Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2867

TUESDAY, 18 MAY 1993

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Nurses, 38-hour Week From Mr Hayward (26 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that the introduction of the 38-hour week is delayed until the economic climate allows replacement nursing staff for rostered days off.

Nuclear-free State From Dr Clark (18 signatories) praying that Queensland be declared a nuclear-free State and that other Governments in Australia be encouraged to adopt a similar policy.

Strathpine State School From Mr J. N. Goss (55 signatories) praying that the dirt access road to Strathpine State School be sealed and that speed bumps be installed.

Child Molesters From Mr Cooper (72 signatories) praying that the parole period be removed when sentencing child molesters, that offenders are given and serve maximum sentences and that their names be released for publication. Petitions received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Dairy Industry Act— Dairy Industry (Milk Products) Regulation 1993, No. 144 Forestry Act— Forestry Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1993, No. 145 Local Government Act— Proclamation—13 May 1993, placement of all remaining foreshores, adjoining the City of Redcliffe, under the management and control of the Redcliffe City Council, No. 141 Mineral Resources Act— Mineral Resources Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 1993, No. 143 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act— Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements (Local Authorities) Amendment Order (No. 1) 1993, No. 140 2868 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Statutory Instruments Act— Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 1993, No. 137 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act— Superannuation (State Public Sector—Membership) Amendment Order (No. 2) 1993, No. 139 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Variation of Deed Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 138 Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act— Notification—access to land be limited Bruce Highway, Brisbane-Gympie, Widgee Shire.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Freedom of Information Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: Tomorrow will be another historic landmark in Queensland’s and, in fact, Australia’s administrative law chronology. Freedom of information begins operating in local governments from tomorrow. While this is a significant achievement for our State, it is similarly significant for Australia. Queensland joins only South Australia as a State extending the demand for openness and accountability to local administrations. This legislation moves Queensland to open, accountable and responsible administration. From tomorrow, our third tier of government, that is, local authorities, will be part of that move. To assist with freedom of information implementation at the local government level, the FOI and administrative law division of my department is currently completing training for officers in 134 local authorities and 31 Aboriginal and Torres Strait island community councils. The training has been provided free of charge to councils. In addition, the division has produced a local government version of the FOI policy and procedures manual. The division will provide ongoing policy and procedures advice on FOI matters to all councils, free of charge. Apart from crucial local government training, the administrative law division has provided training for FOI coordinators and decision-makers in all departments and subject agencies. Since June 1992, the division has trained some 1 300 agency officers. Tomorrow marks six months of FOI operation at State level. In this period, from 19 November 1992 to 18 May 1993, 4 092 applications were received by State Government agencies. Applications for personal affairs documents comprise 74 per cent of the total number of applications. This indicates that this Government correctly perceived a need among ordinary Queenslanders to have access to personal information. Ninety-three per cent of all applications have been satisfied either in full or in part. Queensland’s success rate compares most favourably with other jurisdictions. While South Australia and New South Wales have had similar success rates during their first six months of operation—93 per cent and 92 per cent respectively—the Commonwealth and Victoria gave out far fewer applications. A further telling statistic is what could be called the “exemption rate”. In Queensland’s first six months of FOI operation, only 7 per cent of applications have been rejected in full. This is a remarkably small number, especially when compared with 13 per cent total refusals in the Commonwealth, and 28 per cent in Victoria, during the same period. The processing of FOI applications has proceeded smoothly. The number of requests for internal review stands at 239, and for external review by the Information Commissioner at 87. From tomorrow, Queenslanders will have access to FOI at Federal, State and local government levels. South Australians and Queenslanders will stand alone in having that Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2869 privilege. Queensland has come a long way in the democratic stakes and the open government stakes since the dark days of the National/Liberal coalition Government.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Heiner Report on John Oxley Youth Centre; Mr P. Coyne Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— “With reference to documents collectively known as ‘The Heiner Report’— (1) As solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Peter Coyne wrote to the Director- General of her department, Ms Ruth Matchett on 8 February 1990 seeking access to the Heiner documents, why did the Director-General of her department refuse access to the documents and on what grounds? (2) Knowing that there was a legal request for these documents, why did she ignore the 8 December 1989 edict of the Premier and proceed, in concert with Ms Matchett and the Secretary of Cabinet, to surreptitiously arrange for these documents to be shredded? (3) As the Minister and the Queensland Cabinet on 19 February 1990 ignored Crown Law advice, overrode Coyne's statutory rights under the PSMC regulation 65 and decided to shred public documents, how can she deny that she has breached sections 92, 132 and 541 of the Criminal Code and section 2.23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990?” Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may table the answer if she wishes. Ms WARNER: I will respond to the first part of the question and then table the rest of the answer. The question begins by making reference to documents which it is claimed are collectively known as “ The Heiner Report”. No such report ever existed. First, let us get the facts straight as to why such a report never existed. On 13 November 1989, the former Director-General of the Department of Family Services, following consultation with the former Minister for Family Services, appointed Mr N. J. Heiner, a retired stipendiary magistrate, to investigate and report on matters relating to the John Oxley Youth Centre. In January 1990, a number of doubts emerged as to the legal basis and authority for Mr Heiner’s appointment and the establishment of the investigation and, hence, the way in which it was being conducted. Accordingly, Ms Ruth Matchett, the acting Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, sought the advice of the Crown Solicitor on the matter. Advice received from the Crown Solicitor indicated that, although Mr Heiner had been lawfully appointed as an independent contractor to perform his tasks, it was clear that because of the way the investigation had been established, there was a lack of statutory immunity from, and thus exposure to, the possibility of legal action against Mr Heiner and informants to the investigation. In establishing the investigation, no regard had been given to the possibility that material gathered by Mr Heiner could be of a potentially defamatory nature. The bottom line was that he himself could be exposed to legal action, and likewise any member of staff who gave information to him. To compound this situation further, the terms of reference given to Mr Heiner for the conduct of the investigation were general in nature and did not require him to make any recommendations as to action that ought be taken as a result of any conclusions he might reach. In fact, Mr Heiner verbally advised the acting director-general that he had not intended to make any recommendations. Therefore, the result of this investigation would have been more questions, and no answers. Having considered the Crown Solicitor’s advice and the limited value of continuation of the investigation, Ruth Matchett, the acting director-general, terminated 2870 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the investigation on 7 February 1990 and directed Mr Heiner to gather and seal all documents related to the inquiries. These documents were delivered to the department’s head office for safe keeping. Cabinet was advised of this action in a submission dated 12 February 1990. Sealing of the documents gather by Mr Heiner ensured that there could be no further consideration given to the material he had gathered. Neither Ms Matchett, the acting director-general, nor I was aware of the contents of this material. Terminating the investigation was the fairest way to fix up this mess that this Government inherited in 1989. Terminating the investigation was fair to all staff involved; it was fair to Mr Heiner, and it was fair in that it stopped an investigation which had a dubious legal basis and which was not going to result in any recommendations. Mr Lingard: It was damaging to your people. Ms WARNER: On 13 February 1990, Ms Ruth Matchett determined that, in the interests of the care of the children at John Oxley Youth Centre and the good management of that centre, Mr Coyne be seconded to special duties. She personally conveyed this decision to Mr Coyne on 13 February and also advised him that she had terminated Mr Heiner’s investigation. Mr Lingard: So you paid him $37,000 to get him out. Ms WARNER: On the same day, Ms Matchett addressed staff at the centre, advising them of the termination of Mr Heiner’s investigation; that Mr Coyne would be commencing special duties; and that staff should use the grievance process for any outstanding matters. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Beaudesert! Ms WARNER: All unions were advised similarly. This firm action enabled the staff of the centre to put the investigation behind them and get on with the job of caring for the children at the centre. History has proved this to be the correct action. The centre continues to operate smoothly. In the light of the lack of discipline shown by the member for Fassifern, I seek leave to table the rest of the answer which refers to the specific questions that he raised. Mr SPEAKER: And incorporate it in Hansard? Ms WARNER: Yes. Leave granted. Specifically in relation to question 1, in the letter of 8 February, 1990 referred to, solicitors for Mr Coyne, requested pursuant to Regulation 65 of the Public Service Management and Employment Regulations, copies of: 1. statements of allegations made to the department by employees appertaining to complaints against our clients and which may be the subject of Mr Heiner’s enquiry; and 2. transcripts of evidence taken either by Mr Heiner or in respect of the complaints which specifically refer to allegations or complaints against our clients. Pending receipt of legal advice, the solicitors were advised on 16 February, 1990 that none of the material sought is contained on a file or record of their clients. The final reply to the solicitors’ letter, sent on 22 May, 1990, confirmed that the Department does not have in its possession or control any documentation of the type described in their letter and that all material gathered by Mr Heiner in the course of his investigation has been destroyed. In response to question 2, there was no arrangement made for documents to be surreptitiously shredded. Wild allegations of this nature in various quarters are simply figments of the imagination. The facts are that on advice from the State Archivist and the Crown Solicitor, Cabinet decided on 5 March, 1990 that the material gathered by Mr Heiner during his investigation be handed to the State Archivist for destruction under the terms of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2871

section 55 of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988. On 23 March, 1990, the State Archivist destroyed the material. Considerations in reaching this decision were: a. the inquiry had ceased and no report would be produced, therefore there was no further need for the material; b. all parties involved in the inquiry would be assured that any material gathered would not be used in future deliberations or decisions. This applied to Mr Coyne as well as to all other staff members. c. disposal of the material reduced the risk of legal action against any party involved such as Mr Heiner and Youth Workers employed in caring for children at John Oxley Youth Centre. In response to question 3, neither I nor Cabinet on 19 February, 1990 or at any other time did ignore advice from the Crown Solicitor or override Mr Coyne’s statutory rights. In fact, the action taken put matters right and gave protections to all parties concerned. There is no evidence upon which to found any allegation that there has been any breach of the Criminal Code or any official misconduct. Finally I refer to the Question without noticed asked by the Honourable Member on 14 May, 1993, I have sought and obtained the following additional information: While it is correct that certain assistance was given to Mr Coyne to cover his legal costs, the payment referred to, related to compensation for unpaid overtime and reimbursement of costs and loss of allowances incurred by Mr Coyne as a result of his being seconded from his position at Wacol to undertake duties in Brisbane.

2. K. D. Phillips (Builders) Pty Ltd Mr J. N. GOSS asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning— “With reference to the collapse of the builder, K D Phillips— (1) Was the Queensland Building Services Authority party to an arrangement which allowed the business to continue to operate when the authority knew K D Phillips did not meet with the authority's financial guidelines? (2) Does the authority still hold K D Phillips financial securities as required (eg bank guarantees or director guarantees)? (3) What guarantee will he give that the subcontractors and suppliers will be paid?” Mr MACKENROTH: I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. (1) The Queensland Building Services Authority was not party to any arrangement which allowed K D Phillips Builders Pty Ltd to continue to operate after the authority became aware that the company was in financial difficulties. (2) The Queensland Building Services Authority does hold a deed of guarantee and indemnity entered into by the directors of K D Phillips Builders Pty Ltd. (3) As K. D. Phillips held no current contracts with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning. There was no opportunity to guarantee any payments to subcontractors or suppliers of amounts they may have been owed under their contractual or trade arrangements with K D Phillips. Once a trustee in bankruptcy, or a liquidator, is appointed, the matter of outstanding monies due to creditors is a matter for the trustee or liquidator to determine.

3. Green Paper, Security of Payment for Sub-Contractors in the Building and Construction Industry Mr J. N. GOSS asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning— “With reference to the continuing collapse of a number of building enterprises such as K D Phillips and the Green Paper entitled Security of Payment for SubÐcontractors in the Building and Construction Industry of November 1991— 2872 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

(1) What action does he intend to take on the Green Paper? (2) Does the Government intend to provide security to sub-contractors; if so, at what time?” Mr MACKENROTH: I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. (1) A range of options for addressing issues raised in the Green Paper and subsequent industry responses will be submitted to Cabinet shortly. (2) A statement regarding action to be taken by Government, and the timing of such action, will be made following Cabinet's consideration of these issues.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Bli Bli Rural Residential Rezoning Mrs SHELDON: I ask the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning: does he believe in the principle of the separation of powers? If so, does he therefore agree that his overturning of the decision of Judge Sullivan of the land and environment court in the matter of an appeal against a Maroochy Shire Council rural residential rezoning of Bli Bli amounts to a ministerial rezoning? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the honourable member’s question—no, it does not amount to a ministerial rezoning. The power I exercised was one available to me under the Act.

Job Creation Mrs SHELDON: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: in the light of his Government’s election promise that $150m in tobacco tax revenue would be spent on creating 28 000 jobs by 30 June this year, how much of this money has so far been spent on job creation? Where are the 28 000 jobs promised by this Government? Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable member for the question. The responsibility for administration of the $150m Jobs Plan falls in part within my ministerial responsibility. The areas for which I have responsibility are the Youth Jobs Plan, the Community Jobs Plan and the Jobs Through TAFE Plan. In addition to those matters, there are a range of matters where funding is provided to assist in the employment of people, particularly long-term unemployed people, through the Bikeways Program, the School Refurbishment Program and through the Youth Conservation Corps, with environmental jobs being made available through the ministerial portfolio of Environment and Heritage. If I may, I will answer the honourable member’s question by dealing with the components in turn. With respect to the Youth Jobs Plan, part of that promise was for 20 extra youth employment consultants. They are already on the job throughout Queensland and they operate with the 40 youth employment consultants who were already in operation. Mr Horan: Have they found any jobs? Mr FOLEY: In response to the honourable member’s question, I point out that the target that was foreshadowed prior to the election for 500 apprentices and trainees has indeed been exceeded to 544 trainees and 29 apprentices already being placed into public sector positions. In accordance with the Community Jobs Plan, which is part of the $150m Jobs Plan, funding is made available from the Government in order to assist community groups to work with unemployed people from a wide range of church, welfare and community groups. There have been 60 training and placement projects undertaken throughout Queensland which are worth a total of $1.67m and which have been approved. In addition to that, feasibility studies have been completed on five Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2873 additional enterprise centres and funds have just been released for the Mackay light industrial enterprise centre. Under the Jobs Plan’s enhanced Self Employment Venture Scheme, $1.7m has been advanced. This scheme was introduced by the previous Government and was so unfortunately criticised by the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations. I am also pleased to state that 401 permanent TAFE tutor appointments have been made. A further 20 appointment requests are being processed, and that makes available not only those positions but also to the people of Queensland the knowledge, skills and extra TAFE places that will give people of all ages—in particular, young people—a chance. Further on the Youth Jobs Plan—initiatives have been taken within the responsibility of the Minister for Housing and Local Government with regard to housing industry trade training and within the Jobs Through TAFE Plan. An honourable member interjected. Mr FOLEY: I am indebted to the honourable member for the question, because it is a most important matter at a time at which employment and unemployment are of great importance. Finally, the job placement officers in colleges have been appointed. To date, some 23.3 full-time equivalent job placement officers have been employed. Those people have the important function of ensuring a close link between industry and TAFE in the placement of TAFE graduates and in ensuring that those courses are relevant to industry needs.

Hospital Funding Mr PITT: I ask the Premier: in light of yesterday’s announcement of $143m for hospitals in Queensland, can he inform the House of what priority the Government gives to hospital funding, and is he confident that the funding will be available for that program? Mr W. K. GOSS: Could I add by way of supplementation to the previous answer, for the benefit—— Mrs Sheldon: Answer the question that was asked of you. Mr W. K. GOSS: No—“supplementation”. The Minister for Employment more than comprehensively answered the question. I was going to say that, in addition to the jobs created under the $150m Jobs Plan to which Mr Foley referred, the announcement yesterday of the first instalment of $143m to be spent next financial year in our hospital rebuilding program will generate 86 226 person weeks of employment. I am sure that the member for Caloundra would be pleased to hear that because both in respect of the Jobs Plan spoken about by Mr Foley and in respect of the hospital rebuilding plan, the Government is doing more than any other State to deliver short-term jobs, long-term jobs, skills and training and, at the same time, to leave in place very valuable infrastructure ranging from bike tracks to major new public hospitals. I understand that the member for Caloundra made a comment yesterday, which was pretty cynical, to the effect that the announcement was designed to prop up the Minister for Health. That is quite illogical, and nothing could be further from the truth, given that this was the centrepiece of our election campaign in August or September last year. It comes from a realisation through the first three years of our Government that the hospital system had been badly neglected and run down for nearly 20 years. For most of that time, the portfolio was held by Liberal Ministers. The $143m program—the first instalment—will deliver new hospitals, refurbished hospitals, new equipment, community health care centres and improved day surgery facilities, including on the Sunshine Coast, where the planning by the previous Government was totally inadequate. The Government believes that it can and will be able to continue to fund that program with the substantial input coming from the tobacco tax. It is true that the revenue from the tobacco tax will be down by about $7m to about $90m in this financial year, but there is no reason to be concerned that that will detract from the requirements 2874 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly that the Government has for the next financial year and no reason to think that it will not meet the targets that it has scheduled. Lastly, could I conclude on this note? The member for Caloundra is the last person who should talk about the security of one’s position, because I understand—— Mrs Sheldon: We’re at the bottom of the barrel, aren’t we? Mr W. K. GOSS: I want to say something in conclusion in personal support of the member for Caloundra. Two weeks ago, when I arrived at the airport to go overseas, I was quite upset when I was told by a journalist that I had to answer the criticism from the member for Caloundra that people like us should not go overseas during the drought. I was puzzled by that, because I understood that she herself had accepted an invitation to go with Mr Casey overseas later that week. I pointed that out, and I understand that subsequently there was some coverage of my comments. When the member for Caloundra was challenged on that point, I understand that she defended her complaint by saying that I was important and I should not go overseas but that she would not be missed. What I was disappointed by was that, I understand, all of her colleagues were completely loyal and agreed with her. I do not agree with them. Government members think that she has a contribution to make and we would like her to stay here and make it every day.

Environmental Management Policy for Mining Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, I refer the Minister to recent claims by the green movement that the Government’s environmental management policy for mining is being too slowly implemented and is being ignored by some coal companies, and I ask: would the Minister inform the House how implementation of the new policy is progressing? Mr McGRADY: The claim to which the honourable member refers totally misrepresents the early success of our Government’s environmental management policy. Honourable members would be aware that the new policy that was introduced with the full and total cooperation of the mining industry requires that companies draw up comprehensive environmental management policy overview strategies, or EMOSs, as the industry knows them, and they are there for the life of the mine. The early success of the policy can be gauged from the sorts of commitments that companies have made to date. For example, in the Bowen Basin, coal companies have committed themselves to plant between 100 and 500 trees per hectare to return mining areas to native bushland. This means that, by the end of the century, mining companies will have planted between 5 million and 10 million trees in the Bowen Basin. Companies have agreed to rehabilitate disturbed land within three years of its becoming available. Some mines have provided a schedule of progressive rehabilitation right through to the end of the mine life. Companies have pledged to limit erosion rates to no greater than on surrounding land, and some mines are aiming for soil losses of as low as half a millimetre per year. I have no doubts at all that many people in the grazing industry would be happy to contain soil losses to that level. Some mines have also agreed to conduct grazing trials to define a management regime for grazing on mined lands. It is worth noting that coal mines can produce up to $1.5m in revenue per hectare. That is why the coal industry is the backbone of Queensland. It would take a farmer something like 10 000 years to produce the same income from that land.

