. As such, the area will not pass from Crown control. Again, the excision of this parcel of land from the forest estate would not have any adverse effect on the management of the balance of the reserve. I strongly support both of these proposals and commend them for the approval of the House. Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (3.54 p.m.): The Opposition does not oppose the revo­ cations. However, it is concemed about the way in which the Government has operated in the past. The Opposition has no guarantee that similar actions will not be taken again. Most people would have read the report on the front page of today's Courier-Mail about Cabinet's approval yesterday of a road to be constracted in north Queensland. That road will help a developer. The Opposition has no doubts whatsoever about the aquaculture venture that is proposed by the Endeavour Foundation. There is probably no organisation in Queensland that is more worthy than the Endeavour Foundation. The most exciting or most challenging development taking place in primary industries in Queensland is in the aquaculture field. A great deal of successful development is taking place in my electorate. The Minister referred to the farming of barramundi and prawns in north Queensland. The Opposition is pleased to see that type of development taking place. I have been told that King Ranch, which is in the Tully area, is advertised for sale for many mUlions of dollars. Many years ago in this Chamber, a proposal was presented for the revocation of timber reserves and State forest. Time has bome out what members of the Opposition said then. I think it was in the early fifties that the Govemment granted to King Ranch some land with a freehold option. The area involved was roughly 48 000 acres. The owners of that property freeholded it for approximately $48,000, or $1 an acre. Last year, the same Govemment granted approval for the freeholding of Crown land in the Cape York area. I refer particularly to Silver Plains. The Minister is reported in Hansard as saying that it was freeholded for no more than $5 a hectare, which is less than $3 an acre. It can be seen that in nearly 30 years the value of Crown land in Queensland for freehold purposes has little more than doubled. Mr Glasson: How much of Silver Plains is allowed to be freeholded under special lease provisions, and what were the provisions? That is what you want to tell the House. 2056 26 August 1987 Revocation of State Forest Areas

Mr EATON: They are getting it for freehold purposes. If it is so important, why were applications for an auction or tender not called in order to give everybody a chance? Some of the banana plantations on King Ranch have already been sold off. That caused a bit of a stir in the banana industry, which at one time was a stable industry. The owners of King Ranch came by that land as a gift from the Govemment of the day. They went ahead and developed it. Today it is one of the choicest pieces of cattle-fattening country in Australia. Mr Glasson: Thanks to the money that was invested by King Ranch. Mr EATON: Yes, but other areas could be developed by Australians. This Gov­ emment will not allow them to. If Australians approached the Govemment and wanted to go ahead and develop land in the same way as King Ranch was developed, this Govemment would reject them and knock them back. Mr Elliott: You won't have to worry about it when they throw this heritage listing in. Mr EATON: That is probably why the owners of King Ranch are getting out. I am told that the ranch is on the market for $8m. Those people are certainly going to receive a retum on their investment. Local authorities are also concerned about this matter because, when changes in tenture or title to land occur in certain areas, the State Govemment is not required to pay rates. The Douglas Shire Council and the Mareeba Shire Council are concemed that, when the developer puts that road through, the State Government may require the councils to accept responsibility for the road's maintenance and upkeep. I hope that does not happen. Mr Glasson: The Govemment cannot do that. The approval for assuming respon­ sibility for the road is under the jurisdiction of the local authority. The Govemment can't take over the road. Mr EATON: In that statement the Minister said—at least I assume that it was the Minister; it may have been Cabinet—that the Govemment will bear the cost of its constraction and maintenance. But for how long? Mr Glasson: I don't know for how long, but they have a bond of $600,000. If they don't keep up the maintenance, the council will call up that bond and require the company to continue the maintenance and provide another bond. Mr EATON: Are they putting cash into the bank? Mr Glasson: The money will be held in the Forestry Department. Mr EATON: The Govemment will want that cash in the bank, because when hard times come and people are put under pressure, they will be declared bankmpt and somebody will have to pick up the tab. If that occurs, there will be a retum of only 20c in the dollar or something like that. That is the Opposition's main concem in relation to revocations. The Opposition agrees that roads have to be put through and that they have to be straightened. The Opposition is not frightened to agree with the Government when it believes that what the Govemment is doing is right. However, quite often the Opposition discovers that things are not as they at first seemed. Rules do not necessarily have to be broken; they may often be bent. Certain advantages can be lost. That is the main concem of the Opposition. The Minister has outlined many factors. I do not intend to go through them in detail. The Opposition is a great promoter of forestry plantations in Queensland. It Revocation of State Forest Areas 26 August 1987 2057 supports the Govemment in that regard. In fact, the Opposition would like to see more plantations. The Endeavour Foundation was mentioned in relation to aquaculture. I know some of the people who are working on that project out from RolUngstone, north of Townsville. I will be interested to see how that project goes. I hope that it is successful. The Opposition has no objection to the revocation of certain Crown land in instances where it will mean progress. If this State is to go ahead, there must be progress. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa) (3.59 p.m.): As to the land in question—at the time that it was set aside as State forest, it was simply determined that that was the best use to which that land could be turned. When the House considers the proposal to revoke a State forest and agrees to a different use for it, all honourable members must be confident that it is in the public interest that that land is put to an altemative use. The Minister spoke about the intended uses of the land. The members of the Liberal Party have no qualms about that. A new section of four-lane highway has been constracted to Brisbane's near north coast for the convenience of the travelling public. The Minister's proposal to set aside part of the State forest to provide facilities for those motorists and tourists is very modest. I have still fewer qualms about the proposal further north, in the Ingham area, because the Endeavour Foundation is one of the most worthy bodies in this State. Over the last few years, I have had many dealings with it. Indeed, I have had contact with the Endeavour Foundation at Ingham with the intention of finding work for a handicapped person from my own constituency. I am delighted to see the plan to set up a small industry there that will provide work for handicapped people. The members of the Liberal Party have trast in the Minister and the Conservator of Forests. They view these two proposals as being very modest. As the honourable member for Mourilyan said, revocation of land that has been set aside as State forest and its use for altemative purposes is a very serious matter and one not to be undertaken lightly. However, the Liberal Party sees the proposals as being modest and entirely acceptable to the people of Queensland. The proposals will enhance Queensland. The Liberal Party supports them. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.02 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in the debate on the proposed revocation. Over the years, many honourable members have stood up in the House and denigrated the Minister who has brought the revocation into the House and tried to show that revocations are proposed for all sorts of untoward purposes. These revocations are very good examples of how the Lands Department and the Forestry Department can work towards the good of the community. The Opposition spokesman indicated that the Endeavour Foundation exercise is an outstanding example and that he supported the move into aquaculture whole-heartedly. I am sure that many members of the House look forward with great anticipation to seeing how the exercise tums out. Many honourable members are very interested in aquaculture and hope for the success not only of the Endeavour Foundation but also of other people along the coast of Queensland who are putting large sums of their own money and investors' money into similar programs. The people of Queensland v/ould be 100 per cent behind the Endeavour Foundation. Mr Lee: Do you think they could make sure in Canberra that the heritage people don't get there? Mr ELLIOTT: I will answer the interjection by my old colleague the honourable member for Yeronga. Sometimes in the past honourable members called him the member for private enterprise. The Queensland Govemment is not so pleased about the conse­ quences if that Worid Heritage listing takes place. 2058 26 August 1987 Revocation of State Forest Areas