Q-Build Mr LINGARD: I direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister will be aware that the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing has been leasing an office at Loganholme since November, but because Q-Build has not had time to do the internal fit-out, no staff have moved in and rent has been paid on an empty building for six months. I ask: is this example of gross Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2875 inefficiency one of the reasons why the Criminal Justice Commission is investigating the activities of Q-Build within his department? Did he request the CJC to investigate, and has it finalised its investigation? Mr BURNS: No.

Land Rentals Mr LINGARD: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Rural Communities, I refer to the Government’s increases in rentals on pastoral land of 1.1 per cent and, finally, 2 per cent of unimproved capital value. The Minister will be aware that well over 3 000 properties will have been forced to pay rent increases of more than 500 per cent since his Government came to power, and that the flow-on effect is a massive burden on rural communities. As any deferral of land rentals still attracts interest, I ask him to outline what he is doing as Minister for Rural Communities to prevent these huge increases in land rentals. Mr BURNS: My department has taken it up with the Minister for Lands and there have been continuing discussions. I suggest that, if the honourable member wants any further information in relation to land matters, he should ask the Minister for Lands. Honourable members interjected. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the member for Beaudesert that I am on my feet. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Honourable members, I have difficulty straining my voice today, but if I have to, I will do it with some vigour.

Drought Relief Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: can he inform the House of measures to be taken to reduce the cost burden on rural producers of importing grain to feed stock during the drought? Mr CASEY: Thanks to the honourable member, I am able to inform the House of two very important initiatives that are now also being taken to support and assist the droughted primary producers of this State. I have received advice from Mr Ian Brusasco, the Chairman of the Port of Brisbane Authority, that that authority desires to lift handling charges, that is, wharfage on imported grain, for as long as the need continues. Because of the drought, instead of a normal export of between 2 million and 3 million tonnes per annum from the Port of Brisbane, we have now become a net importer and are importing grains from other States in order to maintain feed for droughted livestock in Queensland. Mr Hamill: A significant concession. Mr CASEY: It is a significant concession because, for the rest of the year, between 300 000 tonnes and 400 000 tonnes are expected to be imported and, on that volume, that will mean a saving for rural industry of up to $400,000. I am extremely grateful to the Port of Brisbane Authority for this gesture. It also did the same during the early phases of the 1991-92 drought, with savings of much the same scale. To implement the removal of charges requires approval of the Governor in Council, and I will be recommending such action. It would apply to shipments through both the Pinkenba wharf and the Fisherman Islands wharf. In addition, under the guidelines for freight subsidies, they have normally only been paid to eligible producers in droughted areas, and the claim comes through from the producers. However, in recent weeks, we have seen that many charitable groups and organisations in Queensland have moved very strongly to obtain donations of fodder and voluntary labour but they are being handicapped in some respects by transport costs in getting those donations to producers. On the weekend, before a major movement out of Toowoomba of fodder by freight to droughted areas of south- 2876 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly western Queensland, I announced that I am prepared to look at a scheme on a one-off basis. The charitable groups such as Rotary that are raising money can in actual fact apply to the DPI to establish their bona fides, their organisational capacity and their ability to handle the necessary paperwork so that they can become involved in this form of assistance. That is the easy way for them to do it, rather than having the droughted producers making the claims. Only fodder that is approved by the DPI would be eligible. This is necessary in order to safeguard animal health, as you yourself would well know, Mr Speaker. Subsidy payments will be made directly to each group on a basis of cents per tonne/kilometre, which is exactly the same basis as that applied to a claim from a primary producer of 50 per cent of the freight costs. That is either with a hired carrier or by using private vehicles. Again, this demonstrates the Government’s appreciation of the community spirit in tackling this very serious drought. The efforts of these people and these organisations are saving stock, boosting morale, lifting awareness—more importantly—and demonstrating the shared concern of town and country people in this State who want to work together. It is further evidence that this Government is continuing—and is prepared to continue—to adjust the guidelines where there is a necessity to help the droughted primary producers of Queensland. Queensland Economy Mr LIVINGSTONE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer him to his claim in Parliament last week that Queensland is the fastest-growing State in Australia, and I ask: can the Treasurer state which parts of the State’s economy are performing strongly? Mr De LACY: I draw the attention of members to the fact that, last week, the ABS announced that the growth in the Queensland economy to the end of December was 6.5 per cent. Yesterday, the ABS released the housing finance figures for March. I am sure that honourable members noted that the monthly increase—that is, the increase for March as compared with the month before—was 12 per cent. Further, the increase as compared with March 1992 was 20 per cent. I have said often that monthly figures can be volatile and can be misleading. Therefore, a better indicator would be the figures for the March quarter. The housing finance figures for the March quarter were 16 per cent higher than the figures for the March quarter 12 months ago. Housing finance figures are a good indicator of housing activity in the future, because housing finance figures eventually translate into new- dwelling commencements. On Sunday, the national housing body, the Indicative Planning Council, released a report on the housing situation in Australia. The report showed that, for the first half of this financial year—that is, to 31 December—22 300 new-dwelling commencements occurred in Queensland, compared with 21 400 in New South Wales, which has twice our population, and 13 900 in Victoria, which has half as much population again. That means that more new houses are being built in Queensland than in any other State in Australia, including New South Wales, which has twice Queensland’s population. The Indicative Planning Council predicted also that, for the whole of 1992-93, 44 100 new houses would be constructed in Queensland. That is the highest number on record. It is even higher than the boom year of 1988-89. That figure represents 27 per cent of all new housing starts in Australia. It should not be forgotten that Queensland has only 17 per cent of Australia’s population. For the interest of honourable members, I point out that the Indicative Planning Council does an analysis also of the new starts throughout Australia. It stated that, in Queensland, the strongest areas of activity have been the Brisbane metropolitan area, the Wide Bay area, including Hervey Bay and Bundaberg—all of which are well represented in this place—the far-northern area, including Cairns—which is, once again, well represented—and regional areas, with Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton—all of which are well represented—and Toowoomba as the main centres. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2877

An honourable member: Well represented. Mr De LACY: Perhaps Toowoomba is also well represented. A whole range of indicators prove that Queensland is performing much better than every other State in Australia.

Drought Relief, Stock Movement Subsidy Mr PERRETT: I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industries. He has attempted to discredit a subsidy on the forward movement of stock to agistment with allegations of rorts by graziers. The Minister has never been able to say who was charged with rorting the subsidy, what evidence was advanced to support the charges and who was convicted. Since the Minister cannot do that and since stock are dying in large numbers and land has been degraded by stock which cannot be moved, I ask: when will he stop hiding behind the myth and get down to the business of preventing the needless death of stock and the needless bankruptcy of producers by providing a subsidy on forward movement? Mr CASEY: The best way to answer the honourable member’s question is to refer him to the report that was brought down by the Public Accounts Committee set up by the previous Government, of which he was a member. That committee made a recommendation to the Queensland Parliament as to why a subsidy on the forward movement of cattle to agistment should not be paid. It is in his own lines. On a number of occasions, I have answered clearly the second part of the question. Through its industry drought committee, the Government is prepared to consider any proposition that is put forward. I repeat that, last week, I was trying to make arrangements to meet this week with representatives of some of the producer organisations. Because of their inability to attend, that meeting will now take place next week. At that meeting, all proposals will be considered. The honourable member for Fitzroy has suggested that, in order to give better assistance to primary producers, the Government consider a 100 per cent subsidy on the return of cattle to formerly droughted properties. At this very moment, the Government is considering that proposal.

Drought Relief, Forward Movement Subsidy Mr PERRETT: After receiving that response, my second question is also directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. I remind him that large numbers of stock are dying in the droughted areas of this State and that good agistment is available in the far north and always has been available in parts of New South Wales. I ask: is the Minister’s pig- headedness on the subsidy rorts myth more important than preventing the horrible death of stock from hunger and thirst? Mr CASEY: In answer to the honourable member’s question—and I will not be provoked by his remarks—I simply say, “See answer to previous question.”

Western Air Services Mr NUNN: I ask the Minister for Transport: can he advise the House of the results of the Government’s review of western air services and compare that with the stance taken by the Opposition on air services to those very important areas of the State? Mr HAMILL: I welcome the question by the honourable member for Hervey Bay. The Government has now finalised what has been an extensive review of supported air services to remote areas of Queensland. I recall a number of members who sit opposite bleating and carrying on in their various local papers saying that the Government should not be considering subsidised air services, that this Government was moving to take away subsidised air services from those communities—— Mr Hobbs: That’s not true. 2878 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr HAMILL: Yes, Opposition members did. A whole litany of untruths and wild claims were being made in papers such as the Western Times in Charleville and the Longreach Leader. Contrary to those claims by members of the National Party Opposition, the outcome of the air services review has meant good news for people who live in remote areas of this State. This Government has done something which the National Party, when it was office, would not do, that is, guarantee air services to a range of communities which, in the past, never had subsidised air services. This Government has committed additional funds and has given two contracts—one to Sabair—to provide a new service—— Mr Hobbs: Answer the question. Mr HAMILL: I welcome the interjections from the member for Warrego because, as he makes his carping criticism, he shows his lack of concern about this matter. The fact is that this Government applies principles to the provision of welfare to communities. It does not play politics with western air services and other remote area services. The contract that has been given to Sabair provides, for the first time, Government-supported air services to the people of Thargomindah, Cunnamulla and St George. That is an innovation—something which the National Party never did during its long years of Government in this State. Furthermore, under this Government, other communities that have never received subsidised air services in the past, such as Boulia and Bedourie, are now receiving them. Previously, the people of Winton did not have a subsidised air service to Townsville. In fact, the previous National Party Government did not consider that that was a worthwhile service to provide, yet the people of Winton travelled extensively Townsville in order to access health services. Because of this Government’s decision, those people in Winton will receive two subsidised services a week between Winton and Townsville, as well as additional air services between Winton, Longreach and Brisbane. The air services review has meant a new era dawning in western Queensland for access to subsidised air services, high quality air services and pressurised air services. This Government is delighted to be able to deliver the goods to those people.

Maryborough-Hervey Bay Rail Line Mr NUNN: In directing my second question to the Minister for Transport, I ask: could he assure the House that, despite rumours to the contrary, the Government has not made any decision to close the rail line between Maryborough and Hervey Bay? Mr HAMILL: As I said in answer to the previous question by the member for Hervey Bay, in this place and out of this place members of the National Party are quite adept at getting the rumour mill going and making false and misleading claims that are not designed to spread information but rather to spread untruths and to cause community concern. There is no better example than the rumour about closing the rail link between Maryborough and Hervey Bay. As the member for Harvey Bay well knows, the decision by Caltex Oil to cease supplying its terminal at Urangan resulted in an end to the railing of petroleum products into Urangan. This has affected seriously the rail link between Maryborough and Hervey Bay. Indeed, over the last three years, the tonnes freighted on that line have been reduced from 81 000 to 17 000. Business relating to pineapples and some small freight business is all that is left. I assure the member for Hervey Bay that Queensland Rail is actively seeking more freight business for that line. Mr Beanland: What freight is not being carried now? Mr HAMILL: If the member for Indooroopilly had been listening, he would have heard that Caltex had closed its terminal at Urangan. However, I always make allowances for the member for Indooroopilly. Queensland Rail is actively pursuing small freight business for the Pialba line. It has established offices in Bundaberg, and commercial representatives of Queensland Rail are making regular visits to the Hervey Bay area. In fact, they are doorknocking businesses in Pialba and other centres in Hervey Bay in an effort to drum up business. I believe that the actions of Queensland Rail prove that it is concerned about the viability of the line. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2879

Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAMILL: Queensland Rail is committed to making every possible effort to ensure that the line is viable for the future. Drought Relief Mr HOBBS: I refer the Minister for Lands to the announcement that the New South Wales Government will halve property rentals in the western part of that State in an effort to assist landowners through the drought, and I ask: does the Minister support this type of assistance? If he does, can Queensland landowners expect to receive similar assistance? Mr SMITH: The member does not really have all the facts. Firstly, the New South Wales Government has offered a 50 per cent reduction in rentals, provided that the landholders accept without question, and without the opportunity to appeal, the new scale of valuations. It is really a Clayton’s offer. The assistance that this Government has offered is a concessional rate of 1.1 per cent instead of the 2 per cent that could have applied. As well, the Government has been very generous in allowing a drought-affected property to claim hardship provisions and, thereby, avoid making any payment whatsoever.

Land Rentals Mr HOBBS: I refer the Minister for Lands to the new method of determining land rentals in Queensland, which has seen massive increases for most landholders. Mr De Lacy: One per cent of value. Mr HOBBS: The Treasurer does not even know the figures. Even taking into consideration recent concessions based on those massive increases, most landholders are now paying much more than they were before Labor came to office. I refer the Minister to the Deputy Premier’s answer this morning, in which he said that he has also referred this matter to the Minister, and I ask: does he consider it fair and reasonable that landholders who are struggling to survive the drought and the wool crisis have to pay land rentals at the present high levels? Mr SMITH: Mr Speaker—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer! Mr SMITH: I dispute entirely that the rates are unreasonable. The rate of 1.1 per cent is very reasonable. What the honourable member does not know—and he does not know it because he does not have access to the information, but I am prepared to give it to him so that he is aware of the information that was taken into consideration—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A. Mr SMITH:—is that approximately 90 per cent of all properties affected were analysed to see what the effect of the new rates would be. If that figure of 1.1 per cent were applied uniformly across the whole spectrum, there would be no significant increase for the Government. The honourable member does not seem to understand that the previous rates were very often inequitable. Over and over again, the Land Court has demonstrated that the only way to get equity back into the system is to apply the unimproved capital value. That some properties will pay more is not disputed. We are looking at a rearrangement of the moneys paid by various interests to obtain a proper and equitable value. Obviously, some people will pay more. But those people who presently pay in excess of 2 per cent will pay less. The honourable member must understand that 2880 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly although there are some people who have been hit with a significant increase, it is not because the new rate is excessive, but rather that the previous rate was inappropriate. I put it to the member this way: is it reasonable that under the previous system, on a property valued at something like $1.5m, a yearly rent of $100 was paid? That was just rorting the system and not paying a fair rate. There are plenty of other examples that I could cite. For the first time, this Government has put in place a proper system for valuation and a proper system for rental on those properties—not the rorted system that was put in place by the National Party.

Nundah Community Support Group; Government Assistance for Jobless Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I direct a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Opposition members: Oh! Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I can understand why Opposition members are groaning in disappointment. This question should have been asked by someone such as the member for Clayfield, because it affects something in his electorate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chermside will ask his question. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: The Queensland Government recently made a grant of $20,200 to the Nundah Community Support Group which will help the unemployed on the north side of Brisbane. This will help people in a variety of electorates, including my own. I ask: can the Minister advise whether this is part of a broader Government program and, if so, what is the extent of the program to help the jobless? Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable member for this question and for his continued and active interest in the rights and welfare of unemployed people in the Nundah area. That grant is indeed part of a larger program. It is part of the Goss Government’s job placement and training scheme. In turn, it is part of the overall program about which the honourable member for Caloundra asked a question, that is, the $150m Jobs Plan, which is well and truly on track. The job placement and training scheme provides funds to church, community and business groups to train the unemployed. Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Coalition under Standing Order 123A. Mr FOLEY: Those projects, which complement the more formal training projects, include things such as a support service specifically targeted at unemployed women over 25 years of age and a register of employers, which was developed out of groups associated with the Catholic Church, who are willing to employ people who have criminal convictions. The Nundah scheme to which the honourable member for Chermside referred is targeted at mature-aged and young unemployed people. It involves four 10-week courses for a total of 20 people to help them develop skills so that they can set up cooperative business ventures. Since the election of the Goss Government, more than 150 community groups have been funded to assist more than 14 000 people in their search for work. Of those, almost 8 000 have gained jobs or undertaken training projects from those places. In 1992-93, about 60 projects will be funded throughout Queensland, with $800,000 from the Budget and a further $1m in the current year and in each of the next two years from the $150m Jobs Plan. That is part of the overall commitment of this Government towards tackling the problem of unemployment to the extent to which the State Government may do so, and reflects that the $150m Jobs Plan is on track, on target and in accordance with the promises given to the Queensland people. Retail Shop Leases Act Review Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I ask the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development: can he advise the Parliament of the developments in the review of the Retail Shop Leases Act? Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2881

Mr ELDER: I thank the honourable member for that very good question, which goes right to the heart of a very important issue for small business, that is, rents. My department has been undertaking a review of the Retail Shop Leases Act. The approach of that review has been to try to get all parties involved to sit down and resolve those problems. I have set up a stakeholders group consisting of representatives from landlords and retailers and professional advisers. I thank members of the Parliament. I am complimentary to Opposition members when it is warranted, and I thank them and Government members for getting right behind that review in terms of making sure that the issue papers that were prepared for the review were distributed widely. In fact, an extra 500 copies were distributed, and much of that was due to the work of members of this House. As I said, I thank them for that. The public submissions closed in April. A position paper is now being formalised by that particular stakeholders group. I hope to have that particular position paper ready by June so that we can distribute it for comment, and then later this year introduce into the Parliament legislative changes in relation to the Retail Shop Leases Act. Many honourable members have expressed concern to me about rents related to operating expenses and percentage-based increases. I am concerned that those matters cannot be dealt with within the tribunal and mediation system that is in place presently under the Act. They should be able to be dealt with in that way. Our tribunal system is fairly informal, but it has worked rather well to date. Another matter of concern that was brought to my attention by a number of members is that parties are employing high- powered legal counsel to represent them at what should be informal hearings, which is not satisfactory. At the end of the day, we are seeking a balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. If we can work towards that in a calm, reasoned way, the right outcomes will be achieved. In conclusion—as the member for Chermside asked recently about the Small Business Awards, I will give them some recognition. Small business contributes significantly to the Queensland economy. Last week, the 1993 Telecom and Queensland Government Small Business Awards were launched. In 1992, Queensland’s small businesses and companies—in particular, Koorana Crocodile Farm and TVS Partnerships—were successful at the national level. I advise all members to urge the small businesses in their electorates to support those awards so that Queensland will again be well represented at the national level.