The Opposition spokesman on the revocation will find to his great cost that the people in his electorate will be far from happy. I am sure that they would not entertain World Heritage Usting in a fit. Honourable members will discover later the implications of that listing. I predict that, if it goes ahead, the Opposition spokesman in the debate today will be no longer in the House. Mr SMITH (Tovmsville East) (4.05 p.m.): I support the action that is proposed in respect of the area that is being excised for the joint-venture project for aquaculture between the Endeavour Foundation and Aquaculture Industries (Queensland) Pty Ltd. The Endeavour Foundation is a very reputable organisation. Certainly, a need exists for projects that will employ its young adults. The members of the Endeavour Foundation in TownsvUle are concemed that suitable projects are becoming increasingly difficult to find. Naturally, as a representative of the TownsviUe area, I am delighted that this project is going ahead. I have been aware of this project and have been foUowing it with interest for quite some time. I agree with the Minister's assessment of the type of land and I personally see no need for concem about the revocations. I also take the opportunity to point out that the Minister indicated in his speech that the project has long-term viability. I hope that it has. I think that his claim is based on as firm a foundation as it can be, but I sound a note of caution because aquaculture industries do not always necessarily attract people with the best expertise available in that industry. Having said that, I must stress that I have confidence in aquaculture industries. However, a number of people have put up proposals that are very doubtful. I caution the Minister to be careful in acceding to requests and to check to some extent the background of applicants. A secondary cause for concem is that, as the ventures are, of necessity, situated very close to the sea, very careful attention wiU have to be paid to possible environmental repercussions. I assume that an environmental impact study has been done on that project—I hope that it has been done—and I would accept the Minister's assurance in relation to that. Harking back to what I said before about a project I was concemed about in north Queensland—I mention that the proposal came from an entrepreneur stressing that people could buy a specific pond. A situation could develop in which the ponding system was subject to multiple ownership. I think that that would be totally inappropriate for Australian conditions. Although that would not apply to this project, again I draw the attention of the House to the fact that projects of that type are springing up. The area set aside for this project would seem to be appropriate. It is certainly very close to TownsviUe. A considerable degree of expertise is available, bearing in mind that the AustraUan Institute of Marine Science is located in the area. I have every reason to believe that, if such projects is to be successful, the Townsville area is the appropriate area for it to be trialled and, hopefully, developed. On that note, I will conclude my speech. I believe that the aquaculture project will be successful. I am sure that the people involved would be appreciative of the fact that the Govemment has seen fit to make land available. Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (4.09 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members who made a contribution to the debate on the revocation for their support and understanding of the reasons why these two parcels of land have been excised from State forests—that is, to give service to the general public and to provide a revenue-eaming opportunity for a very worthy organ­ isation that supports the young people of our nation. Although my next comment has little to do with the revocation, I wish to refer to a comment I made to the member for Mourilyan in respect of areas of land used to create a road. The recommendation was passed by Cabinet the other day. The bond referred to is a bank bond. I inform the honourable member that the amount is $60,000, not $600,000. Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2059

The honourable member for Townsville East quite rightly made the comment that he hoped the project would meet with long-term success. I inform the House that a lease was held over the area and that considerable trials have been carried out. In other words, a pilot program was established to prove the viability of the scheme. The pilot program had available the expertise of the company, Aquaculture (Queensland) Pty Ltd, which has gained a great deal of experience in this field. Very shortly after I was appointed Minister for Lands, several proposals requesting Crown land were received—many of them were for the establishment of aquaculture enterprises in north Queensland—but they were supported with little or no expertise. Most of the expertise in this field has resulted from the endeavours of those who live in south-east Asian countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. Only yesterday, the Premier received a deputation from people of world renown who have the expertise and who have established aquaculture in Westem Australia. That type of expertise is available now. Another lease just south of Cardwell has been granted. I can assure honourable members that everything is thoroughly considered before the final decision is made. The fisheries section is consulted about the project's cutting through the mangroves. The Water Resources Commission is involved to make sure that the quantity of fresh water, which is an integral requirement in prawn-farming, is available on a continuing basis. That commission also investigates whether underground water is avaUable in case sufficient surface water is not available. The Forestry Department and the Lands Department investigate the use to which land in that area will be put. On all occasions an in-depth study is conducted by various departments, which assess the proposals for the parcel of land and make recommendations when they are called upon to do so. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I believe the areas specified in the motion are very worthy excisions from the State forest. Motion agreed to.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (INTERSTATE TRANSFER) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 April (see p. 1561). Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (4.12 p.m.): The legislation before the House this aftemoon is not controversial. Indeed, the Bill itself is quite straightforward and is one of a number of complementary Bills being introduced in the various States to cover the transfer of young offenders from one State to another. In fact, it might be said that this legislation is providing a legislative framework to ensure that practices which are being undertaken at present are protected by law. As the Minister outUned in her second-reading speech, this Bill is one of a series of enactments which are being introduced in this House repealing the current children's services legislation. The provisions of this Bill apply to those under the age of 18 years who have committed or are alleged to have committed an offence, or to those aged between 18 and 21 years of age who committed or are alleged to have committed an offence when aged under 18 years. The Bill provides for arrangements to be entered into under which young offenders can complete the requirements of court orders in a jurisdiction different from that in which the order was made. The Bill also provides for custodial arrangements during a transfer and for penalties for those who escape from lawful custody. Although, as I have said, the Bill is uncontroversial, it is nevertheless an important piece of legislation relating to our juvenile justice system and its administration. It is to the administration of the juvenile justice system that I would like to direct some comments this aftemoon. There has been considerable concem within the Department of Family Services and in the welfare community as a whole in this State at the direction 2060 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill

in which the department is being moved, all in the name of the so-called new direction. Only this week the Premier once again professed his adherence to the notion of privatisation. In the Department of Family Services clear evidence of that doctrine of privatisation at work has been seen. I will say more about that later. The first point that I raise in connection with the administration of the juvenile justice system is one wherein I believe some praise ought to be directed to the administration of the system in Queensland and the philosophy which has gone behind it. If one compares the performance of the various States with respect to the incarcer­ ation—it is not a very pleasant word; it is certainly less pleasant in relation to juvenile offenders—of young people, one finds that Queensland's performance in that field is certainly much better than the Australian State average. A pubUcation produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology dated 21 March 1986 contains some interesting statistics that allow one to compare Queensland's performance with those of the other States. The statistics show that the rate of detention of young people in this State is a little below the average for the whole of Australia. Certainly that is so with the figures for young males. In Queensland the rate of detention per 100 000 young males aged between 10 and 17 is 62.7. That compares with the Australian average of 69.7. However, the performance of Western Australia and Victoria is such that the State average is drawn up considerably. Certainly Westem Australia has a tradition, if I might use that term, of detention for juvenile offenders. I have had an opportunity to visit some of that State's institutions. It was very disturbing and all too apparent that a number of young juvenile Aborigines were within the juvenile justice system in Westem Australia. Certainly it would be interesting to compare Queensland's performance with that particular group in our community on a State-by-State basis. I would be pleased if the Minister could provide statistics on that issue for the consideration of all members of the House. I will retum to those statistics. As I said, in Queensland the rate per 100 000 for juvenile males is 62.7; the rate per 100 000 for juvenile females in the same age group is 6.3. Again, that is well below the average for the six States. As I say, the figures for Victoria and Western Australia certainly drag up considerably the six-State average. What has been important as a part of keeping those statistics down is maintaining a range of options for the juvenile justice system within the framework within which it can work. It is instractive to find that in New South Wales, particularly, the emphasis is being shifted towards diversion programs, that is, intervention with young people to keep them out of the courts and out of the detention centres. Those diversion programs involve such aspects as the police delivering wamings to potential offenders and basically trying to work in a positive and constmctive fashion with the young people concemed. It is in this context that I was pleased to follow the development of the department's policy in Queensland, that is, a commitment by this Govemment in a series of discussion papers and policy directions to broadening the sentencing options that are available to the Children's Court. It is in this context that I rose in this Chamber not so long ago to express my deep concem at the closure of The Outlook at Boonah, which is the site of the youth diversion program and an important component of diversion programs in this State. The sort of program that has been ran at The Outlook has been responsible for keeping the figures for those who are actually detained in institutions in Queensland lower than the six-State average. It is indeed a blow against the preventive nature of these diversion services to find that The Outlook is a victim of privatisation in this State. I wish to remind honourable members of the professed policy direction that is being put in place within the Department of Family Services today. This is the new direction, as it is called. The document published by the department is full of very, very worthy objectives indeed such as, "shifting emphasis away from the negative and residual nature of welfare towards a more developmental role to focus on social well-being." It states further, "retention of statutory role with increased attention to the development of preventative and support services." Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2061

As I have stated in the House before, I find it most disturbing that, when the Minister was initially defending the Govemment's decision to privatise The Outlook, she only made mention of the fact that 30 young offenders passed through that centre at Boonah in the last year. Unfortunately, emphasis was not placed on the hundreds of other young people who had also passed through that centre under a range of programs which had operated at the centre and which were provided in conjunction with community organisations. As I say, it is a very important part of the preventive and diversionary policies which keep young people out of institutions. Again I say that it is a question of priorities. The Govemment has tried to make much play of the savings that can be effected by privatising The Outlook. However, if one examines the trae picture of the sums, and takes the $350,000 that the Minister has touted as the cost of mnning the centre in a fuU year, deducts from that figure $218,000, which is the salaries figure for the 10 staff who have been promised positions within the department elsewhere, so that no savings are to be made there, and also deducts perhaps $20,000 or $30,000 contributed from the Department of Works budget for maintenance, one finds that the actual sum of money that the Govemment will save by privatising The Outlook is a very much smaller amount indeed. That is particularly so as the Minister has been stating that subsidies may be made available to organisations that might take on those premises. The figure of $350,000 suddenly drops down to $90,000, perhaps minus the level of subsidy which the Govemment may make available; so the savings are quite minuscule, certainly when compared with the sums of money spent in developing the John Oxley Centre at Wacol, which is a splendid facility. Approximately $5m has been invested there in bricks and mortar and locks and keys to house 30 young offenders. That figure of 30 young offenders is interesting. The Minister repeatedly said that 30 young offenders pass through The Outlook in 12 months. Only about 30 young offenders can he housed at the $5m complex that the Govemment has seen fit to build at Wacol. A very questionable priority has been evidenced in the actions of this Govemment in this very, very important component of our juvenile justice system. However, when considering the demise of The Outlook, it is probably pertinent to consider the demise of the former Director of the old Department of Children's Services, who I understand was probably a fairly good supporter of The Outlook itself Mrs Chapman: How about sticking to the Bill? Mr HAMILL: I am sticking to the Bill Mrs Chapman: No, you're not. Mr HAMILL: I will take the Minister's interiection. This is the first occasion in the 12 months that I have been the Opposition spokesman on Family Services on which an important element of that portfolio, that is, the juvenile justice system, has been put forward in legislative form which is able to be debated. The juvenile justice system is an important responsibility of the Department of Family Services. I think the Minister would agree with that. I do not think that she would have any argument with that. Therefore, it is very relevant to examine the whole area of the juvenile justice system and how it is being administered in this State. Of course, it is the right of every member to have that latitude in a second-reading debate. I was talking about the demise of The Outlook and relating that to the demise, within the administration of the department which rans that centre, of its former director, Mr Zerk. Honourable members might recaU that I raised that issue in the Chamber back in April when discussing the administration of the Department of Family Services in the context of the new legislation, the first in a series of which this Bill is part. I expressed the concem that the restmcturing of the portfolio, including the juvenile justice section, would see the statutory duties and powers of the Director of the Department of Children's Services, the person who was formerly responsible for these matters, vested in the permanent head of the new Department of Family Services. At that time it was said— and I am referring to an impeccable source: that is, my own speech—that this development 2062 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill appeared to be yet another victory for career public servants over the professional staff within the department in what has been additional friction between the two classes of employees and a retreat from the position arrived at in 1981 with the appointment of Zerk, a social worker and public administration graduate, as director. It has been a fascinating saga on how decisions within this Govemment are actually taken, one that is worth while tracing this aftemoon in the context of the administration of this portfolio. The question that I raised back in April about the future direction of this portfolio proved to be the foremnner of a very bleak future indeed for the former director of the old Department of Children's Services. Whilst debating this legislation, all honourable members will recaU that this is the end product of 10 years of discussion papers, position papers and draft legislation in what has become the reorganisation of this portfolio. This Minister is the most recent in a succession of Ministers who have dabbled in the reorganisation. Indeed, when he held this portfolio, my colleague the honourable member for Redcliffe was very much a part of the lengthy process of reorganisation. Back in 1984, the former Minister, Mr Muntz, introduced a draft Family and Community Development Bill into this (Chamber. At the time it was stated that it was a preliminary draft only and was there for discussion and comment by members and community organisations. It is interesting to look back at that document, particularly in relation to the administration of the department. According to that draft Bill, there would be a new department, a department of family and community development. Clause 11 of "Division II—Administration" states— "This Act shall be administered by the Minister and, subject to the Minister and this Act, by the Director and other officers of the Department appointed or continuing to hold any office or position for the purposes of this Act." That is an uncontroversial provision. Clause 12 states— "Department of Family and Community Development. The Department of Children's Services constituted under and for the purposes of the repealed Act is hereby preserved, continued in existence and constituted for the purposes of this Act under the title 'Department of Family and Community Development'." Clause 13 states— "(1) The Govemor in Council may appoint a Director of the Department." The Bill went on to provide that the Director of the then Department of Children's Services should be that person. It is quite clear that at that time in restmcturing the portfolio and the department the intention of the Govemment was to replace children's services with this new-sounding name, but to maintain the basic stractures within that department. That was all very well until an interesting juncture was reached: the annual report of the Department of Children's Services, which is very relevant to the administration of juvenile justice, was pubUshed. I refer to the annual report for the year ended 30 June 1985, from which I shall quote. Mrs CHAPMAN: I rise to a point of order. Could the honourable member possibly stick to the Bill? I have heard all this before. This House is debating the transfer of young offenders interstate. I do not believe this has any relevance to it whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): In response to the Honourable the Minister, I would like the member to stick a little more to the Bill, but the Minister would have to admit that all the comments in the honourable member's lead-up have related to young offenders. In view of that, I will allow him to continue, but ask him to stick a little closer to the Bill if he can. Mr HAMILL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that you have been listening very closely to my address this aftemoon. Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2063

The passage I will quote from the annual report specificaUy mentions the critical staffing shortage in the juvenile justice area. Nothing that this Minister has done since she took on the responsibUity of this portfolio has changed in any way the crisis outUned by the then Director of the Department of Children's Services in his report. For the benefit of all honourable members and the Minister, who I wish would take these very significant criticisms to heart—although I admit they occurred during her predecessor's time and have not been acted upon by her—I quote from the report— "There are two major indicators of workload for non-administrative staff in an organisation such as this Department, and both of these have shown a substantial increase in recent years. They relate to—"— I hope the Minister is listening— "(i) the number of court appearances of children;"— that is certainly juvenile justice— "(ii) the number of child protection notifications received in a given time. By reference to both of these measures, as well as from the consistent reports of managers throughout the organisation, it is clear that the needs for staff now exceed the establishment of the Department by a considerable margin.

The situation has now been reached however, where it is no longer possible to provide the full range of statutory services for which the Department is responsible, and even child protection work is now being prioritised." That is a direct reference to not only child protection work but also the work of those officers of the department who are directly involved in working with juvenile offenders. What has been the consequence of that report? The consequence of that report and the scathing criticism of the Queensland Govemment's priorities and its inabUity to resource adequately these departments to fulfil those statutory duties was, of course, to shoot the messenger. A wonderful tactic! When the Govemment does not want to hear the criticism, it silences the mouth from which the criticism comes. Surprise, surprise, when some three years later the first of a series of enactments in this Chamber was made. The Family and Youth Services Bill, which came before this Chamber earlier this year, changed the administration of the department considerably. In fact, it can be seen that section 6 of the Family and Youth Services Act states that the Act— "... shall be administered by the Minister and, subject to the Minister, by the permanent head and other oflftcers of the Department." If one tums to another part of the original Bill, one finds the provisions that amend the remnants of the Children's Services Act, particularly clause 18 that amends section 6 of the Adoption of Children Act, which is still within the ambit of the Minister's portfolio. Mrs Chapman: Where are the young offenders in the adoptions? Mr HAMILL: I point out to the Minister that I am stating Mrs Chapman: You're not on the subject. Try to stick to it if you can. Mr HAMILL: I wish that the Minister could comprehend the point that I am making. The point that I am making is that under her administration of the portfolio she has succeeded in killing the messenger. She has succeeded in wreaking the vengeance of the National Party Govemment against the person who had the temerity to criticise the staffing levels in the Department of ChUdren's Services which is now, of course, the Department of Family Services, minus, of course, the person who was then the director. In the legislation that the Minister pushed through this Parliament eariier this year, the position of director was abolished and the permanent head—the Under Secretary of 2064 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill the Department of Family Services—assumed all the statutory duties that were formerly the responsibility of Mr Zerk, the former Director of the Department of Children's Services. So I put it to the Minister that, when the first of this series of legislative provisions was before this Chamber, this development was taking place. Of course, the Minister glided over this matter and did not wish in any way to inform the members of this Chamber of the intended fate of the Director of the Department of Children's Services. Honourable members had to wait until the House went into its long and notorious mid­ year recess. On 9 May 1987, the Queensland Government Gazette No. 29 stated— "His ExceUency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council and upon the recommendation of the Public Service Board, has approved that