Public Hospital System Mr HORAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer him to the Premier’s statement reported last night on ABC television that he believes Queensland’s taxpayers will soon start to ask whether the free hospital system is sustainable. I ask: does this orchestrated and deliberate signal mean that Queensland’s free hospital system, maintained by the National/Liberal Parties for 32 years, is about to be dismantled and destroyed by the Labor Government? Mr HAYWARD: The short answer to the question is, “No.” However, I will go into more detail on the issues. There is no doubt that within Australia, and particularly within Queensland, we are experiencing the phenomena of an increasing population and an ageing population. We are also experiencing improvements in technology and an increase in the cost of that technology. All those factors impact very strongly on the hospital system. That is why, during the election campaign, the Government made a commitment to address those issues by bringing on the $1.5 billion hospital rebuilding and re-equipment program. It recognises very clearly the neglect of this system in the past, which was inherited by the Government. It recognises also that we must move 2882 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly forward to pick up that technology and deal with the issues of an increasing population and an ageing population. There is no doubt that pressure is being placed on the system. That is why the Government moved to undertake the planning study of south-east Queensland—the Mackay report—which identified very clearly that hospitals should be where people actually live, and other issues. However, the $1.5 billion program focuses principally on making a good system better. It means that the people of Queensland will have more modern facilities, better equipment and, importantly, shorter waiting lists. The report provides clear examples of how that will occur. One instance is the development of day surgery at the Nambour Hospital and the Logan Hospital. Surely members opposite would support the commencement of cardiac surgery in north Queensland and the radiation oncology unit for cancer treatment based at the Townsville General Hospital. Of course, members from the Gold Coast would be enthusiastic about the redevelopment of the operating theatres on the Gold Coast, which will help to make the system much more efficient and effective. I thought that the member for Toowoomba South would have been pleased about the new operating theatres for the Toowoomba General Hospital. The Government is moving quickly through the $1.5 billion program to address those issues. However, as the Premier said, the pressure is on all the time—pressure from an increasing population and an ageing population and pressure from the growth in, and the cost of, technology.

Public Hospital System Mr HORAN: In directing a second question to the Minister for Health, I refer to his announcement of the hospital capital works program funded by the tobacco tax which included $19.2m for new hospitals and $20.5m for primary health care and community health centres. I ask: with the massive financial bungling of the Health budget this year, causing hospital cutbacks throughout Queensland, how does the Minister propose to fund the staff and resources of those new facilities when he cannot properly fund the existing hospital facilities? Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for the question. I make it clear that this year the Queensland public hospital system will treat a record number of 550 000 patients. An Opposition member interjected. Mr HAYWARD: Not a record number of patients every year. This year, the system will treat a record number of patients. The honourable member has raised an important issue. An important aspect in a capital works program is that, when regions state their priorities, they demonstrate to the capital works unit first of all where the recurrent funding will come from to run those facilities. If they cannot demonstrate where the recurrent funding will come from, they must demonstrate clearly that growth monies are available for those facilities. Through the Budget process, the Government has installed a process whereby departments are assured of receiving automatic growth funding each year based on the ageing and increasing Queensland population. There are two sources of money: recurrent funding and growth funding. For every program on the list, the region and the capital works unit have to be able to demonstrate clearly that the recurrent funding or the growth funding is available to run those facilities. That is what the program is about. It is a practical program that will be up and running. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2883

Ambulance and Fire Services Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (11 a.m.): I want to place on record my admiration for the Queensland Maroons and their performance last night. Most of us might be feeling a little devastated but, nevertheless, what sticks in my mind is a brilliant game of football. We should take our hats off to the Maroons. Maybe they can turn it around in the third session. We all get some disappointments in our lives, but we live for better days. In the area of community services, nothing can be rated more important than ambulance and fire services. The officers of those two services are called upon to perform a stressful, difficult and often dangerous task at a moment’s notice. To perform that job and to meet that professional challenge, they need to be highly motivated and well resourced. Once upon a time, those services were identified very closely with their local communities, and there was a very real sense of local identification and pride. Now, I believe, there is a crisis of confidence in both services and, despite the officers’ professionalism and dedication, their motivation is ebbing and their zeal is starting to dim. The reasons are obvious. This Government has created, in the best Labor tradition, a vast and still growing bureaucratic empire called the Bureau of Emergency Services. Scarce financial resources are being diverted to the creation and maintenance of highly paid managers. For example, of the 224 ambulance staff employed in the Wide Bay/Burnett region, the promotions manager is outranked in salary by only four others. Producing brochures seems to be more important from the financial point of view than saving a life. In the last few days, the union that represents the ambulance officers has called for the removal of the Ambulance Service from the Bureau of Emergency Services, saying that the bureau is “an unwieldy, bureaucratic and administrative nightmare”, and I agree completely with those sentiments. The union accurately identified the problem as a poor allocation of resources by the bureau. Those who have to carry out their vital life and property saving jobs are being starved of necessary resources. It is no exaggeration to say that our ambulance and fire services are tottering towards a complete administrative, operational and financial collapse. Recently, ambulance officers passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the administration of the service. They are angry; they are frustrated; and they are fearful of the future and the standard of their service. The Minister’s response has been a flat denial of any crisis. That obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality is appalling, and underlines the total insensitivity and lack of awareness by the Government of what is actually happening. The Public Sector Management Commission is studying the administration of emergency services, and the Minister’s response to the no-confidence vote was to call for an interim report. At that time, I called for the release of that report to every ambulance officer and firefighter in Queensland so that they could be informed and consulted. The Minister’s response was a deafening silence, so it is reasonable to assume that that interim report was so devastatingly critical that even he recoiled in horror. Today, I repeat my call for the release of that report. If the Government has any respect for the officers doing the job and any commitment to accountability and consultation, that report would already be a public document. Instead, there is total secrecy and a climate of fear and crisis. Almost daily, I receive reports from ambulance and fire service officers about the shambles in those services. Those officers are too terrified to speak out publicly because they know that if they take a stand they will be crucified. The overwhelming no-confidence vote was their only alternative. The Government has made no attempt to build a solid, honest and respectful relationship with the rank and file. Rather, there has been a campaign of denial of the truth, abuse of critics and threats to the staff—that has been the Government’s strategy. 2884 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

This financial year, the Ambulance Service might just manage a balanced budget after some frantic cost cutting and other compromises. If we are to have any sort of service next financial year, the cost blow-out will run into millions of dollars. I refer to some examples of the compromises that are being made: some stations are unable to buy basic stores—just the normal stores that they buy on a daily basis—unless they firstly try to scrounge them from other stations. They then have to obtain top-level approval for items that they would normally purchase as a matter of form. Ambulance vehicles are being given only the very minimum basic maintenance. Some vehicles cannot be used because of lack of maintenance, including no new tyres; some stations have had to resort to the BP 60-day credit card to buy fuel whereas, once upon time, they would obtain fuel from their own bowsers. The reason for that is that the 60 days’ credit will take them into the next financial year. Eventually, it will all catch up with them. Some of the examples of the cutting of services I find to be an extraordinary tragedy because, once upon a time, members of the Ambulance Service would attend annual shows, football or other sporting events, annual rodeos or whatever—events that are often run for charity. The organisers of those events now are receiving bills of up to $400 and $500 and, in many cases, that often amounts to the sum that the event would make and be able to donate to the charity. That is what is so tragic. Through their donations, the the people of the district would always make up those costs. Local people would make fairly considerable donations, either in cash or in kind, to their local ambulance service. Mr Elder: Who paid those costs? Mr COOPER: I am saying that a very close local community support and rapport existed, and that it is being destroyed because the administration is trying to make them so professional and so cost conscious that the local communities who once donated considerable amounts of funds, either in cash or in kind, have simply said that they are taking away their donations. Often, a lot of the equipment that that money used to buy was donated to the local ambulance service, and a lot of that equipment has been taken away and given to other areas without consultation with or the permission of the people who raised those funds in the first place. The honourable member knows that; he knows what is happening right across the State. That is what I find so devastating—we are losing the human face of the Ambulance Service. If action is taken to prevent that loss continuing, we can restore the confidence of the service. However, it will have to be pretty drastic action, and it will have to be taken fairly smartly. The Government, firstly, has to admit that there is a crisis. We have got to see some basic honesty being demonstrated in this regard. If the problems are to be addressed, it is essential that they are first acknowledged, and some honesty would go a mighty long way towards building relationships with the rank-and-file officers of both services. These officers want to help. They are dedicated professionals, but openness and respect are paramount. The first things that have to come from the Government are openness, respect and honesty. I have no doubt that these people would respond to that approach because they are dedicated, apolitical professionals who just want to do their job. I do not think that that is too much to ask. There must be a re-establishment of local community involvement and local community support. This Government inherited millions of dollars worth of assets from the former Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade and from the community-based boards, but it has squandered those assets and all the goodwill that went with them. Both services need to restore their human face. To do so, they will need proper resources, real leadership and respect. Officers will go the extra mile, as they traditionally have, if they know that they have real input into service planning. It bothers me deeply to see dedicated, professional, apolitical people—particularly ambulance officers—being subjected to a reign of terror. It does not matter were one goes, or of which political persuasion one is, these people want to talk because they are desperate about providing a service to the people. They are not being political. They say, “We are desperate about losing our service, and the very close community relationship that has Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2885 been built up over decades.” Unfortunately, because of the actions of this Government and the administration, that close community rapport that has meant so much to the officers and to the saving of lives has been taken away. Time expired.

Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce 1993 Business Achievement Awards Mr BARTON (Waterford) (11.10 a.m.): Since the last sitting of this House, my electorate’s most important night for local business has taken place. I am speaking about the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce’s 1993 Business Achievement Awards night which took place on Friday, 2 April. More than 400 local businesspeople, their families and many of their employees filled the function room at Dreamworld on the Gold Coast for the awards presentation. The night was a showcase for local business and demonstrated very clearly the wide variety of businesses in my electorate and in the immediate region. Some businesses are large; many are small; and some are medium sized. Some are major exporters, such as Teys Brothers Meatworks, and, of course, the internationally recognised major Australian brand name Driza-Bone which currently exports to 23 countries. Some businesses are family owned or individually owned, while some are owned by major corporations. Many franchise operators were also present at the function, some of whom are small local operators who carry on business in direct competition with branches of major corporations or franchise operators who are linked to national chains. It was very interesting to see that local people can compete on the same level as those larger operations and can in fact beat them at their game. All those businesspeople demonstrated a commitment to excellence, quality and customer service. They are all making the region wealthier and a far better place in which to live. Importantly, all demonstrated a commitment to their employees, which was evidenced by a great many of those employees being in attendance on the night. Even businesses that had been doing it tough in recent years demonstrated their confidence in the region and their commitment to being even greater achievers in the future. There were some 55 applicants across 10 categories and, in addition to those 10 categories, a special judges’ award was presented. The award night’s principal sponsors were Raine and Horne, Beenleigh, and the Albert and Logan News, which is the local newspaper. The night maintained a proud tradition in that the incomparable compere was the current president of the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce, Denis Wey. One has only to put a microphone in his hand and he always puts on a good show on behalf of the businesspeople of the Beenleigh district. He was ably supported both on the night and in all of the preparation work over many months by many other hard-working members of the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce, particularly the director of the awards night, local solicitor, Dan Sushames. The guest speaker was Paul Morgan. He was pleasantly surprised at the number of people in attendance and the quality of the entrants. He provided everybody with excellent advice on how to be successful in business. When he arrived, I was the first person he ran into whom he knew, and he drew an interesting analogy. He told me he expected that, in common with many of the other Chamber of Commerce business achievement awards throughout the State, the function would be attended by a small group of 30 or 40 people. He was very pleasantly surprised when he saw both the quality and number of people who were in attendance. The presenter for the night was an old Beenleigh boy and the most talked-about Minister in the Keating Government, David Beddall. During the presentations, David did his usual excellent job—the same as he is doing as a member of the Keating Government. The presentations were followed by excellent entertainment. Opposition members interjected. Mr BARTON: I find it interesting to note the rhetoric that is coming from the Opposition side of the Chamber. It shows very clearly that members of the Liberal Party 2886 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly and the National Party have no interest in the business community of the Beenleigh region. I would like to briefly refer to the award winners. In category 1—manufacturing with less than 20 employees—there were seven entrants. The winner was the Gold Coast Marine Hatchery, which is one of the most innovative marine hatcheries in this State. It supplies spawn to the operations being conducted by the Mossman sugar mill in far-north Queensland as well as being in the marketplace in its own right in a large way. In category 2, which was for manufacturing businesses with 20-plus employees, there were three entrants, and the winner was the internationally acclaimed Driza-Bone. In category 3, which was for retailing owner or franchise operator, there were 12 entrants, the winner being K. C. Farm Equipment. In category 4, which was for retailing service, there were six strong entrants, and the winner was Avco Financial Services, Beenleigh branch. In category 5, which was for professional services, there were four entrants, and the winner was Elizabeth Young Interior Designers. Elizabeth is one of the best-known business people in the region, who recently completed refurbishing all of the Dreamworld operations. In category 6, which was for industrial services, there were six entrants, and the winner was Morris Catering, which—I am sure that members will find interesting—provides all of the catering services to our troops in Cambodia and, in recent times, was involved in feeding our troops in Africa. In category 7, which was for development and construction, there were three entrants, and the winner of the best development in Beenleigh—the one where I own property, Edens Landing—was Leighton Properties. In category 8, which was for community services, there were three entrants, with the winner being Blue Nursing Services, Beenleigh. In category 9, which was for sport, leisure and entertainment, there were four entrants, the winner being the Dauth Park Sporting Club. Category 10 was a special award for businesses commenced in 1992. There were seven entrants, which showed clearly the way in which new business is developing in the region of my electorate, which I am very proud to see. The winner was Intermix Australia. Mr FitzGerald: What did you have to do with it? Mr BARTON: I take that interjection and I note the sarcastic comments. Again I make the point that it is very clear that the members on the Opposition side of the House like to talk about how strongly they support business, yet whenever business gets proper recognition in this Chamber that shows that it works very closely with the Labor Party in Government, all that we hear from the Liberal and National Parties is ridicule such as that which we hear right here and now. Mr FitzGerald: Did David Beddall tell you to say that? Mr BARTON: We hear it particularly from the member for Lockyer. The special judges award was given to Gassman and Associates Pty Ltd. Brian Gassman, the operator of that business, has had a very strong community involvement in development in the region. It was most appropriate that he received that special judges award. A special recognition award also was presented on the night to Teys Brothers. That business began in the Beenleigh region in 1946 as a small slaughterhouse. It has now moved to a point at which it employs 740 people in or adjacent to my electorate, which is a lot of employees. Many people who live in my electorate work for that business, and I am very proud that it received that recognition. Although the operation is now being run by the younger members of the Teys family, one of the original Teys brothers was there to collect the award and reminisce about the changes that have taken place in Beenleigh and the region since 1946 when the brothers first moved in. I want to congratulate the principals of all of those award-winning businesses, Noel Herbst, John Maguire, Alan Schilling, Leanne Kauffman, Elizabeth Young, Robert McVicker, Bob Borger, Ethel Spann, Brian Cornish, Brian Booth, Brian Gassman and the Teys brothers, because they all deserve proper recognition. I know that all of the others who did not win awards on the night will be back next year trying to win what is a most prestigious award in the business community in Beenleigh. We went from having approximately 330 people at the awards night last year to having more than 400 people Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2887 at the awards night this year. Leaders of the business community were there to make the presentations and to be the guest speakers. I am confident that they will all be back and that, in the interim period, the businesses in Beenleigh will continue to grow and be innovative and to provide quality service and quality products to the people of my electorate, and I am very sure that they will continue, very importantly, to look after their employees. In closing, I simply state that the awards night was a splendid showcase of business in Beenleigh.

Subcontractors; Queensland Building Services Authority Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (11.20 a.m.): I am pleased to see that the Government has finally appointed a Minister to oversee the security of payment to subcontractors legislation. On 31 May 1991, I attended a construction industry conference at Parliament House. Six months later, in November 1991, a Green Paper was produced. Then it all became too hard for the Government. That is reflected in the Minister’s sample response that has been circulated to all ALP members—the old pro-forma letter. While subcontractors are going broke because of non-payment by contractors and builders, the Government’s very standard letter will be very reassuring—a letter of few lines on such an important issue. It states— “I have noted the contents of your letter and will ensure your concerns are raised with Mr Mackenroth at the earliest opportunity.” That was sent out to all the ALP electorate offices. Mr Hollis: How do you know that? Mr J. N. GOSS: How do I know that? Because all of the people in the department are not the Government’s friends. I know that the subcontractors—the plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, painters, concreters, tilers and carpenters—will all feel so secure when they receive that standard reply! Since the issue of the Green Paper, almost two years have passed. Four Ministers of 1991 signed the foreword, which talked about the vast majority of delegates and the desperate need for action. Over those two years, nothing has happened. That, I suppose, is typical of the Labor Government. Over the two years, it is likely that hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers of building material have gone broke. The Labor Government has failed the small, hardworking subcontractors. I now turn my attention to the Queensland Building Services Authority. When the Bill setting up the authority was before Parliament, the Government was told that making the registrar/general manager answerable to the Minister made the authority a political toy of the Minister. He should have to answer to the board. Mr Beattie: Is that all you have to say about the subcontractors? You have given them two minutes. Mr J. N. GOSS: It is all in this letter. It is all amalgamated. That board is made up of some very distinguished people—from the consumer area, the building and trades area, and even from the unions. The unions have their representative on the board as well. This board, with its membership of very capable people, is totally ignored by the authority. The board is now left without being able to obtain independent advice. It is now apparent that the board is there to get the blame when things go wrong. The authority’s involvement with K. D. Phillips certainly needs closer investigation. It appears that the authority failed to take action when it knew that K. D. Phillips was in financial trouble, and all of the losses will be at the expense of suppliers and subcontractors. The word in the Housing Department—and that is where I get the correspondence from people—is that the Honourable Tom Burns did display some interest in the Housing Department. He got around a bit and he did display an interest. But the current Minister, Mr Mackenroth, displays little or no interest. That is why the registrar/general manager and the director-general set their own agenda. It goes to show 2888 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly that members opposite just cannot trust their Labor cronies imported from southern States, especially the ones on $100,000-plus packages. Prior to Minister Mackenroth calling on his friend Peter Forster to report on how the board should interact with the registrar/general manager—and this report cost $10,000— the registrar/general manager went to Clayton Utz, who used Mr Morrow and Chris Gilbert, and they advised that, contrary to Crown Law Division advice, the board has the power to seek advice from the registrar/general manager and the authority. And still the money continues flowing along. The registrar/general manager receives $100,000 per annum. The rent of $20,000 a year on his luxury unit on the south side is paid for him. But this is not enough. The registrar/general manager has now decided that his prestige has to be raised a little higher. So when the tribunal chairman retired recently, what did the registrar/general manager do? He dashed in and took the tribunal chairman’s luxury car and kept it for himself. He passed his car, which was a little less luxurious, on to the acting chairman of the tribunal, and he receives $2,500 a week. This very generous offer of the loan of a car to the acting chairman of the tribunal hardly makes for the appearance of an independent tribunal. It appears to me that the attitude of those in key positions at the authority is, “Don’t worry about the operation of the authority; let’s get what we can out of the job.” It is now clear that the director-general and the registrar/general manager are playing the Minister for a fool. And while all this is happening, the subcontractors are forgotten, except for an eight-line standard reply. Home owners have received bad advice from the authority with regard to appearances before the tribunal, and this has cost some home owners many thousands of dollars. Some home owners have been in dispute resolution sessions lasting up to a straight 12 hours, without any chance of success. That has piled up the cost of operating these resolution sessions. The board is told by the registrar/general manager, contrary to the legal advice, that it does not have the power to investigate the incompetence in the authority. As I have said before, this very capable board has been treated with contempt. The adviser to the board, Ms Kelly, had her services terminated because her contract was open ended and this did not comply with Government policy. However, I believe the registrar/general manager has a similar open-ended contract. Yet, as he is a mate of the director-general and a political friend of the Minister, then more double standards are somehow justified by the Government, and the registrar/general manager’s contract is allowed to continue. Remember Dobson and Corry, who caused so much heartbreak when they went broke? Well, because of the way the system works under the Act, Frank Dobson is now a licensed supervisor and is the beneficial owner of Buildtec. So people can actually go broke one day and be back in business the next. The system is a slap in the face to all the hard-working builders who run an honest business and pay their way, no matter how difficult the times are. The leasing of building licences by unprofessional people pretending to be builders must be stopped. The Minister’s incompetence came to the fore on the 7.30 Report, when he was an absolute embarrassment to the Government. He did not even know how his HOME Loan and in particular the HOME Share Schemes worked. He did not know that the HOME Share Scheme was based on a low-start loan. Again, on The Investigators on Channel 2, the Minister was even less convincing about both schemes. The Minister announced that a review of the full scheme had been in progress for three months. Borrowers have been invited to Deborah Wilson Consulting Services and have been paid $30 to discuss the scheme over tea and biscuits. I can tell honourable members now that blind Freddie could see the problems without conducting a three-month or more investigation. Mr Beattie: Where does blind Freddie work? What has he got to do with it? Mr J. N. GOSS: There are a lot of blind Freddies on the other side of the Chamber; I can tell the honourable member that. It was a stalling process to commit more people to the scheme. The Government had borrowed so much money at high interest that it had to keep stalling until such time as it committed more people to the scheme. Problems are so severe that the Government is paralysed. For the benefit of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2889 the members opposite who do not bother to read their mail, I will table the sample response to correspondence. The problems of the HOME Scheme are those of the high interest rates and the low-start loans which cause enormous hardships at a time of low inflation. In the scheme’s early days, when inflation was high, the scheme was just viable. In addition, the full details were never explained fully to any of the borrowers. Time expired.