(b)- GRAHAM JOHN ZERK, M.Pub.Admin., B.Soc.St., Director, Department of Children's Services, Brisbane ... be appointed to such position with classification and salary arrangements as at present namely 1-20." It was signed by Lin Powell. In other words, Mr Zerk was removed not only from the directorship of the Department of Children's Services but removed totally from the portfolio in which he had the expertise. He was sent over to the Education Department, where he could not comment on staffing needs in the juvenile justice system and could not point out the inadequacies of the Minister. Mrs CHAPMAN: I rise to a point of order. I will take so much from this fellow over here, but I am telling him here and now that Mr Zerk applied for that job and got it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! Is the Minister stating a point of order? Mrs CHAPMAN: Yes. The honourable member said that Mr Zerk was "sent over". I would just like to make it clear to the House that I did not send Mr Zerk anywhere. I wish that the honourable member would stick to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister drew my attention to the matter, and I sent for a copy of the Bill. I have allowed the honourable member to continue under clause 3, "Interpretation", which seems to be quite wide. Mrs Chapman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is quite wide. The Minister should read it. Does she have a copy of it? It is quite wide. In this case, while the honourable member continues to speak about young offenders under clause 3, "Interpretation", it will be very difficult for me to stop him. I will aUow the honourable member to continue. There is no point of order. The Minister has made an explanation, which I have allowed. Mr HAMILL: I acknowledge the wisdom of your raling, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is fed up with me now, she will be even more fed up with me by the time that I am finished speaking. Whether the Minister sent Mr Zerk off to the Education Department in internal exile within the Queensland public service or whether Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister gave a perfect explanation of that. I will not allow the honourable member for Ipswich to continue in that vein. Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2065

Mr HAMILL: Whether Mr Zerk was sent, or whether he applied to be transferred, the fact of the matter is that he did not have too many options. After all, the Minister put through legislation that abolished Mr Zerk's job. It made it difficult for him to remain in a job that no longer existed. The other element of the double-barrelled gun was the second gazettal, of 23 May 1987, wherein it was found that, surprise, surprise, as I forecast in April of this year, the career public servants had won out. Mr Zerk had already been fortunate enough to have been taken unto the bosom of the Minister for Education. Mr Pettigrew had been appointed as the Under Secretary of the Department of Family Services in Brisbane, exercising all of those statutory duties that had formerly been the responsibility of Mr Zerk at the time that he was the Director of the Department of Children's Services. Those duties included, of course, important responsibilities in relation to juvenile justice. As I said, the Government succeeded in killing off the messenger. The messenger paid the price for his frankness. Because the Department of Family Services is hopelessly and inadequately staffed and is in no better position than it was in IVi years ago when the then director highlighted that fact for the benefit of all honourable members in this House, the young people of Queensland are continuing to be badly served. Mr Gately: Do you suggest Mr Hawke gives us some more money and we can do something instead of taking it off us? Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Currambin is like the Mr Prest: There's the offender on young children. Mr HAMILL: I find some of his remarks quite offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr GATELY: I rise to a point of order. I ask that the honourable member withdraw those insulting comments. Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. I made no insulting comments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, the honourable member for Ipswich did not make those comments, but I know who did. I ask the honourable member for Port Curtis to withdraw the remark. It was offensive. Mr PREST: I will do so. Mr HAMILL: I also find the behaviour of the honourable member for Currambin offensive, and I find his views on the welfare system quite offensive as well. He supports privatisation within the Department of Family Services, which will result in the removal of the statutory functions of that department that is supposed to be providing for the welfare of those young offenders who come within the ambit of the Children's Court. Mr GATELY: I rise to a point of order. I did not make any such comments. I said that it is time that Mr Hawke gave this Govemment its due right from Commonwealth taxation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Ipswich to continue. Mr HAMILL: It appears that the intellect of the honourable member is as thin as his skin. The fact is that the Govemment is busily selling off the specialist services through which, hitherto, the department has been able to work with young offenders and those young people who are at risk of offending. Mr Davis: The Minister should resign. Mr HAMILL: I have been saying that for qiute some time. That is a very valuable contribution to this debate. 2066 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill

The forthcoming State Budget will indeed be the acid test for the Minister. Last year the Minister failed to deliver the additional staff that the department had been crying out for. In fact, during the period in which the Minister has administered that particular portfolio, no additional staff has been allocated to the department for which the Minister is responsible. The last increase in staff occurred as a result of a Cabinet decision that was made following Mr Zerk's notorious report in 1985. To that extent, workloads and child protection work within the department have burgeoned. The upshot is that the Minister is presiding over the actual stripping-away of the specialist services with which the department has been able to assist young people at risk and young offenders. Government members interjected. Mr HAMILL: The Minister is in a hypocritical position. She cannot, on the one hand, be advocating a new direction aimed at an improvement in preventive services and in the personal development services offered by the department and, on the other, be taking them away. The choras on the Govemment side calls on Mr Hawke to provide additional funds to assist the Queensland Govemment in the task of administering its portfolios. That is the absolute depths of hypocrisy. It was the same choras of galahs that was advocating massive cuts in the welfare spending of the nation if the ill-fated, ill-conceived and, thankfully, unsuccessful "Joh for PM" campaign had been successful. The Queensland Govemment cannot have it both ways. It cannot, on the one hand, say that the Commonwealth should not allocate funds to welfare and, on the other hand, scream poor mouth when the Commonwealth does not help it out. The Queensland Govemment is responsible for adminstering this portfolio. It has been in its hands for the last 30 years, and the fact is that the portfolio has the hallmarks of long-term neglect. It has been well recognised by successive Ministers and successive persons within the department that the Welfare portfolio has been starved of funds. However, the only people who have suffered as a consequence have been the kids and the families for whom the department is supposed to provide support. That is a lamentable record on the part of the Government. Honourable members interjected. Mr HAMILL: I believe that honourable members who attempt to interject with specious comments to try to shed the blame should look to their own selves and the performance of their own Ministers and recognise the fact that theirs is the culpability. The test will soon be before us once again when the people of Queenslnd see in the State Budget this year whether the needs of the young people, the families of Queensland, the juvenile offenders and the young people at risk will be given adequate recognition by the Government. On its performance up to date, and particularly in recent months, it is quite clear that the Govemment could not care a jot about the welfare of the young people for whom it professes so frequently to care. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (4.43 p.m.): I support the BUI, which wiU complement comparable legislation in other States and will eventually allow for the transfer of young offenders. My speech will be somewhat shorter than that of the Opposition spokesman, mainly because I will confine myself to the Bill in question. On my estimation, the Opposition spokesman spent one minute of his more than 30-minute address confining his remarks to the legislation being debated. He hived off and roved round the prairie. He did everything but address the particular legislation that is being debated today. Honourable members are used to that. However, it is very disappointing. I tum now to a fellow who is obviously trying to make a name for himself in Opposition—poor old Nev Warburton. Goodness knows what will happen to him in the future. The ALP spokesman seems to be suffering from the ALP fixation with privatisation. Because of the split in the different factions of the ALP, privatisation is something that Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2067 is obviously occupying the minds of Opposition members. Some factions want to sell off Australian Airlines, Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and goodness knows what else. Therefore, every time Opposition members enter the House to debate legislation, they have a fixation in the front of their minds about privatisation. The ALP has four or five different factions. The Right supports the legislation, but the Left and Centre Unity and goodness knows who else do not like it. Therefore, when Opposition members stand up to debate the legislation, they have an enormous hang-up with privatisation. They drag it into debates at every opportunity. A point that cannot be ignored is the problem with the shortfall in Commonwealth funding. The Premier has said on numerous occasions that the State Govemment is quite prepared to accept its share in any reduction in Government spending, but it wants an even-handed approach. At the recent Premiers Conference, the Queensland Government witnessed discrimination against Queensland. The Queensland Govemment is quite prepared to accept a shortfall in funding if the Commonwealth and the other States do likewise. However, what has been witnessed from successive ALP Govemments is that they dish it out to Queensland, but there is always largess in the bottom of the cupboard for the Labour States. The Commonwealth Government provided special funding for the America's Cup defence in Westem Australia and special funding for South Australia. Enormous Commonwealth contracts for the building of submarines are being given to the southern States. Tariff protection and other similar measures flow to the southern States, but nothing comes to Queensland. That is blatant discrimination. The people of Queensland are prepared to tighten their belts along with everybody else, but that is not the point. The point is that it is discrimination which is aimed only at the people of Queensland. It is for that reason—and that reason alone—that the ALP has not occupied the Government benches in Queensland for 30 years, and it looks as though it will not do so for another 30 years. The Labor Opposition has never stood up for the people of Queensland. Members of the Opposition have never said to the Federal Govemment, "Okay, you are doing it wrong, Hawke. We will stick up for the people of Queensland. We will stand up and be counted." Opposition members do not do that. They are mere lackeys of the Government in Canberra. Unfortunately, that is the kind of attitude that we in Queensland have become accustomed to. ALP members are a failure as an Opposition. That state of affairs was typified by the Opposition spokesman's address earlier today. In summary, I will confine my remarks to the legislation and look particularly at three elements that should be brought to the notice of the House. The first is the complementary nature of the legislation. The second is the support contained in the legislation for the concept of the family unit. That is one policy area in which the Opposition and the Govemment in this State stand in stark contrast, in view of this Govemment's support through its legislation for the concept of the family unit as a whole. In contrast to that, the Opposition supports many incredible and way-out family relationships which could not really be called family relationships. The Opposition seems to support all types of weird and wonderful relationships. Mr Gately: Homosexuals and the spread of AIDS. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member for Currambin said it, but I am too much of a gentleman. During this debate, I would like to look into the third element—the reasons why young people offend. In doing so, I will bring to bear some experience I have gained as a teacher. The legislation is very similar in principle to other legislation that is in place in the adult field, which has already been discussed, in the way it refers to the transfer of prisoners and to persons on parole. I am led to believe that the Conference of Social Welfare Ministers has agreed to adopt uniform legislation in the States and the Territory. This Bill is part of Queensland's commitment to this process. 2068 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill

I wish to highlight that the Conference of Social Welfare Ministers is operating in the way in which the Australian Federation was originally designed to work. The Ministers come together and hold a meeting; they discuss the problems and agree to adopt uniform legislation. There is no draconian approach adopted by the Commonwealth Govemment and there is no use of its massive financial resources to bludgeon the States into agreement, as has occurred in so many other issues, especially World Heritage listing. The conference is part of an agreement whereby the States come together and talk through the problems. Agreement is reached on a common solution and the Ministers retum to their respective State Parliaments to meet that commitment. It is a consultative process, which is glaringly lacking in so many areas of Commonwealth/State negotiations today. It is certainly to the credit of the Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs that Queensland is meeting its commitment to introduce this legislation. Of course, the legislation is based on humanitarian grounds. It will attempt to allow a young offender to retum to his family. Honourable members will notice that many times in the remarks made by me—and certainly the Minister—the word "family" recurs. A young offender may be able to retum to the environment that he feels comfortable in and that he knows so well. The legislation will also allow a young offender who is detained in Queensland to be transferred to another State, should his family be transferred or move to another State. As I said earlier, this is another aspect of the Govemment's commitment to the family as one of the key social units in our society. The absence of legislation of this nature presently works against these measures of reform being implemented before a young offender is released from custody. Considerable difficulty can be created in the process of rehabilitating a young offender because he is unable to experience any real contact with his family. It is very difficult to spell out a theory of why young people offend. I am advised that a large number of these children sometimes have not had proper supervision or have come from unstable or anti-social family backgrounds. Certainly a number of Govemment members—especially those of us who have had experience teaching in the class room—have seen many instances of this as we have come in contact with countless thousands of young people in our daily lives. It seems sensible that work should be done to try to stabilise the young offender's family background. When he is eventually released from custody, he will be able to go back to a more stable situation. Some support can be provided to his family by the local officials of the Minister's department who are responsible for young offenders. I want to dwell on a few experiences that I have had over a number of years as a teacher in the State, as well as the non-State, system. I have seen some children who have had problems with the law. More often than not, those children seem to come from a family situation that really is not working properly. In some instances parents have neglected the children. You will certainly appreciate my comments, Mr Speaker, because of your time in the class room as a teacher. In cases involving children who are causing problems in the class room, and are having problems outside of the class room and ranning foul of the law, it is often found that those young people have a problem in their family home. I know that many teachers act outside of the school environment. Many dedicated teachers will actuaUy contact the family and say to them, "Your child is having problems. What is happening?" Quite frequently—unfortunately, all too frequently—it is found that the family situation is not what it ought to be. If a teacher sits down with young people, they will tell him that there is conflict in the family and that Mum or Dad has left home. Quite often the problems that a child has within the family are manifested through that young person's altered behaviour. This legislation, in its support of the family, hopes to not only remedy the problem involving young F>eople who are removed from their families when they do offend, but also work through the Minister's department to try to find solutions to the problems that the family is confronted with. Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2069