Conservative Parties’ Policies Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (11.30 a.m.): It is extremely interesting that I follow such a brilliant carrier of tales as the honourable member who has just spoken. I rise to speak of the inconsistency and hypocrisy of members of the conservative side of Australian politics. They are very short on political philosophy and they are long on self-serving introspective policy. That is a matter of public importance of which the people of Queensland should be aware. I intended to refer first to the Federal member for Wide Bay. Instead, I will have a shot at the conservative parties’ attitude to the security of subcontractors when they were in Government. I want to detail what went on in Hervey Bay not long before the Goss Government was elected. Against the wishes of the people of Hervey Bay, the then Government decided to tear down the famous Urangan jetty. When the issue became too hot to handle, the then Government made a compromise. It said that it would tear only the head off the jetty, which would make it look like a headless chook. Then it said to the people of Hervey Bay, “We will not tear down your jetty. What we will do is lease it to your council and you people can bear the brunt of maintaining it for the next 10 years.” Not content with that performance, the then Government gave the contract for the work to a mob called Denivel Demolitions. That company had another company waiting in the wings named Denivel Destructions. Denivel Demolitions completed the contract but failed to pay the subcontractors of Hervey Bay. That was a dreadful experience. At that time, because it was under the foot of a National Party Government, Hervey Bay was in desperate circumstances. The amount which was not paid to those subcontractors, although it was not large, had a very large impact on the economy of a small community such as Hervey Bay. Subsequently, through its other company, Denivel Destructions, Denivel Demolitions carried out the work on the Hay Point jetty. Denivel Destructions already had a contract for that work. It was allowed to perform that work even though its parent company, Denivel Demolitions, had not paid the Hervey Bay subcontractors. The same company, which had a contract with the same Government, got away with that. One might ask how that was allowed to happen. It happened because the Minister of the day, Mr Martin Tenni, allowed those operators, by novation, to transfer the contract from the bankrupt company to the company that was standing on the side. Despite that disgraceful episode, members opposite now bleat and cry about the concerns that they have for subcontractors in Queensland. It is a lot of hogwash and hypocrisy! I turn now to the Federal member for Wide Bay, Mr Warren Truss. Recently, that Neanderthal windbag rose in Federal Parliament to criticise the Queensland State health policy and the Wide Bay Regional Health Authority. That criticism was by a man who endorsed enthusiastically the violent attack on Medicare contained in the discredited Fightback package. He supported a policy which would have resulted in the closure of small hospitals and the sacking of hospital staff. Thank God the people rejected that policy at the last Federal election! Mr Truss made much of the spending of $1,000 on signs which indicate the site on which the new Hervey Bay hospital will be built. Because of scaremongering by the Nationals and their friends in the AMA, those signs are necessary. They are claiming that the hospital will never be built. Such a facility would not have been possible under a National Party Government, but those people are saying that it will never be built, when the signs proclaim in the most positive way that the hospital will be built. 2890 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Truss was critical of this Government’s health policy in many respects, and every point that he made was wrong. I wondered why he would make such a speech, so I approached the Director of the Wide Bay Regional Health Authority, the Director- General of Health and the Minister for Health, only to find—not to my surprise—that the Federal member for Wide Bay had not approached any of those gentlemen in an effort to gain some knowledge of the workings of Queensland Health. Mr Pearce: He didn’t want the truth. Mr NUNN: He did not want the truth, and he listened to his friends in the AMA. With no knowledge of the existing situation, he launched into his diatribe, which deliberately misrepresented the truth and was compiled from a litany of lies and half- truths. He appeared also to need a lesson in geography. The only State in which the circumstances he described exist—slashed health expenditure, nursing numbers and hospital beds—is Victoria, which is governed by the Liberal Party. The National Party’s record on health is abysmal. I have said this three times before, and three times members opposite have not denied it: the National Party spent 32 years in this place, and it spent 32 years running down the Queensland hospital system so that it would benefit its mates in the private health system. I want to refer to the innovative way in which some of the Nationals in north Queensland recently spent $1,000. Not long ago, an article appeared in the Courier-Mail headed, “Buffet plus Joh for $1000”. How nice! I will tell honourable members what that was about. The article stated— “The rural recession has apparently not yet hit some northern National Party supporters”— and it should not be forgotten that impoverished sugar growers reside in the north— “42 of whom paid $1000 each to attend a fund-rising dinner for Kennedy MP Bob Katter.” He is the dippy, double-dipper of Queensland politics. He takes his superannuation from Queensland, deserts his State constituency, nicks off to the Feds and gets another lot to add to what he already has. A Government member interjected. Mr NUNN: We are indeed grateful. The article continues— “As well as the dinner last Friday, 650 people paid $50 each the next night for a Katter fund-raising barbecue.” They gutsed and gormandised their way through $74,500, which is not bad, but they are snout men from way back. The article continues— “Guests of honour at both functions were Sir Joh and Lady Bjelke-Petersen.” A Government member: Who? Mr NUNN: Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is a wonder that they did not stick him on the table with an apple in his mouth. A Government member: Nobody would be so hungry. Mr NUNN: I take the interjection from the honourable member. Who would be so hungry that they would partake of fare of that sort? Some notable people were at that function, including the National Party member for Hinchinbrook, Marc Rowell, and Mrs Rowell. He gave two grand to go to this bash, when he has sugar farmers and drought- stricken farmers in his electorate! I would like to know how much of this fund-raising effort went to the farmers in drought-stricken Queensland. A Government member interjected. Mr NUNN: The member is right; they would not give them a lousy two bob. Nobody from the Opposition ranks would make a statement about this dinner. The only statement that was made came from Villa Monaco Motel principal Sarina Lo Monaco, who said last night that a lot of effort had gone into the dinner which, with wines, cost about $100 a head. The members of the National Party are not only hypocritical but also Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2891 stupid. They were touched blind. They paid $1,000 for a $100 dinner. However, the menu reads like something out of Dickens. The entree and main course was a buffet of local seafood platters including mud crabs, whole small barramundi, lobsters, bugs, prawns, scallops and oysters. But there was more! There were hot roasts of lamb, chicken, beef and pork and abundant local tropical fruit. Good God! Dessert was a choice of chocolate mousse, creme caramel or trifle. I wonder if that was the wickedly exciting chocolate mousse of which Mrs Sheldon was so enamoured when she was first elected? After the speeches came cheese platters, coffee and chocolates, complemented by Grandfather port. I bet the poor people who were sitting Lazarus-like outside the window were agog at all of this. They probably became drunk on the fumes from the passing of wind during those speeches. It was a marvellous dinner. I could go on; I have pages of material. However, I will merely draw to the attention of the House the facts about two conferences that were held recently in Hervey Bay. In the main, the people at those conferences talked about amalgamation with the Liberals and the republican issue—nothing about drought policy and nothing about health policy. They were in Hervey Bay for half the time, and not a damned thing was said about tourism or industrial policy. These people are the greatest mob of wanking hypocrites I have ever known. Time expired.

Ipswich City Council Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.40 a.m.): The previous member’s speech, and his passing of hot air, or wind, certainly did not make us drunk. The purpose of my speech today is to demonstrate the need for the Minister to act in relation to the Ipswich City Council, and to prompt the CJC to investigate it. I do not make this speech lightly, but the matters that I will raise demonstrate clearly the problems that arise when politics becomes involved in local government. Since my speech in this House last week, the telephone has run hot with information about Alderman Tully and the Ipswich City Council. One chap rang me and told me that in 1979, he was one of four young people who used assumed names to vote in the plebiscite when Alderman Tully was preselected. Afterwards, Alderman Tully took them to the Kerwick Hotel for drinks. He could not even get himself preselected without skulduggery. However, that is not of interest to me because it does not impact on the Ipswich City Council or the ratepayers of the city. Apparently, in 1987, Alderman Tully went to the Cities and Town Conference in Goondiwindi and took his girlfriend, not his wife. That embarrassed his colleagues somewhat. His personal life is not my concern, but on this occasion the people of Ipswich paid for his little fling, and that is a concern. Since this whole matter erupted, I have learned a great deal about the Ipswich City Council and its workings, and I want to place on the record briefly my opinion of the previous Mayor, Alderman Des Freeman. I believe that he probably has a very guilty conscience over the way in which he ran the ICC and in particular the sacking of the then Town Clerk, Mr Edmonds. Mr Freeman stayed silent when he should have spoken out and he allowed himself to be dictated to by Alderman Tully. Mr Freeman did not support his Town Clerk when he was wrongly under attack, particularly when those attacks came from Mr Tully. Mr Freeman was a figurehead major, and he stands indicted for that. He was a Labor lackey. The fact that the Ipswich City Council is a political entity rather than one that seeks to serve the people of Ipswich can be seen very clearly from an examination of the way in which it works. Alderman Tully has a paranoia of any communication with the Minister or with the Director of Local Government. This was more so when the previous National Party Government was in office. Apparently, he always expressed his disagreement with referrals to the Department of Local Government or responses to the offices of the director or the Minister. In respect of by-laws, he also stated frequently that there was no requirement for council officers to submit drafts for preliminary review. He came obsessed over certain matters, and that was but one of them. It led to delays in the 2892 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly dealings of developers with the ICC, and it can be attributed mainly to political attitudes. On at least one occasion prior to 1989, the ICC was called before the Minister in respect of its tardy dealings with developers. On numerous occasions, Alderman Tully has gone on record and stated that people who live in brick houses do not vote Labor. Consequently, the inference is, “Why should the ICC assist them or expedite their business?” He effectively disenfranchises those people who did not vote for him, but whom he represents. We all know that that is not how it is supposed to work. I have evidence of allegations of political interference in the local government elections of March 1985, in which Alderman Tully tried to intimidate the council’s returning officer and threatened him with dismissal if he did not do as instructed. That was in respect of the dates for calling nominations, closing dates, and similar matters relating to the election. Alderman Tully’s comment was that the later nominations were called, the less chance the Opposition would have to campaign. As well, the Planning and Coordination Committee, which Tully ran, even though he was not the chairman, had a meeting with the Town Clerk. At that meeting, the committee clerk, who takes down the details of such meetings, was sent away, and Alderman Tully proceeded to question the clerk concerning the coming election. Let me hasten to add that local government clerks are in an extremely vulnerable position when they work for a council which decides to behave as the ICC does. The clerk is really completely at the mercy of the council, and if that council is corrupt, as I believe the Ipswich City Council is, then the clerk’s position is almost untenable. He has the option of allowing himself to be corrupted, or getting out. I wonder how the present Town Clerk, Mr Quinn, will be judged when his record is examined in that regard. During the 1985 local government elections, the town clerk was so concerned that he sought legal advice from the City Solicitor, Mr David Wignall, who referred Mr Edmonds to one Mark Plunkett. Both of those legal advisers agreed with Alderman Tully’s opinion in a matter pertaining to a nomination form for a candidate Klopp. Is it not passing strange that both Wignall and Plunkett are members of the Labor Party? Mr Wignall now works for the Ombudsman. One could surmise that this is one of the jobs for the boys for which the Labor Party is famous. That Mr Edmonds managed to keep his integrity through the four years that he worked with the ICC is to his credit. It was that integrity and incorruptible nature which cost him his job. During the meeting to which I referred, previously between the Planning and Coordination Committee and Edmonds, Mr Edmonds maintained that the information being requested should not be given only to the Labor Party but to all parties contesting the election. This, of course, was not what the Tully gang wanted to hear, and Mr Edmonds felt that he had been intimidated to the extreme. In fact, the Director of Local Government strongly recommended to Mr Edmonds that he take legal action under the provision of the Criminal Code over this matter. I will be passing on to the CJC the evidence that I have in the hope that it will deal with it. When the town clerk purchased two mobile phones, one for himself to assist him as returning officer in the 1988 election and one for the council engineer, the invoice was unanimously passed for payment by the finance committee, of which Alderman Tully is the chairman. However, some 12 months later, one of the grounds for dismissal of the clerk was that he purchased the phones without authority. In August 1988, Alderman Tully actually borrowed the mobile phone for a weekend, stating that he needed it for official purposes relative to the 1988-89 council budget, which had been adopted by council the previous day. When the phone was eventually returned, the clerk became aware of a large account for telephone calls being made on that phone. He requested a statement of calls, which appeared to be mainly to non-business numbers. Also, Tully had phoned one of his own five telephone numbers on 45 different occasions. Some time later, when Alderman Denman requested a copy of such telephone accounts, he was answered by a writ issued by Tully and probably at ICC expense. The telephone statements were not provided. Another interesting aspect to the borrowing of that mobile phone is that, during the period in question, Tully was accused by a former girlfriend, Ms D. Thomas, of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2893 making harassing calls to her home. Tully had apparently confessed to Ms Thomas that he had previously harassed other people with telephone calls, which led to those people going to great lengths to get away from him. It is no wonder that Alderman Tully was regularly visiting a psychiatrist at that time. I know that he won a court case on this matter, but I understand that he set Ms Thomas up with the benefit of his legal training and, probably, with the use of the mobile phone. Another episode which involved borrowing the clerk’s mobile telephone occurred when Alderman Evans was going on leave to Noosa and wanted to remain in contact. I might add that not even members of Parliament have this sort of privilege. For approximately 10 weeks, the telephone was out of the clerk’s possession and in the hands of Aldermen Evans, Tully, Livingstone and Kruger. The telephone calls made during this time were shown to be of a private nature, including a further inordinate number during one period to one of Alderman Tully’s phone numbers. Do honourable members remember the lady who complained? Other telephone calls of volume related to the Capalaba area, where Tully apparently obtains medical care—if you feel stressed, ring your shrink—and to oddball numbers. This was the account for some $800, for which the Ipswich City Council footed the bill. When the town clerk was sacked, Alderman Tully, City Solicitor Mr Wignall and Mr Quinn, the present town clerk, accompanied Mr Edmonds to his office to ensure that he did not take any files or council information with him. Mr Edmonds was jostled by Alderman Tully, who forcibly denied him the right to leave his office, and his general treatment was, in my view, scandalous. He was also given a letter of dismissal, which obviously had been typed up and signed by Mr Quinn as acting town clerk—which he was not—before the sacking was carried out. The letter contained a cheque for $29,000-plus and a copy of how that amount was calculated. Every effort was made to ensure that the town clerk did not take any damaging information with him from the council chambers, and the five matters on which the clerk was sacked were all more than 10 months old. It is passing strange that they were not mentioned at that time, but instead were dredged up to support a spurious sacking nearly a year later. The matters which I have raised here today make it imperative that the CJC conduct an urgent inquiry into the Ipswich City Council and its members. Until that is done, the ratepayers of Ipswich will be denied their right to know whether the Ipswich City Council serves them or whether it serves the Labor Party.