Other young offenders may have a range of psychological and emotional disorders that also require treatment. I do not mean to make out for one minute that all the problems confronting young people stem from problems at home within the family. I am advised that the treatment of those disorders is somewhat different from the treatment of physical disorders. With physical disorders there is a clear pattem of illness and generally a clear means of therapy available. With emotional and psychological disorders the diagnosis may not be as precise and the method of treatment may also not be as clear cut. During my teaching career one of the instances that I came across involved problems associated with dietary factors. That was something that I was totally unaware of when I was teaching. During my 10 years as a teacher I can recall at least two instances in which the situation came about whereby Mr Vaughan: You are straying from the Bill now. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member should listen and leam. This could be a whole new leaming experience for him. Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member should hang in there. He will be right. He should not worry about it. He should just leam. As I was saying, there were two instances that I was aware of in which young people had caused trouble, even to the extent of coming into contact with the law, and upon intensive investigation the problems were found to be the result of a dietary problem that they had. Some element of their diet did not agree with their biochemical system and that manifested itself in a change in their behaviour. Certainly in those two instances it was very aggressive behaviour indeed. When those children were given special treatment, their behaviour was modified over a relatively short period. So not all of the reasons why young people offend are clear cut. They are certainly not all the result of problems within the family. Treatment of emotional and psychological disorders can be quite protracted and may well need to involve not only the sick person but also his family and relatives. It is very important not to lose sight of the fact that the legislation involves not only young offenders but also a total look at the family as a whole. In addition, some environmental manipulation may be required so that the social environment to which the young offender retums is more accepting of him or more compatible with him. There is no doubt that another group of young offenders is engaging in aggressive acting-out behaviour. People in that group have to learn new ways of controlling and channelling their aggression so that if aggression has to be expressed, it is expressed in socially acceptable ways. I am aware of a couple of instances in which that acting-out behaviour has been ameliorated and has certainly been modified through behavioural means, and over a matter of months very aggressive behaviour in young children has been modified. People in those groups express their aggression against other individuals within the community or against buildings, telephone booths, public amenities and the like. In the performance of their aggressive, anti-social behaviour they are a great cost to the community, and unless they leam different ways of behaving they will continue to be a nuisance to the community. They cannot be locked up for ever. We have to try to rehabilitate them and hope that the rehabilitation process will convert them, into law- abiding citizens. Whatever the reason for the offending behaviour of a young person, during the period of his incarceration he needs preparation for release. When he gets close to the time when he is to be released, that preparation may need to be much more intense. After he is released he needs community support. He needs a community to which he can relate and which can relate to him and check that he is, in a manner of words, toeing the line. All this can be much better done if the young offender is returned to 2070 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill the environment from which he came or is allowed to be closer to members of his family if they have since moved to another State. It gives me much pleasure to support strongly this legislation. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (4.56 p.m.): The Liberal Party is happy to support the Bill which, as has been mentioned here this aftemoon, is another move in the direction of stracturing the new legislation. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I wish to reaffirm our commitment to the family and to the traditional way in which children have been reared over the years. However, one would have to be short-sighted not to realise that not all situations are ideal. The very reason for the existence of the Department of Family Services, which was the Department of Children's Services, is that so many families break down and that many different relationships have developed in recent times. Because of that, society, through elected Govemments, has to play its role in dealing with children who, in many cases through no fault of their own, have come into conflict with the law. Earlier in the debate that dirty word "privatisation" was used. Frankly, I think it is time that privatisation was placed in its proper context. I do not see any reason why my learned friend from Ipswich should get upset about the so-called privatisation of welfare. I do not think that there will be a rash of entrepreneurs wanting to get into the whole field of welfare. I notice that Mr Bond, Mr Murdoch and the other corporate giants of this nation have not expressed a great deal of interest in it. So I do not think that the member for Ipswich should be overly concemed. Mr Hamill: I was concemed about the young people who will not have a program to go to because the department has withdrawn services. Mr WHITE: The member for Ipswich has raised the issue. I guess he refers to Boonah. I have to admit that during my period in the Ministry that matter was under consideration and at that stage we went very close to closing Boonah. That was mainly because the feeling in the department at the time was that the resources could be diverted and spent more usefully. I am not advocating a lessening of resources; I am frankly putting the position. I do not think the Minister ought to be taken to task over that. The member for Ipswich ought to remember that privatisation has many advantages. The legislation enabling the establishment of the Bond university was a great innovation. I was disappointed that the member for Ipswich opposed that Bill, because it will open up further educational opportunities. Of course, he went to a private university, namely, Oxford. Mr Hamill: It is not private. Mr WHITE: It is funded, I might add, by one of those "dreaded, rathless capitalists" of the last century—Cecil Rhodes. Mr Hamill: Oxford is not a private university. Mr WHITE: It was the last time I was over there. Mr Hamill: That must have been a long time ago. Your appearance belies your years. Mr WHITE: I thank the honourable member. Mr Innes: It was called black money because it was made by diamonds taken from the ground by African workers. Mr WHITE: Yes. I have often wondered whether socialists who are the beneficiaries of Cecil Rhodes and the other diamond merchants who took so much wealth out of Africa have any sense of conscience when they accept the beneficence of that capitalism Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2071 of the last century. I guess that if I do not get on with the Bill somebody might take a point of order. In defence of the member for Ipswich, for whom I have a personal fondness, I must say that I do not think he ought to be taken to task because he is, after aU, a relatively new member of this Parliament. I suppose those of us who have been around a bit longer have to be a Uttle tolerant. The Bill basically involves a machinery amendment. The Liberal Party supports it. Together with other members of the House, members of the Liberal Party look forward to further progress in the development of legislation in this important area. The movement in the development of legislation in this area has to be put in its proper context. There has always been great discussion, great debate, great criticism from the Opposition benches of the so-called lack of response by the Govemment. However, what members of Parliament should be thinking about is doing the right thing by our kids by ensuring that better quality workers come through the system and everything possible is done to help families. A preventive approach rather than a remedial approach to the delivery of welfare services is needed. According to the last report from the Department of Children's Services, the number of juvenUe offenders represents only 0.5 per cent of the juvenile population. It is interesting to note that 70 per cent of the children who come before the courts do not offend again. However, the other children who are repeated offenders pose a problem. The court process is a deterring factor; nevertheless, a relatively small percentage of offending juveniles become chronic offenders. That is primarily what honourable members are dealing with this aftemoon. There is growing concem in the community about the number of juvenile offences. The last figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that last year 31 juveniles—22 males and 9 females—appeared in the Children's Court charged with offences such as blackmail, extortion, fraud and false pretences. Offences involving violence continue to take up much of the court's time. A total of five juveniles—four males and one female—were charged with murder or attempted murder. Another 56 appeared in court on major assault charges, and 137 were charged with minor assault offences. Violence is on the increase. Although all honourable members want to adopt a humanitarian approach to the handling of juvenile offenders, I think that the Govemment has to get tougher. A wider range of sentencing options is needed. I will retum to that shortly. Over the last two years, the most common offences committed by juveniles involved robbery and violence, and it is a serious and growing problem. The ABS figures reveal that the number of appearances in court in 1980-81 were 3 956. In the last year of record, 1985-86, that figure had escalated to 5 345. So the Govemment has a major community problem on its hands. In the short time left to me, I want to outline three major directions in which I think the Govemment ought to move. Firstly, young offenders should be held more responsible for their behaviour. I am not advocating that they should be made wholly responsible, because obviously they are not mature. However, the Govemment has to consider ways and means of placing greater responsibility on the individual. Secondly, society has a right to be protected from illegal behaviour by young people. Thirdly, young people should have the same rights to the due process of the law and should receive treatment equal to that which adults receive, and those rights must be guaranteed by special safeguards. Those are the three major special ways in which I think the strategy for the development of programs to deal with this problem ought to go. There has to be a balance. At the moment, many police officers. Juvenile Aid Bureau personnel, officers of the Department of Family Services and social workers who work in community organisations basically say to me, "It is a case of a rap over the knuckles from the 2072 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill magistrate, admonishment and discharge, or, altematively, something at the severe end of the pendulum, that is, Westbrook." There is public concern about violence in society and that concern is increased by the violent activities of so many juveniles. These 15-year-old offenders are pretty tough characters. A wider range of sentencing options is required to deal with this problem, and I put before the House several major matters for consideration. Firstly, restitution or compensation should be considered, for example, in a case in which loss or damage to property and loss of income or personal injury have occurred through juveniles involving themselves in violent assault. Some form of compensation or restitution should be considered. Mr Lee interjected. Mr WHITE: My colleague the honourable member for Yeronga has reminded me that the activities of children who are buming down schools should be investigated. Why should teachers be faced with the problem of supervising those children? To retum to my first major point, the question of restitution or compensation—if the question of a fine or restitution arises, judges and magistrates should be given a discretion. They should be able to take into account the young offender's and family's ability to pay. The second point that I raise refers to compensation in kind. If a young offender has damaged an elderly person's home in some shape or form, I do not see any reason why that youngster should not be directed to go along and mow the grass, paint the fence and do things of that nature. That would have a more salutary impact on young people than merely giving them a rap over the knuckles or, in some cases, imposing such a severe penalty that it is quite out of context. As I mentioned earlier, my third point concems the further development of community service orders so that young offenders can give something back in kind to the community. Because it is an area of Govemment administration, I had some involvement with the development of community service orders in this State. They have proved to be very successful, as has the fine option program. I see no reason why that concept should not be translated through to young juveniles. The probation service could be upgraded to provide probation of up to two years in some cases. Additionally, intermittent or continuous custody could be given for up to two years. An eye can be kept on those children and they will have to report back to whoever the person may be. Additional conditions that the judge or magistrate considers to be in the best interests of the young offender in society could be imposed. In other words, the judiciary and magistrates could be given a little more discretion—call it what you will. Almost every day when one picks up the newspapers, one sees such headlines as, "Crime kids face prison" and "Punishment for students". Everyone must be concerned about this. It is not a matter that should be involved in partisan politics. In order for something to be done there must be some degree of commonality and support on this issue. The Liberal Party supports the Bill and is pleased that another move is being taken in the right direction. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (5.10 p.m.): In supporting the BiU, which is set to become Queensland's contribution to reciprocal legislation to enable young offenders to be transferred from State to State, I make the point that debates such as this are always interesting. I cannot help comparing the intelligent contribution of the member for Mansfield and the thoughtful contribution of the member for Redcliffe with the rather disappointing effort put forward this aftemoon by the member for Ipswich. A continual attitude expressed by members of the Opposition is that if more money is allocated to all sorts of causes, all sorts of problems wiU be solved. Mr Alison: Throw a handful of money at them. Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill 26 August 1987 2073

Mr BORBIDGE: As my honourable friend says, throw a few handfuls of money about. Surely we should be looking at value for the tax dollar. I find it more than slightly hypocritical that the Queensland Govemment is currently framing a Budget when it is $174m down on the amount that it had at this time last year. It is down $411m on its just entitlement under the Commonwealth's tax-sharing arrangements. Mr Hamill: If the Premier became Prime Minister you would be down much further. Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member bored the House for a considerable period. I suggest that if he just listens he might manage to leam something. The Queensland Govemment is down $41 Im on its just entitlement under the Commonwealth's tax-sharing arrangements. Mr Henderson: We have been cheated. Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Mount Gravatt said, we have been cheated. If the Federal Government had applied the same economic restraints upon itself as it has imposed upon the State Govemments of AustraUa, there would be no Federal Budget deficit. In fact, there would be a Federal Budget surplus of $2.5 billion. Govemment members object to members of the Labor Party saying "Spend, spend, spend" whUe their colleagues in Canberra are taking more and more from this State and expecting it to assume greater responsibilities all the time. Queensland does not ask for special treatment; it asks only that the Commonwealth applies to itself the same rales as it applies to the Queensland Govemment and to the Govemments in other parts of Australia. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest to the honourable member that his interiections do him no credit. It is my understanding that Victoria already has legislation similar to this on its statute-book and that Queensland will be the second State to pass such legislation. Once the legislation is proclaimed. Ministers responsible for young offenders in each State—and that term includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northem Ter­ ritory—will be able to enter into general agreements to allow transfers to take place. Once these general agreements have been entered into, individual arrangements will be able to be made between the permanent head or delegated officer in each State. These arrangements will provide the basis on which a young offender may be transferred. Before an arrangement may be entered into, a number of factors must be considered. Firstly, where a transfer from Queensland is proposed, clause 7 lays down conditions that have to be satisfied, and these include the requirement that the request for the transfer must be initiated by the young offender or his parent or guardian. This is an important restriction to prevent a transfer being arranged without specific request. Other matters such as the appropriateness of transfer and whether there are any appeals outstanding must also be taken into account. Obviously, it would be inappropriate to transfer a young offender against whom further charges were outstanding or who had lodged or was proposing to lodge appeals against conviction. Where a transfer from another State is proposed, the perrhanent head must be satisfied that there are adequate facilities in Queensland to enable the young offender to be accepted and dealt with in Queensland as provided in the arrangement before he agrees to accept the transfer. There is thus no possibility of a young offender from another State being dumped in Queensland. Similar provisions will apply in the other States of the Commonwealth.

76381—69 2074 26 August 1987 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Bill

As I have said, the Bill is part of a system of reciprocal legislation presently being developed. It therefore contains provisions designed to facilitate transfers on a co­ operative basis. It will remove a gap in the law that presently prevents effective transfers from occurring. When the reciprocal legislation is in place, the entire program for the transfer of young offenders will be based on sound good sense, which falls under two broad, general headings. The first is a social heading. Young offenders eventually must take their place in the community. It is easier for them to be rehabilitated and re-equipped to enter the community if they are close to their parents and guardians, who eventually have to accept responsibility for them. Very often the process of rehabilitation requires work to be done with offenders and their families. Honourable members will agree that that is not possible if for example, a Victorian offender is in a Queensland detention centre and his parents live in Victoria. Similar problems arise if a young offender is in a Queensland detention centre and his parents or guardians are transferred interstate. Honourable members will appreciate that at least some juvenile crime arises as a result of a break-down in family relations. That is a very real problem. If a young person is to be re-placed in the community and is not to re-offend, that break-down has to be repaired. The process of repair often requires parents and young people to be counselled together. This Bill will certainly assist in that process. The second heading relates to economics. Although I have no statistics available from which I can quote, it makes good sense to say that offenders from interstate should not be maintained in Queensland institutions at a cost to the Queensland tax-payers. This Bill contains a legal mechanism to return interstate offenders to the States from which they have come. Those States will then have to look after those offenders at the expense of the tax-payers of those States. Many young people drift through my own electorate looking for sun and the easy life. If they commit offences, it does not seem fair that Queenslanders should have to house them and attempt to rehabilitate them. The legislation before this Parliament is important. It warrants the support of all honourable members. It is important in debates such as this that we examine the problems in a constmctive and positive way. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Hon. Y. A. CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers—Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs) (5.17 p.m.), in reply: I wiU resist the temptation to ignore the contribution to this debate that was made by the honourable member for Ipswich. That is probably what he deserves. All honourable members have heard before 90 per cent of what he said. One wonders what the honourable member has done since he was appointed the Opposition spokesman. It appears that his only source of information is the 1985 annual report of the Department of Children's Services. Mr De Lacy: Let your hair down and succumb to temptation. Mrs CHAPMAN: I ask the honourable member to be quiet. As I was saying, that is how far the honourable member for Ipswich is behind the times. The 1985 annual report of the Department of Children's Services is the sum total, of his knowledge in this regard. He should do his party a favour and resign from his position. I was interested to hear the honourable member voice his opposition to privatisation. I wonder whether he has had the intestinal fortitude to make his views known to his party faithful in the Federal sphere, including that old rogue, the Prime Minister, who is at present clumsily attempting to follow a similar policy in Canberra. That is yet another example of how the honourable member is out of step with the real world. Mr Hamill: Who—Mr Hawke? Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) BiU 26 August 1987 2075

Mrs CHAPMAN: That is right. He is out of step, and so is the honourable member. The honourable member's criticism of the restmcturing of my department also demonstrates the folly of believing what one reads in textbooks rather than benefitting from practical experience. If the honourable member had had any of the latter, he could not possibly have opposed what is happening in my department—the consolidation of the resources of five separate departments into one stmcture, therefore paving the way for greater efficiency and more effective service delivery for my department's clients. For the benefit of the honourable member, I reiterate that the facUity known as The Outlook is not being closed or sold. AU that the Govemment is doing is giving a highly skilled grassroots organisation an opportunity to continue the work there and expand on it. There will be no demise, as the honourable member continues to infer. The hundreds and hundreds of children who have undertaken courses at the facility will continue to have that opportunity. My department and its officers have never claimed to have all the skills and knowledge in the area of diversion programs. We are confident that a non-Govemment organisation will be able to develop even more effective services. Mr Hamill: That's privatising it. Mrs CHAPMAN: That is what the Govemment is all about. The honourable member is a little capitalist in his own right, and he is loving it. Mr Hamill: Will those organisations be able to use the facility for free as they do now? Mrs CHAPMAN: The honourable member for Ipswich did not raise any points in relation to the Bill. Therefore, there is nothing more for me to respond to. However, I refute his criticism and innuendo against dedicated career public servants who are spearheading the reorganisation of my department, which will bring great benefits to both its officers and its clients. I thank the honourable member for Mansfield for addressing the Bill. It is trae that the Commonwealth Govemment has a discriminatory policy against funding for Queens­ land. My department in particular, like others, is affected by that policy. The legislation places emphasis on the well-being of the young offender in the context of his or her family. It is Queensland's contribution to reciprocal legislation to be passed in all States and Territories. I congratulate the honourable member on bringing his insight about juvenile offenders to the notice of the House in a very thoughtful speech. I appreciate very much the input that he brings to my committee. The honourable member for Redcliffe wisely expressed the view that young offenders can be better dealt with in the context of the family. That really is what the Bill is all about. I thank him for the expression of his party's support. With reference to his remarks about serious juvenile offenders, I point out that legislation is being prepared to provide a wider range of sentencing options for the courts. The Govemment will not depart from its stance that the community must be protected from offenders, regardless of whether they are adult or juvenile. I thank him for his suggestions and his input to the debate. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise also is to be congratulated on his appreciation of the economic reality that confronts the Govemment today. He drew attention to the detail of the Bill and the importance of the arrangement that will take account of each individual's circumstances. That is an important aspect of the Bill. I thank him very much for his contribution. Motion agreed to. 2076 26 August 1987 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act Amendment Bill

Committee Clauses 1 to 21, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mrs Chapman, by leave, read a third time.