Railway Workshop Reform Mr DAVIES (Mundingburra) (11.50 a.m.): In recent times, there has been a fair bit of discussion on the various rail issues in Townsville, and this morning I should like to take the time of the House to address one or two of those issues. Last month, the Draft Workshops Group Strategic Plan was released by Queensland Rail for consultation with the unions and QR staff. Workshop reform represents the next phase in the dynamic process of reform being implemented within QR to ensure the long-term future of the organisation and redress the inept management of Governments past. Under previous administrations, the workshops of Queensland Rail had been run into the ground. Demonstrably suffering from a lack of coordinated investment or any real commitment to modernisation, the workshop group was in need of reform. Poor coordination of workshop investment has, over time, resulted in widespread duplication in facilities and their functions across the State. Insufficient incentives have been provided for workshops to meet corporate business objectives, resulting in unfocused investment and unproductive work practices. In relation to rail reform in general—the reforms have been undertaken through the organisation. Modernisation was the only means by which the Government could ensure the long-term future of the rail network which could efficiently meet the needs of the community and promote the State’s economic development while providing a stable future for rail employees. The initiatives introduced have already seen great improvements to QR’s commercial viability. The organisation has proven itself capable 2894 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly of turning around the financial losses that had been sustained for more than four decades, that is, 40 years, last year posting an $8m surplus. As I said, this is the first time that the organisation has been in the black for something like 40 years. The draft strategic plan contains four options. The first of those options is to continue without major change, reducing employment at all workshops in line with natural attrition. Option 2 is to rationalise the workshops by progressing either one or a combination of the following: (a) consolidation of the Banyo workshop into the Redbank operation; (b) consolidation of the Townsville workshop into the Rockhampton operation; and (c) consolidation of Ipswich into Redbank workshops. Option 3 is a combination of options 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c), and also invests in two modern centres of excellence, one in the central and northern region and one in the south. Option 4 is to concentrate all workshop activities into one major workshop. The other States have gone about the process in a different manner. The Goss Government is seeking to ensure that there need never be the kind of wholesale cutbacks that have characterised changes to rail services in other States in recent years. For instance, last month Westrail in Western Australia announced the closure of its rail workshops, and two New South Wales workshops have been privatised. In contrast, Queensland Rail has proposed, within its Workshops Group Draft Strategic Plan, a coordinated investment program of up to $55m. Only through the modernisation of equipment and facilities can we truly ensure that workshop services are viably and justifiably retained within Queensland Rail. Queensland Rail’s draft strategic plan for workshops has defined the current composition of the workshops and the activities performed by the group. It also aims to relate the mix of business performed to a customer base. As to the history of Queensland Rail—it is obvious that the advent of new technology has dramatically affected the operations of Queensland Rail, and its workshops in particular. The same improvements that allow wagons and rolling stock to be used more efficiently and effectively also result in a decreased workload for the workshops of Queensland Rail. For instance, approximately 800 WHO wagons based in Mount Isa will be replaced by about 100 new wagons capable of carrying more, more efficiently. The impact of those innovations upon the workshops group is obvious. In 1987, the total number of wagons in use by Queensland Rail was approximately 21 000. In 1993, the number is approximately 15 500. In 1997, it is expected to be around 12 900—a decrease of 8 100 wagons in approximately 10 years. Similarly, the number of locomotives is likely to fall by more than 40 per cent over the same period, from 649 to 480. The rail workshops strategy has been released to the rail unions and is out for public consultation. Since this Government came to office, there has been significant consultation with the rail unions which have been regularly updated on progress in the workshops review and will be participating in a comprehensive process of consultation. It is important to reinforce that, throughout this process of workshop reform, there will be no sackings or forced relocations. Moreover, the Government will not allow the same approach to staff reductions as has occurred in other States. The reduction in staff numbers that is recommended to enable the workshops group to modernise and become more competitive will take place through natural attrition and the voluntary early retirement scheme. All employees affected by the workshops strategy will have their choices clearly outlined for them by QR management. Although a generous early retirement program has been established, no Queensland Rail worker will be forcibly retrenched during the process of reform. I repeat: no Queensland Rail worker will be forcibly retrenched during the process of reform. It is QR policy that no employee whose position has been abolished under the current process of reform will be forced to relocate. Rather, they will be redeployed in other areas by QR. Staff who need to gain new skills will be given full training, whether within QR or through external courses such as TAFE courses. I understand that has occurred in some places already. No other rail network in Australia has given such a guarantee. In other States, rail reform has been associated with redundancies, forced relocations and a contraction of the rail network itself. In contrast to these precedents, the Goss Government has given a full Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2895 undertaking that Queensland Rail will not pursue profit at any cost. That is the difference between this Government and other conservative Governments around Australia with the way they are approaching rail reform. I turn to another issue in Queensland Rail which affects Townsville and which often gets confused with what is happening at present with the workshops strategy, that is, the rail relocation. In 1989, the rail relocation in Townsville was announced by the previous Government. The rail relocation was to go to the Stuart/Wulguru area. It is obvious from looking at Townsville and the growth in the western suburbs that the centre of the city has its problems. Nathan Plaza, for instance, is growing and the mall is slowly going backwards. We cannot stop progress, and no-one is arguing that we should. If Nathan Plaza wants to commence a $23m expansion at the Nathan Plaza shopping centre at Aitkenvale, it should be allowed to do so, provided it meets all the requirements of local authorities and the Government. However, I am worried that there is a misconception that the two issues are tied together. They are not. They are mutually exclusive. One does not depend on the other. It is just a coincidence that the rail relocation is being talked about at the same time as the workshops strategy. One does not depend on the other. As I said earlier, the rail relocation to Stuart/Wulguru was announced by the previous Government, with the current mayor, in November or December 1989. The centre of the city needs residential development, and that is one way to get it. It needs housing to support the mall traders and it needs people to come back to the city to breathe new life into the centre of the city. I have been on record for approximately three years supporting that principle. But it is important to reiterate that the two issues are mutually exclusive. One does not depend on the other. In the very near future, the David Jones store in the centre of the city will close and relocate to Nathan Plaza. I am disappointed that that huge store faces the prospect of being boarded up. As I understand it, the person who contracted to buy it is now not proceeding with that venture. In conclusion—although we might have some difficult decisions to make in the future, consultation with the rail unions is occurring. I underline this speech by saying that, regardless, there will be no sackings, no forced redundancies and no involuntary transfers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! The time allotted for the Matters of Public Interest debate has expired.

NEW SOUTH WALES-QUEENSLAND BORDER RIVERS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 March (see p. 2415). Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (12 noon): The Opposition supports the Border Rivers Amendment Bill. The objective of this amendment Bill is to enable the Border Rivers Commission to assess and generally manage the ground water in the aquifers within the border rivers area, and to allocate those waters between the two States. The Opposition believes that that objective should have been included in the previous agreement; however, I suppose that, as a result of the present drought, a lot of restrictions and pressures are placed on producers, as well as the Government, to manage what water is available. The Opposition believes that, in this instance, it is necessary to include the subartesian water within the charter of the Border Rivers Commission. In general, I am reluctant to hand away authority. We have to consider that aspect in relation to the Border Rivers Commission making recommendations to the States and the like. I think that the States do not want to give away all control. In the case of the border rivers, Queensland needs to retain some control over what happens with the 2896 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly water that comes from its side—obviously the only water that we can control. We should not have a lot of people, say, from down south—and I am talking about right down south; pressure groups from South Australia or Victoria—virtually deciding what water Queensland should or should not be using when, in fact, their motive may be far from that of irrigation or the needs of Queensland. Recently, the Border Rivers Commission has been more responsible and accessible. There certainly was a lot of tension between the commission and the land- holders in the border rivers area, but I think that the situation has improved. As I mentioned previously, in recent times, intense pressure has been placed on irrigators, farmers and particularly departmental staff by the drought. It is very unfortunate that departmental people have to work their way through those problems and try to do the best that they compassionately can to assist the people on the land who are desperately looking for water to try to keep their crops alive. During this period, both the New South Wales and Queensland Governments are faced with a need and a responsibility to act fairly and compassionately, as I mentioned. I do not see any great problems with this amendment Bill. The Opposition lends its support to its passage through the Parliament. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (12.03 p.m.): The Bill before the House is not substantial in its content to the extent that there is not a lot of it, but it is very important to Queensland. I will provide some background on the constitution of the Border Rivers Commission. The BRC is a joint Queensland/New South Wales statutory authority which is made up of three commissioners: Mr Morwood, who is an independent chairperson, appointed by the Premiers of both States; Peter Millington, the Director of the Department of Water Resources in New South Wales—his appointment was made by the New South Wales Government—and Queensland, for its part, has appointed the Queensland Commissioner of Water Resources, Mr Peter Bevin. The role of the BRC is quite simple. Under the current Border Rivers Agreement, the main function of the BRC is to make recommendations to Governments and to then implement those decisions made by the Governments through the various agencies of the two Governments concerned. The principal thrust of the Border Rivers Commission legislation and the agreement is about the construction of works for water conservation, supply and irrigation, the equitable sharing of water between the States and other minor matters that may occur from time to time. It does not have any sort of major role outside those advisory and implementation roles. One of the key issues to consider is that of ground water. The obvious connection between surface and ground water supplies along the border rivers has led the commission to seek some amendments to the current legislation to enable it to exercise similar controls over ground water as it presently has over surface supplies. Governments in both States have endorsed this proposal and, hence, we have legislation before the House. As I understand, some preliminary investigations by ground water experts in both States have been undertaken to assess the feasibility of constructing a large production bore to increase water supplies currently available in the border rivers downstream—I hope I have the name right—at Mingoola. Apparently, there is a need to expand the current role of the commission, and issues such as blue-green algae have been quite prevalent in the media. Those outbreaks in the Darling River, environmental flow requirements established by New South Wales, and concern over developments on the flood plain in Queensland have resulted in the commission investigating the possibility of expanding the activities it undertakes, broadening its monitoring and investigatory role and its ability to make recommendations. To complement its work, the commission has undertaken to consult with the community at large. That has been one of the features of this Government—community consultation. Some would say that one can consult too much, but it is far better to consult too much than too little. Two interim community consultation committees have recently been formed by the commission—one representing the border rivers, and the other, the intersecting streams. The committees are concerned with a broad range of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2897 interests, including the ICM and TCM committees in both States, environmental groups, local authorities and irrigators. The honourable member for Warrego suggested that perhaps we should not allow people other than irrigators and those directly associated with the use of the water to have a say. Although the committees accept that those people have a right to voice their opinions and that they have a prime role to play, I think it would be unfair to suggest that the wider community has no interest in the waters of this country. As Australia is an arid country, we should involve everyone in water conservation and in any project of that nature. As I understand, it is proposed that the groups be consulted on a wide range of topics, including the proposal to broaden the role of the BRC to include water quality, environmental and flood plain issues as well as traditional water sharing and construction issues. It is further intended that the committees be able to request that items be included on the BRC meeting agendas, otherwise we may have one of those closed shop arrangements in which information from outside people is not sought and it tends to become, may I say, incestuous in the way that it thinks about issues. It is timely that this Bill now amends the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 and the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Agreement, which forms part of that Act because I understand that an agreement amending the current New South Wales- Queensland Border Rivers Agreement has been negotiated between the States. The Premiers of Queensland and New South Wales have already signed that agreement which, no doubt, this Bill will implement. I have much pleasure, therefore, in supporting the Bill before the House. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.08 p.m.): This amendment to the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act is very significant because of several issues that are raised in it, and it is important that we get it right the first time. First of all, this legislation shows that State Governments of different political persuasions can work together. We must be able to show that when natural resources traverse State borders, we can ensure that those resources are conserved for the best use of the residents of both States. It is also important to ensure that underground water, which can also affect stream flows, is utilised in such a way that most people will get the benefit from that resource. The implementation of irrigation in this area can affect the stream flow and it can also affect underground water resources. In the past, we have experienced the problem of widespread blue-green algae and we know that when water flow is reduced or minimised, detrimental repercussions can arise in our waterways. More importantly, it should be remembered that water resources have to be allocated properly to people. I can speak from personal experience with the Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme which involved the allocation of underground water. Because the previous Government did not get it right in the past, one of the concerns that arose was that the total allocation of underground water was greater than the capacity of the aquifer to supply. On occasions, it has happened that in spite of allocations of underground water being controlled, salt water intrusion has occurred. This shows that when allocations are made, it is very important that the underground water resource is not allowed to be depleted to the extent that the resource will no longer be available for people who need it. Properly managed allocations are important for two reasons, namely, not only for the protection of the underground water resource itself but also for the protection of investment. It should also be remembered that many people have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in irrigation equipment and in setting up a farm. When other farmers are not able to produce a crop and these people stand to make a great deal of money, the whole viability of their businesses can go out the back door if they do not have enough water. For those reasons, it is important that when water resource allocations are made to farmers, they are made in such a way that the resource can be used properly. I reiterate that this Bill protects the streams and underground aquifers. Water resources must be utilised and conserved for use not only by this generation but also by future generations, so that irrigated farms and other crop-producing areas will continue to be viable. 2898 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (12.12 p.m.): I am very pleased to rise in support of the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Amendment Bill, but I think it should be called the Queensland-New South Wales border rivers amendment Bill, thereby giving this State the primacy that it deserves. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting the Bill. Perhaps I misheard the Opposition spokesman, but I thought he expressed concern that the Government will be handing over the management of Queensland water resources to people from other States. I point out to him that by the same token, Queensland is also getting a say in the way in which other States manage their water resources. It is important to recognise that management of the ground water resource and alluvial areas associated with border river streams will have wide-ranging effects because what happens on one side of the border will also affect what happens on the other side of the border. Basically, I believe it is a good thing for a wider view of this issue to be adopted. My colleague the member for Mulgrave provided a thorough reading of issues involving the Border Rivers Commission. This legislation is just one of a number of measures associated with water resources that this Government has undertaken since it came to power. I will take a few moments of the House to remind honourable members of those measures. One was this State’s joining the Murray/Darling Basin Commission in May 1992. That commission recognises that the basin cannot be managed in isolation or by one State operating at arm’s length from another. That scheme operates in much the same way as does the Border Rivers Commission which members are discussing at the moment. That basin covers one-seventh of Australia and spans four States, so the need for States to cooperate in relation to that matter would be well understood. In recent times, one of this State’s successes has been the integrated catchment management program which is based on the State’s 32 river catchment spheres of influence. This measure protects both land and water in the various catchment areas. The Government has also established a water quality task force which seeks to study and minimise outbreaks of blue-green algae and safeguard the State’s surface water against degradation by algal bloom. The Government has also introduced very important legislation which will protect riverine vegetation from indiscriminate development. Honourable members will recall that earlier I spoke with some passion when that issue was discussed. Further, the State Government has introduced the rural communities water supply and sewerage scheme, which is a supplement for the Commonwealth country towns water supply improvement program. That fosters and implements the introduction of water and sewerage for country towns and country communities that are unable financially to meet the cost of doing that themselves. I am sure that members opposite would be very pleased with that program that was introduced by the Government. Recognising the value of water resources, both in urban and in rural applications, in April 1992 the Government launched the Water Wise campaign, which is aimed at reducing urban consumption by 20 per cent. Honourable members will know that, in the general region of my electorate—and an area that I represented in this place prior to the redistribution—some controversy has arisen over the need for further water supplies for the Sunshine Coast, and a great deal of argument has emanated from that area. Most of the argument has centred on the need to conserve water and to find different methods of delivery. The Water Wise campaign fits very nicely into that. Finally, in a further effort to reduce water requirements, to give us a new perspective on water management and to try to reduce costs, in April 1991 the Government restructured and renamed the South East Queensland Water Board. Water issues have been some of the things that have occupied the time and the mind of the Minister since he assumed the portfolio. He has done so very well, as honourable members would see. Mr FitzGerald: Wolffdene. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I hear the member mention Wolffdene. I am not sure which member—— Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2899

Mr FitzGerald: Yet again. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: How surprising! It is the member for Lockyer interjecting, “Yet again.” Perhaps the time of the member for Lockyer would be better employed if his leader were to give him a portfolio. It seems to me that he is the shadow Minister without portfolio responsible for sitting in the House and interjecting on Government members’ speeches. He does it with great and regular monotony. The member mentioned Wolffdene. I will not resile from the decision made on the proposed Wolffdene dam. When members of this Government were in Opposition, they gave a commitment, and the Government has kept that commitment. That would be unusual for that lot on the Opposition side of the House. National Party members gave plenty of commitments, but they never kept them. If half of the things that were committed to my electorate when they were in Government had occurred, I would be living in one of the richest areas in Queensland, but I am not. Members opposite should not talk to me about a Government that keeps its commitments. The Government makes commitments and it keeps them. That is the hallmark of the Government, which will keep us in Government in this place for many, many years to come. Mr Perrett: Have you given the fishermen in your area a commitment? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The fishermen in my electorate have had a report released that was done with consultation by a community group, which made some recommendations to the Minister’s inquiry. The Minister’s inquiry has yet to furnish its report. When that is done, I am sure that, as a member of this House, the honourable member will be amongst the first to hear about it. I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker would prefer me to return to the Border Rivers Commission and the New South Wales- Queensland Border Rivers Amendment Bill 1993, which I am sure that I have spent sufficient time supporting. It is pleasing that members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of the Bill. I am sure that the Bill when it is passed will ensure operation for the good of both New South Wales and Queensland. I commend to the Minister for serious consideration those improvements that were recommended or suggested by my colleague the member for Mulgrave. I am happy to support the Bill. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (12.19 p.m.), in reply: I thank those honourable members who have shared in the debate. “Sharing” is the operative word with the legislation. It is sharing in a responsible way that has been going on between ourselves and the New South Wales Government since the mid to late 1940s. It has been very, very good for each and every one of our Governments and particularly for our primary producers on either side of the border. I refer to some of the comments by the Opposition spokesman and thank him for his support for the Bill. The Bill is not about giving something away at all. The Bill is about protecting our own aquifer, because the aquifer was not taken into consideration in the earlier agreement that was entered into and it has continued through the years. Both the Queensland Government and the New South Wales Government agree that the aquifer must be shared. It is a very important and integral part of the water system in the whole of the region and plays a very, very important role for our primary producers. It is entirely separate from the Murray/Darling system; therefore, people in South Australia or any of the people who are a long way away have no say whatever about what we do with the water from here. The agreement is between New South Wales and Queensland, and no other State. It is not covered by the Murray/Darling agreement. The honourable member for Mulgrave contributed in his usual way with a great deal of sense and knowledge of the industry. In particular, he raised some of the problems of blue-green algae. We are considering blue-green algae in our cooperation through the Murray/Darling system. Initially and immediately, between Queensland and New South Wales, we must consider it in relation to those particular projects. The member for Bundaberg referred to the very serious problem in Queensland of the overcommitment of the aquifer. If I wanted to be political, I could be provocative and say that an overcommitment was given by the previous Government in a lot of areas, but I will not do that today. I am in a calm, peaceful and contented mood today. Therefore, it 2900 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly is a matter of recognising that those things are happening. We all must recognise that. As a result of some overcommitments in different regions of Queensland, very serious consequences have come about now that we have run into the driest period on record in so many parts of our State, not the least of which is in my own electorate. The aquifer there is dry. In 1990-91, it was as full as it could be. Because there has been no rainfall at all, we have been living on the aquifer for two years, and now it is dry. We now must look very seriously at that problem. Bundaberg went through that experience, and the same problem is occurring in other areas of the State. In the mighty Burdekin system, we have changed our channels system so that we can supply earlier than was initially planned the areas in which problems have been encountered with the aquifer. The honourable member for Caboolture referred to the work that the Government is doing with respect to the Murray/Darling agreement. He also raised a very, very important point about the Water Wise campaign throughout Queensland. This campaign has really taken off. The local authorities are being very, very supportive of it. The educational program continues. It is in the interests of all members of this House, whether they be on the Opposition benches or part of the Government that has introduced this program, to recognise that the Water Wise campaign is very, very important. Savings of water can be effected, even in our irrigation areas. I do not blame anybody for what has happened in the past, but with the changing times we are starting to recognise that we have been wasting water with a lot of our irrigation practices. We have to look at those practices and ensure that we are making the best possible use of our water resources in this State. Water is a scarce commodity. Australia is the driest continent in the world. Queensland probably is the drought State of Australia. We are the driest part of this continent. Other very dry areas such as those in Western Australia and central Australia are not suitable for agriculture. Their soils are not suitable and never have been. But in Queensland, the soil is suitable for agriculture and all of a sudden one can go from years of plenty to years of shortages, which are very, very harmful to the stability and sustainability of production in this State. Water Wise is a very important program. In order to further this program, for some time, the Queensland Government has been negotiating with the Central Queensland University, which is about to set up a preliminary discipline in irrigation engineering in conjunction with its Mackay campus, because it is on a major aquifer in a major agricultural area. Within the next few years, for the first time in Australia we will be starting to turn out from Queensland specialist irrigation engineers. It is another discipline that will be very, very important to the future training of our young people. It will be another discipline that will be very important to this State. We will have these professional people to help our primary producers. In the long term, it will be very beneficial to us, particularly when the expertise is applied in the tropical agricultural parts of the State. This Bill has a great bearing on the type of work that we want to do and the type of program we want to undertake for this State, particularly in the development of our water resources. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 13, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2901

BUSINESS LICENCE DEREGULATION (MILKSELLERS AND FISH BUYERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 March (see p. 2414). Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (12.27 p.m.): As I rise to speak to the Business Licence Deregulation (Milksellers and Fish Buyers) Amendment Bill 1993, let me say at the outset that the Opposition supports the Bill. It is small-business friendly, and I think that anything that is small-business friendly has to be given due consideration, as the Opposition has done with this Bill. It will remove burdens and restrictions on small business and it will cut red tape and allow people to get on with their business in these tough Labor-inflicted economic times. The Bill removes the necessity for people to hold milksellers’ licences under the Dairy Industry Act and restricted buyers’ licences under the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act. I understand that over 8 000 shopkeepers will no longer need a licence to sell milk. Likewise, fish retailers will no longer need a licence to buy fish. So this legislation has to be very beneficial for the very large numbers of shopkeepers who are in the business of retailing both milk and fish. Consumers will not be affected. Adequate laws are in place under the Health Act which will actually protect consumers. In his second-reading speech, the Minister was very critical of the previous Government. It is very easy to be wise in hindsight. However,the previous Government was always very concerned about consumers and the fact that they be catered for as regards health matters. Milk and fish are two products that perish very easily. We do not have to look back very far to see just how far we have come in terms of refrigeration and transport. That is why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this Bill. We believe that these two products, which perish very easily, can now be retailed without any problems for the consumer. I can still remember the days when milk was not even refrigerated before it was delivered to the consumer. It went straight from the cow to the can, to the billy can, to the front door. Likewise, it was delivered to milk bars and cafes, which then put it into refrigeration. I still remember when fish came to my home town of Kingaroy packed in pine cases with ice. The fish was put on the train at Maryborough and railed to Kingaroy. Hopefully, it got there before the ice melted and it was still cold. A Government member interjected. Mr PERRETT: That occurred even after the war. At one stage, I held a fish buyers’ licence which was different from that held by retailers. For $2 a year, that licence enabled me to buy fish from the designated fish board at Maryborough. It was great when eskies were invented. I would fill an esky with fish, put it into the freezer and the fish would last for the next six months. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to bureaucratic red tape. However, I believe that there was some rationale behind it. I am very pleased that this legislation has been introduced. It is sensible legislation. Hansard records that, when the Dairy Industry Act was debated in 1989 and when the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act was debated in 1982, the Minister did not utter one word about bureaucratic red tape. He is very critical now, but Hansard reveals that he was not too concerned then. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It is easy to be critical of mistakes that may have been made in the past. I am not saying that the relevant legislation was wrong at that time, because it was obviously designed for a purpose. However, times change. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that this legislation will see us catch up with the twentieth century. I remind the Minister that we are now almost into the 2902 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly twenty-first century. Hopefully, this legislation will at least meet the needs of the early twenty-first century. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (12.32 p.m.): Mr Speaker—— Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the member for Nudgee. Mr Vaughan: It’s good to listen to. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It is good to listen to, as he says. I am very pleased to support the Business Licence Deregulation (Milksellers and Fish Buyers) Amendment Bill. Those two licences were identified through a process that has become known as the “milk bar exercise”. That was a process put in place by the Council for Economic Development of Queensland—or CEDOQ—a body that is chaired by the Premier. I believe that my colleague the member for Waterford was a member of that body prior to coming to this place. The Business Regulation Review Unit of the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development examined the effect of regulation and licensing on a milk bar. It discovered 18—I repeat, 18—licences that impacted on such an operation. Cabinet made some decisions in relation to that report. Amongst those decisions was that these two licences and one other licence would be abolished. This legislation abolishes the licences relating to milksellers and fish buyers. As the member for Barambah stated, approximately 8 500 people hold a Class A milksellers’ licence. I understood that to be a free licence. The Business Regulation Review Unit has discovered that revenue of $8,264 is involved in the issue of those licences, yet it costs the Government $8,000 to issue them. That licence was to be applied for on one occasion only; it was to last a lifetime; and it was to protect milk suppliers in a health context prior to pasteurisation. When one considers its history, it is evident that its time has truly come. Today, such protection is no longer required. I have no idea how many people hold a fish buyers’ annual licence, but I imagine that it would be a considerable number. Mr Vaughan: Six thousand. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The honourable member for Nudgee informs me that 6 000 of those licences exist, and I defer to his greater experience in these matters. Those licences were introduced to protect against overfishing of our seas. It would seem that too many fish were being pulled from our oceans, so we slapped another licence on the poor old fish buyer—the person who would retail the product. That hardly seems fair. Although these two licences will be abolished, plenty of other business regulations still need to be examined. At present, 615 Government licences affect Queensland businesses. That sounds like a very large number. However, in October 1992, 640 licences were in place. In the past few months, we have managed to get rid of 25 of those licences. As the systematic review of licences continues, further reductions are to be expected. Reductions in licences represent reductions in costs. The systematic review has been in operation for approximately 12 months. I want to refer to some figures with which I have been provided. In three cases in which licensing regimes have been examined, the costs to business were $210,000 per year and the costs to Government were $648,000 per year. Significant benefits are to be gained by both business and Government through a reduction in licences. I want to read a few words of praise for the Goss Government given by Peter Carroll. Recently, the Griffith University’s Centre for Australian Public Sector Management conducted an assessment of the Goss Government’s performance in its first term. Mr Carroll’s paper on that subject contained a couple of interesting paragraphs in its conclusion. The paper stated— Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2903

“There has been very considerable progress toward achieving ‘regulatory reform’, though that progress has been, for the most part, in establishing improved management and evaluative systems, rather than in the review of specific legislation and regulation. . . . However, provided that reviews are not unnecessarily hurried in order to meet what, of necessity, is a rather artificial deadline of 31 December 1994, Queensland is likely to see a successful and quite dramatic review of regulatory regimes relating to business.” That is part of an ongoing process of this Government, and Minister Casey has always been amenable to such suggestions. A Government member: He’s a good Minister, too. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: He is a good Minister. An example of that is the removal of Henry VIII clauses from legislation that relates to his department. This is another move. The Minister has moved quickly to remove a couple of impediments to business that are no longer logical or required. I support the Bill before the House. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.39 p.m.): I rise with pleasure to speak to the Business Licence Deregulation (Milksellers and Fish Buyers) Amendment Bill. Previous speakers from both sides of the House have shown support for this Bill. It was interesting to hear the member for Barambah go through the history of cooling methods—from pine boxes and ice, to eskies, to modern refrigeration. It is important to remember that many health problems could have arisen through a commodity deteriorating quickly because of lack of refrigeration. The point that I wish to make is that modern refrigeration methods have been available for more than a decade, and I believe that these changes could have been implemented much sooner. When a Government is in power for a long time, it tends to become bogged down in certain areas. However, I acknowledge the contribution to this debate by the member for Barambah. The member for Caboolture referred to the systematic review of business regulations. It is interesting to note that when the milk bar saga was reviewed, it was discovered that 18 licences were required. The honourable member gave a good indication of the problems associated with that. However, in reality, problems occurred because consumers and small businesspeople were disadvantaged by those unnecessary regulations and licences. Just down the road from where I live, there was a fish shop. Often, when I went there on a Sunday afternoon, I would find that there was no milk. The operator of that shop would say to me, “You are the local member; why the hell should I be selling milk? I make absolutely no profit out of it, and I have to have a licence to sell it. I do not care about milk. I would rather sell soft drinks. I would rather sell anything else because I make more profit out of it.” Those regulations actually reduced the availability of milk to consumers. Why would retailers want to be worried about a commodity from which they made no profit but which cost them money, because they had to pay for a licence to sell it? For that reason, I can understand why we must get rid of those regulations. This Bill gets rid of a little bit of red tape. However, it is only the first step in the deregulation of the dairy industry. It will mean that milk will be cheaper for the consumer and, therefore, sales will be enhanced. Those benefits will flow back to the processor and the producer. This Bill also amends the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act by doing away with the restricted buyers licence, which costs $125. It more or less kept part of the selling chain to the consumer in the hands of a few people and, again, there was less chance of being able to get that product on to consumers’ tables at a lower 2904 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly cost. We must get rid of that extra red tape so that sales can be enhanced, costs can be reduced and the benefits can be passed on to small business. However, we must always be concerned about illegal sales, especially in the fishing industry. There are ways in which amateur fishermen, or even commercial fishermen, can sell fish directly to retailers, or even to members of the public, without the protection of the Health Act which ensures that we have a good product. However, section 44 of the Fishing Industry Organisation and Marketing Act still remains. In other words, a fish retailer must still keep documentation of fish purchases so that we know from where the fish come. It is important to ensure that, and the documentation requirements of section 44 stop illegal sales. However, it is also important that we reduce regulations and do away with the restricted buyers licence. Overall, I support these amendments before the House, and I congratulate the Minister on taking this step. It is one step towards ensuring that we have a more deregulated industry and that not only the consumers but also the processors and, more importantly, the producers receive a benefit. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (12.44 p.m.), in reply: I thank the members for Barambah, Caboolture and Bundaberg for participating in this debate. As I said when I introduced the Bill, it is a very simple measure that is designed to show this Government’s full commitment to assisting small business to overcome red tape. On an examination of the licence structure, it was amazing to discover that many licence provisions related to the collection of fees which were designed to cover the cost of obtaining a licence. In this day and age, when we are moving towards quality assurance—and this is the most important point that I would like to stress—and when everything is encompassed within the food Acts administered by the Health Department, it is important that people in small businesses are not relieved of their responsibilities. Under this legislation, they are relieved of the cost burden of having to pay a fee for a special licence to do something that they would normally be doing in their retail trade. It is of assistance to small business, and every member who spoke in this debate has recognised that. I believe that small business will be very pleased with this legislation. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 May (see p. 2602). Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (12.48 p.m.): First of all, I register my protest with the Minister at the haste with which this legislation is being pushed through the House. Although the Opposition will not be opposing this legislation, I have only just finished getting my briefing from departmental officers. My committee has not been briefed, and I have had no feedback from anybody about this. So the Opposition is flying blind. I presume that it is all right not to oppose this legislation, and that there are no grounds upon which to oppose it. But I am not really sure, simply because we have been rushed to such an extent that I am certainly not happy. Mr Mackenroth: Seven days. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2905

Mrs McCAULEY: That is all very well, but there was a weekend in between, and I worked both days. I also attended a shadow Cabinet meeting, and I had to drive home from Brisbane. That period of seven days was really not long enough. Having made that complaint—the amendments to the City of Brisbane Act simply involve validating legislation. As such, I have no problems with that. I believe that the man who brought this matter to the attention of the Local Government Department has some problems with it, but I do not. Nor do I have problems with the fact that it expires one month after it commences. It is a good idea to keep Acts of this type streamlined, so that when parts of them are no longer needed they are not left in legislation. The amendment of the Local Government Act is really a reviewable local government matter. As such, it should have been handled by the Local Government Commissioner, Greg Hoffman. However, I understand the need for haste in this matter. I understand also that Mr Hoffman is in agreement with this legislation concerning the financial divisions. There are only five shires—— Mr Mackenroth: I think the last time we debated something about the Local Government Commissioner, you actually said that we should not be sending all these things to him. Mrs McCAULEY: I am quite happy about this one. The Local Government Commissioner is obviously quite happy about that, too. I believe that he has his hands full. I understand that on 1 July, four of five shires, namely, Mareeba, Burdekin, Waggamba, Kilkivan and Balonne, will move to abolish those financial divisions. I do not believe that any problems will arise from that. If there are still divisions within the shires, they will still be able to levy particular divisions certain amounts of money, perhaps for a civic centre in the town division and part of the rural division surrounding the town, and that sort of thing. I do not believe that abandoning financial divisions will be the bogey that one council seems to think that it will be. That council is clinging to divisions with a bit of desperation. I believe that the council will find that, when it is eventually forced to do away with those financial divisions, that will not create much of a problem and, in fact, will make it easier for the shire clerk to deal with the finances of his shire because he will not have to do separate accounting for divisions. Therefore, the Opposition has no problem with that particular amendment. The Opposition will not oppose the amendment of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. I understand that those amendments which come through now as subordinate legislation are coming through thick and fast and slowing down the whole process. I query whether or not it is useful for that information to be sent to members of State Parliament. When I see a form from, say, the Shire of Taroom, and it concerns a business in the town of Wandoan, for example, it does not mean a thing to me unless it is really controversial. And if it is really controversial, I hear about it, anyway. I believe that members of Parliament should have the option as to whether or not they receive those notices. It is probably an extra bit of paperwork that could be done without. I do not believe that anybody would worry about that. The Schedule mentions “elected representatives”, who are local authority elected representatives. Of course, they should receive all the amendments that come through, because that is what they are dealing with. But it does not impact nearly so much on members of State Parliament as it does on local authority members. The Opposition will not oppose those particular amendments. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (12.52 p.m.): The honourable member for Callide complained that she had not had time for briefing on this matter. Perhaps if she had not spent so much time inquiring into the Ipswich City Council, she may have had more time. Mr Livingstone: She spent all day talking to Dave on the phone. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, she spent all day talking to David Underwood. If she spent more time performing the tasks of the Opposition spokesman instead of talking to David Underwood, she would have had more time to receive a briefing. While I am discussing the contribution by the honourable member—— 2906 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member is not in his usual seat, so I will not take the interjection. In terms of the contribution by the honourable member for Callide, let me say that I disagree with her as to notices that are being sent to members. Those notices are very important to local community groups in my electorate. Mr T. B. Sullivan: We want to keep them. Mr BEATTIE: I certainly want to keep them, because they are very valuable. They enable me to keep local organisations informed of exactly what is happening in the electorate. I receive a significant amount of feedback about those notices. I ensure that, when I receive those notices, all my community groups also get a copy. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for indicating that I am a good local member. I appreciate the compliment. I turn now to the legislation and wish to deal with the parts that relate to amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 1924. The objectives of the amendments are to validate those ordinances made by the Brisbane City Council and approved by the Governor in Council and in respect of which the council has not complied with section 38 (5) of the City of Brisbane Act and to ensure that the legal position of the council is not disrupted as a result of the non-compliance with section 38 (5). In terms of background, I point out that the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1980 was assented to on 12 May 1980. Part III of that Act, which amended the City of Brisbane Act and provided for additional ordinance-making procedures to be followed by the Brisbane City Council, was proclaimed to commence on 24 May 1980. From 24 May 1980 until 19 November 1992, one step in the ordinance-making procedure has inadvertently been overlooked by the council. This step is that required by section 38 (5) of the Act. The section requires the council to post for the information of the public in a prominent position in the prescribed place—currently the Customer Service Centre, Ground Floor, Brisbane Administration Centre—a copy of the newspaper notice advertising the ordinance and calling for objections. Although the council has overlooked that statutory requirement, it otherwise advertised the ordinance to an extent greater than that required by the Act by displaying the newspaper notice at all ward offices and the council’s five regional centres. In all other respects, the ordinance-making procedures have been followed, that is, making copies of the ordinance available at the prescribed place, advertising the ordinance in the Courier- Mail, considering all objections received within the objection period, and so on. The council has also advised that all the requirements in relation to town planning procedures have been complied with. As a result of that oversight, the Crown Solicitor has advised that the ordinances made during the period in question—24 May 1980 to 19 November 1992—are invalid. Because of the length of time involved, the oversight occurred during Labor and Liberal Party administrations at City Hall and Labor, coalition and National Party administrations at the State Government level. The oversight came to light during the lodgment of objections to proposed amendments to the council’s ordinances dealing with dog registration and control, a matter of close interest to my colleague the honourable alderman for Spring Hill, David Hinchliffe. Mr T. B. Sullivan: That shy, retiring gentleman from the Brisbane City Council. Mr BEATTIE: He is very fond of dogs and cats. I will not hear him attacked, or the animals of which he is very fond. Suggestions otherwise simply are not true. He is a well-known dog lover. Mr Fenlon interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection. The objection period for those ordinances closed on 16 November 1992. One objection stated that proper ordinance-making procedures as required by the City of Brisbane Act were not Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2907 complied with. On realising the oversight, since 19 November 1992 the council has been complying with section 38 (5). The ordinances dealing with dogs, etc. will have to be reprocessed by the council in accordance with the proper procedures along with all similar ordinances in the same boat, for example, those not yet approved by the Governor in Council and those in respect of which section 38 (5) has not been followed. The proposed legislation is essential to ensure that all actions taken by the council in respect of those ordinances approved by the Governor in Council since 24 May 1980 are not questioned or contested in a court of law. The proposed legislation is remedying a technicality and should not be construed as prejudicing the rights of some persons. It simply states that what everyone believed to be the case, was and is the case. We have a very sensible, practical and necessary piece of legislation before us in terms of the City of Brisbane Act. I believe it has the support of all honourable members. I note the support from the Opposition spokesman. The other amendments to the Local Government Act 1936 deal with a number of things, including financial divisions. I wish to make a few comments on financial issues involving the Brisbane City Council. This matter has been referred to in this Chamber by honourable members and the record needs to be set straight. I will deal firstly with the city debt. I introduce my remarks by saying that, if the very well known and well respected former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, had not borrowed money, the city would never have been sewered. That was part of a very important, long-range strategy by Clem Jones. Brisbane’s total indebtedness is $1.115 billion, or $3,969 per property of which there are 281 000 in Brisbane, or $1,484.9 per capita. In the 1969-70 financial year, Brisbane’s total indebtedness was $1.05 billion, there were 202 000 properties and the debt was $5,203 per property. Two things are clear: firstly, the debt today is no more than it was in 1969-70. Mr Welford: It is less. Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection from the honourable member that it is less. I hope that Opposition members take note of that. Because we have 38 per cent more ratepayers, the debt per property has decreased by more than $1,200 to $3,969 per property. The Brisbane City Council administration, headed by Jim Soorley, is not borrowing any more than did the previous administration headed by Sallyanne Atkinson. Mrs McCauley interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member should not get excited; it is not good for her. She should listen to what I am saying. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BEATTIE: Before the lunch break, I was talking at some length about the city debt, and I was pointing out that two things are clear: at the Brisbane City Council level, in dollar terms the debt today is no more than it was in 1969-70. However, because Brisbane now has 38 per cent more ratepayers, the debt per property has dropped by over $1,200 to $3,969. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I would be a better mayor than the honourable member. The Brisbane City Council administration is not borrowing any more than that borrowed by the previous Liberal administration. In the Liberal’s last budget, Sallyanne Atkinson borrowed almost $120m in today’s dollar terms. In Jim Soorley’s first budget, his council borrowed slightly more at $124m. In the current budget year, the Brisbane City Council is projected to borrow about $115m, or $5m less than the previous Liberal Party administration’s last budget. Mr Ardill: There was a particular reason for that increase last year—it was borrowing for the green levy. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. I will come back to that. Part of the council’s borrowings has been the need to wear decisions of the previous Liberal administration, including the purchase of the BAC building and the decisions relating to Rochedale, 2908 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Southbank and Gurulmundi. Ability to pay is the key when we are making an assessment of the financial status of a public institution such as a council. It is the measure of the council’s financial health and, as I said, it is measured in the ability to repay. The Brisbane City Council’s ability to cover loan repayments is superior to that of five or six State Governments, and it is getting better. The Brisbane City Council’s operating surplus compared with interest cost is 1.83. Only the Queensland State Government—our State Government—does better at 3.1. The New South Wales State Government, under a Liberal/National Party Government, comes in at 1.6. The worst is Victoria—another which has a Liberal/National Party Government—at 0.9. I turn now to debt management strategy because it is relevant to the test of how efficient financial managers are at a council level. Jim Soorley’s administration has a clear and disciplined debt management strategy. It is committed to reducing general civic loan borrowings to zero after 1995. His administration is committed to raising loans primarily for self-funding utilities such as water, sewerage, cleansing and public transport. In terms of the budget—and the budget will be delivered on 2 June—it is true that in the 1992-93 budget, the expenditure is past the $1 billion mark; it is up $123m on the released budget figures. The breakdown of those revised figures reveals increases in five main areas: firstly, $48m in expenditure carried over from the previous year’s budget, including $36m in capital works projects—this money was allocated for those projects in the 1991-92 budget and was carried forward to 1992-93 as part of the opening budget surplus; secondly, the change from cash to accrual accounting within the council requiring a one-off immediate recognition of an extra $57m in rates revenue was the same $57m in associated discounts and remissions recognised as an expense—that was all because of the change from cash to accrual accounting; thirdly, $8m transferred from reserves to pay out voluntary redundancy packages; fourthly, $5m to upgrade the ANZ stadium at QEII in preparation for the 1993 Broncos matches—that arises from an interest-free loan from the ANZ bank in return for QEII naming rights; and, finally, $2.5m towards job creation schemes for the long-term unemployed—something all honourable members would support. Revenue and expenditure will increase further when funding for local capital works and additional employment generation funding is added after the December review figures are approved. The other reforms in this—— Mr Veivers: This is good stuff. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. The honourable member said that this is good stuff, and he is dead right. I could not agree with him more. There are a number of other reforms. There are three-year forward estimates of spending—— Mr Veivers: We’ll all fall asleep. Mr BEATTIE: I thought this place was excited and moved by the great contribution that I am making. The honourable member’s problem is that he is asleep even when he walks around here. It is hard to tell whether he is asleep or not. Mr Mackenroth: If you put him to sleep, you’ll be doing the whole House a favour. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. That is right. I ask the honourable member to nod along. As I was saying, the other reforms are: three-year forward estimates of spending; new accrual accounting standards, to which I referred earlier; zero base budgeting; activity level budgeting; quarterly budget reviews; upgraded financial management systems; monthly reports, and so on. The basic thrust of what I wanted to say this afternoon is to put to rest the nonsense that is perpetrated around this place in relation to the finances of the Brisbane City Council. The Brisbane City Council’s financial position is more sound than it was in 1969-70, and that is because of good financial management. I repeat—two things are clear: in today’s dollar terms, the debt is no more than it was in 1969-70 and, in fact—— Mr Veivers: That’s what they said about Victoria, too, and South Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The member for Southport will cease interjecting. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2909