FISHING INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION AND MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.26 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to provide with respect to the sale or other disposal of the undertaking of Queensland Fish Board under the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1985, to amend that Act in certain particulars, and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.27 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The BiU is designed to facilitate the commercialisation of the Queensland Fish Board. Since 1982, when the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act was introduced, the policy of the Govemment has been to encourage all sectors of the fishing industry to adopt the principles of private enterprise within the general parameters of competent resource management. The final stage of this process is being put in place by the commercialisation of the industry's only statutory trading authority, the Queensland Fish Board. The board's position in recent years has been made difficult because it was capitalised to handle a far greater quantity of seafood than is now actually coming through its doors, which is in part due to the multiplication of licensed seafood traders. The board is in debt to the extent of $ 12.8m, made up of $5.8m in State Govemment advances and loans and $2.9m in extemal debentures, together with $4.1m in interest due on Govemment borrowings. As there was no possibility of the board's financial position improving, and as the need for the board's continued presence had diminished, a decision was taken to save the Queensland tax-payer something in excess of $lm annually. To this end, I advertised in the national press on 15 and 16 May this year seeking expressions of interest to purchase the entire operations of the Queensland Fish Board as a going concem. Some 26 expressions of interest were received, and aU were provided with details of the board's operations and schedules of assets to allow firm offers to be submitted. Land and buildings constituted the major part of the sale. An independent valuer placed a market value of $3.245m on the bulk of the board properties, for their immediate sale. The value as continuing fish markets was given as $5.962m which broadly represented the capitalised value. The market value for each property was—Colmslie, $ 1.75m; Townsville, $300,000; Maryborough, $140,000; Mackay, $125,000; Bundaberg, $230,000; Tin Can Bay, $200,000; Scarborough, $175,000; Mooloolaba, $125,000; Cleveland, $90,000 and Wynnum, $110,000. In each case, their value as a seafood enterprise was considerably higher. The board itself—and I stress Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act Amendment Bill 26 August 1987 2077

"the board itself—had placed separate valuations on Tewantin at $85,000, Port Douglas at $45,000, Gladstone at $37,000 and Weipa at $ 10,000. No valuation has been considered for the Southport Spit property, which is expected to bring several million dollars when it is offered for sale by auction at a future date. It is recognised that higher individual offers have been made for some selected properties, but the value of the overall sale has been enhanced by selling the board's operation essentially as a going concem. That, of course, is again in the best interest of the fishing industry. Tenure of board property includes both freehold and leasehold land. Freehold land is located at Colmslie, Bundaberg, Maryborough, Tin Can Bay, Wynnum, Cleveland and Tewantin. Various forms of leasehold land are located at Mackay, Bundaberg, Tin Can Bay, Weipa, TownsviUe, Mooloolaba and Scarborough. In addition to those assets, a considerable quantity of plant and equipment has been included in the sale. Detailed analysis of the firm offers received, including an analysis of their financial capacity, resulted in a short list of four final contenders. In each instance these offers conformed to my requirement that an assurance be given that the daily auction at Colmslie would be maintained. It is noteworthy that this decision to maintain the daily auction was taken on business grounds, as each of the commercial enterprises contending to replace the Queensland Fish Board recognised the benefits which would accme by maintaining the major access to product that is provided by the daily auction. Similarly, each of the final contenders proposed a significant increase in the Queensland Fish Board's processing capacity, with a resultant substantial increase in staff and value added in seafood production. The major contenders also gave undertakings to give priority to employing existing board staff. A consideration in the agreement that will be negotiated is that an ex gratia payment be made to present employees with less than 10 years' employment with the board who do not seek or are not offered employment, calculated on the basis of one week's salary for each completed year of continuous service with the board up to a maximum of nine years. Considering all factors, a decision was taken that the public interest as well as the interests of the fishing industry would best be served by selling the board's operations to A. Raptis and Sons. Negotiations are proceeding in that regard, and I expect that finality will be reached in the very near future. I wiU now detail the events that led to that decision. Cabinet considered a submission that I made in regard to the disposal of the assets of the Queensland Fish Board. As a result of that, a decision was taken that further negotiations should be held because it was considered that the amount initially offered by the four short-list companies interested in acquiring the assets was inadequate. As a result of that, further offers were made by each of the four companies. In one case the offer which had originally been made was not increased. As a result the Govemment decided that the offer of Manettas would be satisfactory, provided that discussion indicated, and agreement was reached, that the offer of Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd should be accepted subject to the company meeting with the Honourable the Premier and me to obtain certain assurances and to negotiate the actual terms and conditions to bring about the sale. Accordingly, Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd was advised that, subject to those conditions, its offer would be accepted, and the date was set for a meeting between the Honourable the Premier, Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd and me. Prior to that meeting, it was decided that the matter should be further considered by the Cabinet. As a result. Cabinet came to the conclusion that further negotiations should not take place with Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd but that A. Raptis and Sons should be given an opportunity to reach finality in regard to the offer that it had made. 2078 26 August 1987 Statistical Retums Act Amendment Bill

Those negotiations accordingly took place. Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd was advised of the decision. A. Raptis and Sons was invited to take part in further discussions towards reaching finaUty on the offer that it had made. As I indicated earlier, the board's property on the Southport Spit has not been included in final negotiations. Because of its high value for an altemative use, it will be offered for sale separately in the near future. Similarly, I have paid special attention to the board's Gladstone property, which will be sold separately to the Gladstone Fishermen's Co-operative on favourable terms. Prior to the decision to commercialise, the two lessees of the Port Douglas property had reached an advanced stage in negotiating the purchase of the board's lease. These negotiations have been allowed to proceed independently. In order to facilitate the commercialisation process, it is necessary to amend the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act in a number of respects. In the first place, it is proposed to reinforce and highlight the power of the board to dispose of its operations, including assets, property, equipment, trademarks and goodwill, either in part or in full. It is also proposed to remove many of the responsibilities and powers of the board, as it would not be appropriate to have the powers and responsibilities remaining in limbo during the period leading to the board's winding-up. Of particular importance are the provisions which would confer upon the Govemor in Council a range of executive powers which would facilitate commercialisation and expedite winding-up. These include the power to reconstitute the board and to issue orders conceming the disposition of the board's assets and liabilities on winding-up. It is proposed also for the (3ovemor in Council to have the power to wind up the board, in addition to the present alternative procedure available through the Supreme Court. This Bill has a particular purpose, that of assisting in the commercialisation of the Queensland Fish Board's operations with a minimum of delay. I compliment the large number of fishermen who continue to supply the board as well as the many traders who continue to provide strong support. This indicates that the board's facilities, soon to be operated by private enterprise, will continue to play an important part in seafood- marketing in Queensland. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr De Lacy, adjoumed.

STATISTICAL RETURNS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (5.39 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Statistical Retums Act 1896-1986 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (5.40 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." The amendments as proposed will— (i) provide for statistics to be obtained in computer format in addition to printed forms as at present; Statistical Retums Act Amendment Bill 26 August 1987 2079

(ii) provide for confidentiaUty provisions to apply to such computer-based material; and (iii) update the terminology used to describe the information covered by the Act. The Bill is mainly a procedural measure. The amendments proposed are— (a) To remove the requirement that all forms being used to obtain statistical information must be printed forms to come within the Statistical Returns Act in its present form. Because greater use is being made of computer tapes and other media to obtain statistical information, there are many situations where no printed forms are used in the process of producing State statistics. These modem methods of obtaining statistical data will therefore also be covered by the provisions of the Act. (b) To remove the requirement that only forms which have been prescribed by regulation can be covered by the provisions of the Act. The Govemment Statistician has over the years made increasing use of certain forms and computer records which are generated in the course of operation of other Govemment agencies to also obtain statistical information. This practice avoids the need for separate approaches to private business or households to supply information for statistical purposes where similar information has already been supplied for the administrative purposes of Govemment agencies. The computer records and forms used by these agencies are changed from time to time for administrative purposes and most of these changes do not affect the statistical information derived from them. The amendments to section 4 will have the effect of removing the requirement to prescribe by regulation forms and computer records, including those of other Govemment agencies which are used to obtain statistical information. (c) To remove any doubt about the applicability of those sections of the Act which require persons having access to statistical records covering individual persons or businesses to preserve the strict confidentiality of those records in situations where the information was obtained not on a printed form— as the present Act implies—but on computer tapes or other similar medium. The Government has to ensure that protection is provided in that way. (d) To update to more modern terminology the descriptions of areas of Govemment statistics covered by the Act. The original list of these areas has not been updated for many years and some of the terms used have been replaced in common usage. The amendments proposed to section 4 will apply current terms and descriptions to the designated fields of Govemment statistics but will not alter the range or extent of these fields. (e) To update the terminology describing the making of regulations under the Act. Debate, on motion of Mr Prest, adjoumed. The House adjourned at 5.43 p.m.