Mr BEATTIE:—in 1969-70, Brisbane’s total indebtedness was $1.05 billion. There were then 202 000 properties, and the debt per property was $5,203. It is much less today—it is $3,969. Those figures speak for themselves. I remind the honourable member who was interjecting that, in terms of operating surplus compared with interest cost, the Brisbane City Council is 1.83. I repeat: the only body in Australia with a better record is this State Government. The New South Wales State Government comes in at 1.6—the member’s mates in New South Wales—and Victoria is 0.9—his mates, too. So whoopee! That is the sort of track record that he and his mates have been responsible for. Next, he will tell me that the New South Wales Government was elected in the last 10 minutes. I know that news travels slowly in his area, but the New South Wales Government has been there for some time. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport has been asked to cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: It is important to look at some other issues which this Bill addresses. In terms of allowing councils to approve allotments without access, this has been of particular concern for the Brisbane City Council. Currently, councils cannot approve new lots without access. The amendments provided in this Bill enable councils to approve of subdivisions without access. The amendment would assist councils in obtaining land for public purposes. Individual allotments may not have access, but when an individual allotment is amalgamated with adjoining land, the entire area would have access. The amendment will allow councils to approve subdivisions incorporating a temporary access restriction strip which would be removed only when external works are completed and contributions are paid. This means that councils will also have the option of no longer taking bonds as guarantees for works and contributions which, as the honourable member for Archerfield would be well aware, was a practice followed by the council over a long period. This legislation specifically assists the Brisbane City Council, but that does not mean that lots can be created without proper access. This legislation gives the Brisbane City Council a lot more flexibility. In the time that remains for my speech, I wish to deal with three issues. The first relates to the notification of planning applications to local authority members. The Opposition spokesman raised this in her contribution. Earlier I made the point, in the strongest possible terms, that I believe State members should retain that right. However, in terms of local authorities, an appropriate amendment is set out in the Bill. At present, all members of local authorities without divisions must receive notification of all planning applications, whether they relate to their immediate locality or not. The amendment allows local councils to nominate that only specific members should receive notification of planning applications. This will save applicants time and money and also reduce possible problems caused by failure to notify every member, which could result in procedures having to be repeated. I believe this is a sensible amendment, but it should not be taken in any way to be a reflection on the current practice of notifying State members which, as I have already indicated, I believe to be an important point. The second point to which I wish to refer is one of the other underlying threads of this legislation. I refer to continuation of the practice of empowering local authorities to make decisions that was commenced by Tom Burns and presently is being carried on by Terry Mackenroth. It is important that members of State Parliament support the empowering of local authorities and not simply pay lip-service to it in this place and in other places. It is important to give local authorities more power, which has in fact occurred and is presently continuing under this Government. The final point to which I wish to refer is the excellent cooperation I receive from Jim Soorley and his administration. I applaud the level of support that the Lord Mayor has given to me and to other State members of this Parliament when it comes to local authority matters. One matter to which I wish to make particular reference is the fact that, for many years, the Coles shopping complex at New Farm had no toilet facilities. The local owner of those facilities, Alf Sorbello, consulted me, the Lord Mayor and the 2910 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Brisbane City Council. As a result, last Friday approval was given for construction of toilets and a car park in the New Farm shopping complex area. When it is considered that most of the people who live in New Farm and surrounding areas do their shopping in the Coles supermarket complex and nearby shopping area and when it is borne in mind that there is a disproportionately high percentage of elderly people who live in the inner city suburbs, it will be obvious that those toilet facilities are needed. I am delighted that following a high level of consultation and an approach made by Alf Sorbello and me, approval has now been given in principle for that project. Mr Veivers: That is one of the good things you’ve done. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Southport said that that is one of the many good things I have done, and he is quite right. I am pleased that these facilities will be constructed, thereby providing the level of service that is needed by people who live in the New Farm area. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport has already received one warning under Standing Order 123A. This is his final warning. Mr BEATTIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The final point I wish to make is that, in terms of planning schemes and amendments being no longer categorised as subordinate legislation, the process of approval undertaken by local authorities will be streamlined. In relation to the contribution for parks that is set by local authorities, this Bill empowers local authorities and also helps to reduce red tape. I am confident that through a high level of cooperation between the Brisbane City Council and the Lands Department in relation to areas such as Victoria Park in my electorate, the process will be improved and streamlined. I believe that the provisions of this Bill will make that possible. Time expired. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (2.42 p.m.): I will limit my remarks on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill to the part of the legislation which refers to changes in the structure of councils in Queensland, particularly those five councils which currently still have divisions for accounting purposes. This Bill sets out to change that situation once and for all, and will take away accounting divisions from all councils in Queensland. I understand, however, that a period of grace will apply and that if a council chooses not to move under this legislation, it will certainly have to move under a new Act that will be introduced at some time in the future. Mr Mackenroth: Therefore, this Bill doesn’t do it, does it? Mr GILMORE: It certainly makes it available to councils who choose to do it at this time rather than at a later time, but the councils know that it is coming. It is akin to being tied to the middle of the railway tracks and knowing that the train is coming. This legislation is possibly an easy out for those who choose to take that path, but I have to ask: why does this Government insist on meddling in these matters when in the past councils have chosen not to abolish divisional accounting? In the past, the councils were given a choice and, because there are only five left, obviously the others took the option of abolishing divisional accounting. So why does the Government have to force the issue? It seems to me that of the five councils that have retained divisional accounting—namely, Mareeba, Burdekin, Waggamba, Kilkivan and Balonne—the Mareeba Shire Council will probably hang out the longest to retain divisional accounting. There are a number of reasons for that, and I would briefly like to canvass them. I will not raise any particular objections to the provisions of the legislation, but I wish to place on the record of this Parliament, as I believe I have done previously, the complications that accompany the changes from divisional accounting to accounting based on the whole shire. The Mareeba Shire, with which I am somewhat familiar, has a system of differential rating in a couple of divisions, but not in another. This raises the issue of the effect of changes in accounting practice and the difficulties Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2911 arising from the rearrangement of ratings within the accounting systems of the council. I understand that a number of mechanisms are available to councils to enable these things to be done and that in the new legislation, certainly, a mechanism will be provided. Of course, the mechanism of debenefited areas is already available to councils to overcome some of those limiting factors. I will consider them briefly. Differential rating is an aspect of shire rating that I have always found abhorrent. Nonetheless, when I was a councillor, I was party to and part of the change to differential rating in Division 3 of the Mareeba Shire Council because the other answers were too hard. It was patently obvious to anybody who was a rational and reasonable observer of what was happening in terms of the rate burden carried by certain individuals on certain properties in that division of the shire that some emerging inequities simply had to be addressed and could not be addressed under the existing system. It was for that reason that we chose to change to differential rating. My memory was prompted by the member for Brisbane Central a few moments ago when he spoke about the capacity to pay. Differential rating is a determination by council and councillors of an individual ratepayer’s capacity to pay. That makes it not at arm’s length from the process of council, because individual councillors sit there and determine whether that person or that property can carry the burden of the rate that the council is about to apply to it. It is an unfortunate change to the philosophy that was the order of the day in local government rating for many, many years. That was the reason that the Mareeba Shire Council stood back from it for some time. We were concerned about determining, as councillors, the capacity to pay of individuals. However, as I said earlier, ultimately it came down to the choice between one set of circumstances that were totally untenable and another set of circumstances that may have been considered to be somewhat better. So we chose the latter. However, now that we are going from a group of four divisions within the one shire area to a division of the whole, the accounting processes will have to somehow or another take into account divisional accounting with 13 separate differential rating categories in one division and none in another, which is simply based on the Valuer-General’s valuation. That will take some unravelling. It will certainly take some time and some effort, and some cost will be imposed on shire councils that are involved in that exercise. As I said earlier, I understand from officers of the department that it can certainly be done. The process is there. The facility is available to the councils to undertake those things. However, there are costs, and there are particular costs associated with that for councils who choose or have chosen not to do that. I understand that the Mareeba Shire Council has indicated that it will not take that option at this time. The council will proceed further down the track to the time when the Minister finally tells it that it must make that change. So how do councils go about the prospect of redefining loans, etc., that are associated with individual town water supplies and sewerage undertakings standing alone in divisions separate from the main division at the present time? How do we recalculate the responsibility for the loans for those undertakings? Some years ago when the Kuranda sewerage undertaking was put into place, we had to negotiate very hard indeed with the Queensland Government of the day to allow for the Kuranda sewerage undertaking to remain separate from the Mareeba sewerage undertaking. They were required to be interlocked and the councils were required to put their loans and the responsibilities for paying those loans into the one undertaking. Because it was a fait accompli, the Government of the day acceded to the request of the council. However, now by statute the Government is going to interlock the whole of the responsibilities of a shire council. Certainly, we can probably declare a debenefited area and say, “There it is, and it shall remain in its existing format.” I am not sure about that. I would appreciate the Minister making those points in his reply. I turn to the other aspect of common areas of responsibility in the existing divisions of the shire, those being the library, parks and gardens in the main area and other community assets such as the shire hall and the swimming pool, with respect to which contributions are made based on what used to be set up as a percentage of the collection of rates. I believe that that has been altered by motion of council and it is no 2912 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly longer as simple. The whole thing must now be unravelled to ensure equity for those persons who are coming into the division of a whole from, if I might use the term, outside Division 3, which is the main division centred on the town of Mareeba. Those matters are of some concern. I turn to another problem that is far more difficult to unravel. Because the effect of accounting divisions is that we have been running four shire councils with one administrative centre, inequities or differences arise between the quality of the road construction, the quantity of bitumen that has been laid, the quality of the roads that are in place, the maintenance that has been undertaken by various divisions and the amounts of money that have been spent within the structure of those divisions. One small town in, say, Division 4, has kerbing and channelling and another town in another division does not. That town might be of equal size to the other town and be equally deserving of kerbing and channelling, sealing to the kerb and all those kinds of things. How is it that the councillors will ultimately unravel that? Over the past 15 or 20 years, people have managed their division profitably and properly and have provided those kinds of services to their community at their community’s cost. How is it that now we are going to bring in another set of people who have not paid for those services, who do not have those services in their streets or under their footpaths and who are now going to get in on a grouter, if I might use a colloquialism, and other ratepayers in the greater shire have to compensate or install those kinds of things in those outside areas? Mr McElligott: These services still depend on rate revenue. Mr GILMORE: The member for Thuringowa has a view that it might depend on the percentage of rates that are collected from time to time or from area to area. I am glad he raised that subject. In Division 4 of the Mareeba Shire Council, which does not have differential rating, there are two clearly defined areas of population—one at Kuranda and the other at Julatten. They are clearly defined because there is a very large area of Crown land in the middle between them. Over the years, the collection of rates and the amount of rates spent in each area has been a matter of great contention within the council. Even the distribution of Commonwealth grants has become a matter of contention between councillors from those two different areas in Division 4. The facts of the matter are that while we have been struggling with these problems as a matter of course over the years—the problems have existed, they have been tackled and attacked by various people and councillors have acted in good faith—this legislation and the legislation to follow it will not take those problems away, nor will it provide answers to them. So it is important that this Legislature understand, and that the Minister and his department in particular understand, that one cannot legislate to take away the parochial nature of individuals who are elected with responsibilities for one particular group of persons or one particular area or another. If the councils are comfortable with the divisional accounting process, and if the Minister and his department cannot demonstrate that there is a very good reason to force these changes upon the councils, I can see no reason why the Minister could not in the future legislate quite properly to open the gate and allow through those councils that determine that they want to go through, but leave other councils that choose individually not to go away from divisional accounting to stay with the system that they have. I am quite sure that if the Minister was to have any kind of a reasonable or rational look at the accounts of the Mareeba Shire Council, he would find that those accounts and the administration of that council are as efficient—or are carried out at the same or a lesser cost—as the administration of any other council in this State. So I wonder why our meddlesome Minister has to get his hands into other people’s business when indeed there is no necessity and no call for it from the individuals and the councils that have been affected by the legislation. Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (2.56 p.m.): This Bill, the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1993, will allow for the abolition of financial divisions of local authorities from 1 July 1993. Previously, under the Local Government Act, a local authority could be divided for electoral and financial purposes, but not for financial Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2913 purposes only. Financial divisions are not desirable for several reasons, including the requirement for each division to keep separate accounts along with its own budget, and constraints on allowing moneys raised in one division being expended in another. We all know that some areas of the community are wealthier than others, and often it is desirable to use moneys raised in the wealthier areas to subsidise some of the poorer or more sparsely populated areas of a shire. It is hoped that the abolition of financial divisions will stop the tendency of councillors to make decisions on a divisional basis rather than doing what is best for the entire local authority. The abolition of financial divisions is a “reviewable local government matter” under the Local Government Act and is presently required to be referred to the Local Government Commissioner for investigation, report and recommendation. It is then a decision of the Government as to whether the recommendation of the commissioner is to be implemented. The abolition of financial divisions is a financial matter and not a constitutional matter, and it is sensible that non- constitutional matters such as these need not be referred to the commissioner. The proposed regulation-making power will also be able to be carried out irrespective of those provisions in the Local Government Act which preserve the financial divisions of local authorities until 1 July 1994. In this respect, the Local Government Legislation Amendment Act 1992 required all local authorities to review their electoral arrangements so that specified voter tolerances can be met for the March 1994 triennial elections. Indeed, the Calliope Shire Council has moved to abolish internal divisions in the shire with respect to electoral representation in the shire. The change has come about because the rural areas would have virtually no representation as the last election saw urban representation at Boyne/Tannum Sands go from three to five; Calliope township, from one to two; and the area covering north of the Calliope River to the shire boundary at Langmorn Creek to the Monto Range and the Calliope River valley decrease from five elected members to two. The removal of internal boundaries gives each voter, irrespective of his location, the opportunity to choose all elected representatives and not the one, two or five within each local district. I believe that this extra responsibility for councillors will make their jobs more satisfying and will increase their range of interest in the whole of the shire. The Local Government Legislation Amendment Act 1992 ensured that the financial divisions are not disrupted during the 1993-94 financial year as a result of any redrawing of internal electoral boundaries. As the budget of a local authority that is financially divided must be framed in a particular way, it is not possible to change or abolish financial divisions during a financial year. The financial divisions of those local authorities wishing to retain them during 1993-94 will not be disrupted. The proposed regulations enable only those local authorities wishing to abolish their financial divisions to do so, irrespective of the preservation provisions currently in the Act. In no way does the proposed legislation affect any electoral divisions. Local authorities will be able to request the Governor in Council to make a regulation to abolish financial divisions by writing to the Minister seeking the abolition. However, the Governor in Council will not be acting to abolish the financial divisions of a local authority as from 1 July 1993 unless the local authority so desires. I congratulate the Gladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council on the speed with which they have implemented the Government’s Safe Bikeways program. That program is off and running to an early start. Already, several unemployed people have been employed on the project. The Gladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council are to be commended on their ability to implement that project quickly. I support the Bill. Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (3 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. This Bill, among other things, sets out to rectify an oversight. The Crown Solicitor has advised the Brisbane City Council that the ordinances made during the period in question—24 May 1980 to 19 November 1992—are invalid. That oversight occurred during Labor and Liberal Party 2914 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly administrations of City Hall and coalition and National Party administrations at the State Government level. The oversight came to light during the lodgment of an objection to the proposed amendment to the city council’s ordinances dealing with dog registration and control. This legislation is needed to ensure that all future actions taken by the council in respect to those ordinances approved in council since 24 May 1980 are not questioned or contested in a court of law and are lawful and binding. The second part of the Bill sets out to amend the Local Government Act of 1936 to empower the Governor in Council, on request of a local authority, to abolish its financial divisions as from 1 July 1993. For many years, financial divisions have been a stumbling block for councils. Financial divisions add greatly to the expense of administrating councils, as separate accounts and budgets have to be kept for each division. The constraints on allowing money raised in one division to be spent in another division prevent the better-off parts of the shire from subsidising the services needed in the poorer divisions. With financial divisions, there is a tendency for councillors to make decisions on a divisional basis rather than on what is best for the entire authority. Under the financial division system, bridge replacements in poorer divisions were almost an impossibility, and major roadworks also presented a major problem. Because any single division rarely had enough money to do a proper job, financial divisions tended to bring about a lot of patchwork in councils. Local authority requests have been taken on board and have been well and truly involved in this Act. Provision has also been made to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations abolishing financial divisions subsequent to a request by the local authority in writing to the Minister seeking the abolition. An honourable member who spoke earlier in this debate did not have things quite right. He thought that the State Governor would force such changes upon local authorities, but it is upon the request of local authorities to the Minister that they happen. Mr Ardill: It clearly says that. Mr DOLLIN: Yes. In this respect, the Governor in Council will not be acting to abolish the financial divisions of a local authority as from 1 July 1993 unless the local authority so desires. Provision is also made to enable the Governor in Council to make a regulation facilitating the abolition of financial divisions by rationalising any financial or administrative matter. An example of a matter which may be required to be rationalised is loan borrowings, where loans have been raised for the special benefit of any particular part of a division. A regulation could provide that the money borrowed is no longer for the special benefit of a particular division but is for the benefit of the whole area of the local authority. It has been my experience that the councils that had the nous to do away with financial divisions some years ago are the councils that are now prospering, and the ones that have stuck to financial divisions are the ones that are usually in trouble. The need to make such a regulation is a matter for the local authority in the first instance. Overall, the rating arrangements in each financial division can be retained irrespective of the abolition of financial divisions. Rather than have a flat general rate across a whole area, differential rating can be applied resulting in the same amount of general rates being levied on the same basis in each division, as would have been the case if the financial divisions had not been abolished. It is a matter for the local authority to determine the rating strategies that it wishes to employ. Queensland councils have the greatest flexibility of all local authorities in Australia to determine their own rating levels. I support the Bill. Mrs WOODGATE (Kurwongbah) (3.05 p.m.): I am pleased to support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. The legislation is divided into three main parts: the amendment of the City of Brisbane Act 1924, which was fairly well covered by the member for Brisbane Central in his inimitable fashion; the amendment of the Local Government Act 1936, which was covered very well by the members for Gladstone and Maryborough; and the third part, and to me a most important part, is the amendment of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2915 the Local Government Planning and Environment Act. I want to speak a bit about that. Planning and environment is a hobby of mine. I am pleased to see these amendments coming before the House. Roughly, the main areas that we are changing are the planning schemes and amendments, which are no longer to be subordinate legislation. That is good news for local authorities. At present, as we all know, local authority planning schemes and rezonings are statutory instruments and subordinate legislation. The member for Callide referred to departments being snowed under with all this paperwork—the paper war. I agree with her sentiments. This amendment, among other things, will reduce the administrative costs of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning which are associated with preparing up to 2 000 documents for tabling annually. At present, all planning schemes and rezonings are required to be tabled. The tabling occurs after the Governor in Council has approved of the scheme, and it is possible that Parliament could disallow an already approved scheme of zoning. Because of the amendment contained in this Bill, planning schemes and rezonings will be treated like local authority by-laws and will not be required to be tabled. It clarifies that local laws, planning schemes and rezonings are made by the local authorities for a local area only, and they are not required to be tabled. The State planning policies, as all honourable members appreciate, affect the whole State, and they have to be tabled. However, this is a good, sensible amendment to the planning schemes. This Bill also amends the matter of the contribution for parks. It will be set by the local authorities. I think that is an excellent amendment. At the moment, local authorities require a contribution of money, or the dedication of an amount of land towards the provision of public parks. The Planning and Environment Court has interpreted the Act to mean that, at present, the amount of contribution can be set only through local planning policies. Under this amendment, the contributions can be set by local planning policies, planning schemes, or by-laws, and the local authorities will be able to take the parks contributions on pending and all future applications. I want to talk a little bit about a very long, overdue amendment, which is that local authorities will be able to delegate some planning decisions to staff. As we all know, and especially those of us—and there are quite a few of us in this House—who have had an association with local government in the past, currently the power to delegate from councils is very, very limited. I understand that some pilot projects in the Gatton and Redland Shires showed that councils could save quite a deal of time—two to six weeks— in processing some applications just by delegating the approving powers to a council officer. I really believe that, if used legitimately, this could be a very good tool for local authorities. Just thinking of the Pine Rivers Shire Council, I see that it could be particularly useful in my area. It could be used very well in rural excisions or subdivisions if it is straightforward, if the layout meets the standard set out in the council’s design manual, and if there are no objections to the proposal. To be more specific—in terms of residential development projects, I envisage that such powers of delegation could be used to advantage, and result in cost and time savings. The Minister made mention of that in his second-reading speech. For example, in the case of a subdivision or the development of 10 hectares for 100 house allotments, provided everything is straightforward and the land is zoned Future Urban already, why not delegate it to the officers of the council? I intend to talk to my local authorities about this, but I would like to see the local councils adopt some sort of policy that sets limits to this deregulation policy in-house, and would require a reporting to council at appropriate times, on a regular basis, on the exercise of the delegation. I would like to see how it works, and I think that the council would be well advised to do that. In the case of the Pine Rivers Shire Council, in straightforward matters I am sure that it will be giving the powers to the officers. But they must report to the council. We have to keep that check on different subdivisions and development projects that will circumvent the process as we know it at the moment. In other words, in the case of straight-out policy decisions in which there are no objections and everything is completely straightforward, and which would just be rubber-stamped when they came to the committee or council, it 2916 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly is a very good idea. It is a saving to both the council and the developer. I am really very happy about that amendment because, as I said, having an association with local government, I have known things to get really bogged down in the past on simple, straightforward things, because of the pressure of work in the departments, and it has held things up. I am also pleased to see that councils will be able to approve allotments without access. At present, they cannot, and in quite a few instances, it would have been good to be able to approve a subdivision without access. This amendment will certainly assist councils in obtaining land for public purposes. Even if an individual allotment does not have access, but when the individual allotment is amalgamated with adjoining land—four different lots might be going up for subdivision—the entire area will have access; but when it is subdivided, the first allotment may not have access, and this amendment will now let councils approve subdivisions incorporating a temporary access restriction strip. This strip would be removed only when the external works are completed and contributions paid. That means that councils will have an option of no longer having to take bonds as guarantees for work. I am sure that there would be very few developers in Queensland who would not give three hearty cheers for that amendment. It does not mean that lots can be created without prior access. A couple of weeks ago, somebody rang my office and became all bitter and twisted about how the Government is taking a backward step, letting councils off the hook, allowing them to do all this business about subdividing without access, such as they did in the bad old days. It does not mean that at all. It is just a sensible amendment. Another amendment that is very straightforward, and which shire clerks will agree with, is that the subdivision applicants will have to pay only the outstanding rates. At present, they have to pay all the rates levied, whether they are payable or not, before the applications are even determined. That is a sensible amendment. Under this legislation, applicants will have to pay only those rates that are outstanding at the time that the subdivision is approved. I do not know how we have let this situation go on for so long without doing anything about it. The member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, called the Minister the meddlesome Minister. In this case, I am glad that the Minister meddled, because this amendment is well overdue, and I give three very hearty cheers for it. This, too, will result in substantial savings in costs for subdivision applicants because they will not have to pay rates until they are due. As for the notification of planning applications to local authority members—I will not say much about that matter because an amendment to that has been dropped on my desk. I was very happy to see that amendment because I had some concern about it. I am sure that Mr Mackenroth will be speaking about that amendment later. All in all, this Bill is one more piece of good, sensible local government legislation coming before this House, and I am more than happy to support it. Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (3.13 p.m.): Since listening to the previous speaker, it has come to my mind that, in times past, when approaching local authorities on a matter of rezoning or subdivision, some people felt constrained to bear small gifts. The purpose of those gifts can only be guessed. Most of the amending Bills and, indeed, new legislation that this Government has introduced, have a hidden agenda which may not be obvious immediately to the casual observer, but they obviate the need for people to worry about whether or not their gift is large enough or not. A Government member interjected. Mr NUNN: There could be. It depends on how hungry they are and how much they wish to pay to go to the dinner. One problem confronting the development industry and, in particular, that section of the industry that indulges in the subdivision of land for residential purposes is that, sometimes, time is its enemy. Time is precious and, indeed, time is money, particularly when large sums of money are required to be earmarked for the development of rural and residential subdivisions. The interest charges on the holding of this money can be horrendous, especially when unnecessary delays occur whenever and wherever they occur. Although some of those delays occur Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2917 in the Department of Local Government and Planning, more often than not those delays occur internally at local authority level. Some documents get giddy doing the rounds of the in and out baskets, because of deficiencies in the Act, which we are amending today. This Government is aware of its responsibilities to make sure that a viable and efficient development industry exists in Queensland. It was with these responsibilities in mind that the Government approached the amending of the Act. Not the least of these amendments is that which deals with the amendments to the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. This is important, because it will help to ensure that Queensland has an adequate supply of residential land. If we do not ensure this, then the situation will arise—and it is arising in Hervey Bay now, simply because of this—when we run short of land. Prices will rise because of this, with the result that housing will become less affordable. Every local authority needs a bank of residential land, if only to ensure that a monopoly situation does not arise whereby cartels can combine to inflate the price of both raw and subdivided land. This amendment will go a long way towards ensuring this by streamlining the planning and development decision- making system and providing greater autonomy to local government by—and I could do a lot worse than quote the Minister at this stage, and I will— “Providing that planning schemes and their amendments will no longer be subordinate legislation. State planning policies will remain as subordinate legislation, and the procedures for their publication and availability will be clearly defined. Providing for the amounts of land dedication or monetary contribution for park provision during subdivision to be established by local planning policy, planning scheme provision or by-law.” I will have to say more about that later. He continued— “Providing for local authorities to be given a general power to delegate decision making on planning matters, rather than the current highly prescribed powers.” Whilst those “highly prescribed powers” were definite, they were also time consuming and confusing. The Minister continued— “Providing for the current restrictions on local authorities approving allotments without access to be removed to enable councils to be assured of performance of external works and contributions without having to take bonds.” That speeds up the system and takes some of the cost burden from developers. Contrary to popular opinion, the development of land is not easy. It is no game for novices. Even the experts need all the help that they can get by removing unnecessary restrictions from existing Acts. The Minister stated further— “Providing for applicants for subdivision to be required to pay outstanding rates before their applications are determined, rather than all rates levied, as it is at present.” There is no need to expand on that, because the previous speaker did so. The Minister said also— “Providing that local authorities without divisions be given an option to nominate specific members to receive notifications of planning applications.” A number of local authorities have requested or are considering the abolition of their financial divisions on and from 1 July 1993. The amendments provided for in this Bill will allow them to do this if they have a mind to do so. As I said, they may do so, but they do not have to. This amendment is eminently sensible, and I am quite happy with it. With regard to the amendment that deals with park contributions by developers— again, it is sensible, and will reduce the time necessary for planning schemes and their amendments to become operative. I believe that the time factor in all these matters is 2918 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly most important. It is also important that the true status of planning schemes, as local government instruments recognising the autonomy of local government as a legitimate arm of government, be established. This Bill does that and, just as importantly, clarifies the role of planning schemes. It defines them as local laws made and administered by local authorities. It indicates very strongly that this State Government is intent on keeping its nose out of local authority affairs, bearing in mind that State planning policies are the primary instrument in State Government planning policy. State laws override local authority laws where it is absolutely necessary. Late in the 1970s or early 1980s, the Hervey Bay City Council decided to implement a development control plan. This was all right as far as it went, but the council had no strategic plan. Everybody knows that the strategic plan sits over the top of the development control plan. This created all sorts of problems, and meant only that the council had a recipe for bad planning practices. Tom Burns, as the relevant Minister, sent some requests for rezoning approval back to council, saying, “You are asking me to make decisions, but I cannot, because you have no strategic plan, so that I have no information on which to base such a decision.” The council was saying, “Here. You make a decision on this important matter, but don’t worry about the information. You don’t need the information. You do as we tell you.” Tom was not prepared to cop that. Consequently, he threw it back at the council. I am pleased to say that the council has now almost completed that process, and things should run more smoothly from now on. Another important aspect of this amendment is that it will close a loophole, so to speak, whereby developers were dodging their obligations to the ratepayers in the community and local authorities. I believe that it is important that that practice be stopped. All sane and reasonable developers would hope that it would stop because, if it does not, the orderly planning of subdivisions in urban areas will be thrown into disarray. I can find nothing in this Bill with which I wish to disagree. Therefore, I commend the Minister for introducing it to the House. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) (3.21 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their support for this legislation. I take on board the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson in relation to her support for the legislation. I understand that her committee has not as yet had the opportunity to consider it, and that her support may change. I appreciate that at this stage. The member for Tablelands, Tom Gilmore, raised an issue in relation to the amendments for financial divisions. That is included in this legislation at the direct request of three of the five local authorities in Queensland that still have financial divisions. They came to see me in a joint delegation and requested that I amend the legislation prior to 1 July this year. It is true that in the new Local Government Act there will be a provision to abolish financial divisions. If that is passed through the Parliament and is operative as at 1 July 1994, it would be a requirement that those local authorities do comply. So what the honourable member said in relation to that is right. Some of the points raised by the honourable member were incorrect. He raised matters about sewerage and water. They are not matters that come under the financial divisions sections of the rates that are paid and expended within those financial divisions. They are accounted for separately and do not come under this particular section. There would be no difference between the way water rates or sewerage rates are collected and the way the loans on them are paid out. As to loan borrowings—if they are being repaid by a particular division and financial divisions are abolished, it is a matter for the council in the first instance to decide whether those loans should be repaid by all ratepayers in the shire or the loans would still be repaid by the same group of ratepayers as in the past. The Bill contains provision for the Governor in Council to make a regulation to facilitate such a charge if the council requests it. There is a provision whereby the local authority, by request, can still pay the loans by levying a select group of ratepayers. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2919

It is interesting that the member for Tablelands commented that the Mareeba Shire Council has been operating very effectively for many years and we should not change it. The Mareeba Shire Council is one of the councils in this State which has requested the Government to investigate different ways for it to raise money. The Government has decided to introduce a special tourist levy for visitors to Kuranda so that the Mareeba Shire Council can expend money within that area. It is quite a silly argument for the Mareeba Shire Council to say, “Look, our funding mechanisms that we have had for many years have operated effectively and efficiently. Please, do not do anything to change them”, yet, on the other hand, make representations to the Government to examine different ways for the council to raise funds. It goes to show that, even for the Mareeba Shire Council, nothing remains the same; things change and we have to change with them. I thank all members of the Government for their support for the legislation. At the Committee stage, I intend to move an amendment. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. M. Mackenroth (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 12, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Mr MACKENROTH (3.27 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “1. Schedule, amendment 2— At page 11, lines 8 to 15— omit, insert— ‘2. Section 1.4 (definition “elected representatives”, paragraph (b))— omit, insert— ‘(b) if the area in which the allotment is situated is not divided into divisions or electoral wards—all Council members, other than a member who, for the purposes of the application of this definition to a provision of this Act in which the term is used— (i) has given the Council written notice to the effect that the member does not wish to be treated as an elected representative for the purposes of the provision; and (ii) has not withdrawn the notice;’.’.” The provision in clause 2 of the Schedule was originally proposed by the Local Government Association. The association was concerned that, under the current provisions of the Act, where a local authority is undivided, all members must receive notification of planning applications lodged with the local authority. This can lead to additional time and cost for applicants, and increases the chance of mistakes being made in notification processes. Accordingly, the provision as currently drafted provides that local authorities may resolve that only specified members receive notification of applications. However, this may allow a local authority to deliberately exclude members from receiving notification against the will of those members. The proposed amended provision therefore provides that local authority members may exclude themselves from receiving notice of planning applications by advising the local authority in writing. The amended provision also envisages that members can withdraw such a notification at any time. The amendment is one that has been suggested by Mrs Woodgate, who suggested that it would be better to turn the provision around from what was proposed in the legislation as it had been drafted. She proposed that it be changed from a provision in which the council decided whether or not an individual councillor was to 2920 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly receive notification to one in which the individual councillor could decide. The amendment proposed by the honourable member is one that should be considered favourably by the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

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

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 May (see p. 2598). Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (3.30 p.m.): The Honourable the Minister, Mr Gibbs, comes to us today in much the same way as he came to us in the House on 29 April 1992. He preaches that this Government has brought about innovative changes to the liquor industry by its landmark Liquor Act 1992, and proffers two amendments to the Act, which one infers from his second-reading speech, are intended to continue the innovations in the liquor industry and keep alive the innovative processes. I ask honourable members to examine those statements. Firstly, the elements of this amendment are to amend the opportunity for obtaining a club licence and to extend the sunset period to 30 June 1994. In dealing, firstly, with the opportunity to gain a club licence, I ask honourable members to reflect upon the Minister’s second-reading speech when he amended the Liquor Act in 1992. In that speech he said, in respect of club licensing— “A club licence covers most kinds of clubs. The convoluted Liquor Act that we are replacing distinguishes between six categories of clubs. For example, golf and bowling clubs have operating conditions different from those of other clubs. Under this Bill, all clubs will operate under the same rules. Clubs will still be required to be non-proprietary clubs. Membership requirements have been relaxed to allow visitors, in accordance with changes resulting from the introduction of poker machines. Clubs will be able to sell 18 litres of takeaway liquor a day to each member or member of a club with reciprocal rights, which is an increase from 9 litres. Bowling and golf clubs, at present, have no right to sell takeaways at all. All clubs will be able to hire their premises for functions.” Honourable members should remember that. I repeat— “All clubs will be able to hire their premises for functions. Currently, under the archaic Liquor Act, only golf and bowling clubs enjoy this privilege.” From this speech, it is easy to discern that Mr Gibbs knew and intended that the Liquor Act 1992 would see a growth in gaming machines in the club industry. It is necessary to ask why the Minister wanted clubs to introduce poker machines. The only possible reason could be to provide revenue to those clubs so that they could operate and provide facilities and services to support their various objects. Whether they be a golf club, a baseball team or a community club made no difference. The introduction of poker machines was intended by this Minister to provide revenue for that club in pursuing its objects. That has happened. There has been a proliferation of applications by clubs for club licences. One only has to read the Government Gazette, which publishes 10 or more applications for club licences weekly. It was not the Liquor Act 1992 which made the obtaining of a licence desirable, it was the precondition, under the Gaming Machine Act, that a club be Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2921 incorporated and hold a club licence under the Liquor Act that necessitated the applications for club licences. That has led to the Liquor Licensing Division being overburdened by applications for club licences to the detriment of all other types of application. That is a matter for debate on another day, but I am informed by reliable sources that the Liquor Licensing Division has time to write letters of apology—and it does write letters of apology—for not attending to an application, but is not getting on with dealing with the application because of the enormous amount of work created by the Liquor Act 1992 and the Gaming Machine Act through clubs looking for access to poker machines. Mr Beattie: I know your “sauce”. It’s tomato sauce. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member should listen and he will learn something. If he listens, he will understand what I am getting at. If we turn to the Minister’s second- reading speech to the amendment Bill in 1993, we find that he acknowledges the enormous growth and that the growth is the combined effect of the Liquor Act and the Gaming Machine Act. He also admits the pressure that his legislation has put on other licensees, particularly hoteliers—a matter that I raised when the Liquor Act 1992 was brought before this House and a matter which the Minister, at the time, bagged as piffle. He now has to eat his words and bring an amendment before the House to deal with the competition which he perceives is a misuse of his Act to allow hotels to compete with clubs on a level playing field. Honourable members should remember that, at that time, it was the Minister who inclined the playing field in favour of clubs to the objection of this side of the House. He admits clearly and unequivocally that he has once again stuffed up the liquor industry. Now he is proposing a patch to rectify his abomination, and look who he is targeting—once again, it is the hotelier. The Minister seeks to prevent the hotelier, who now has declining revenues because of the local clubs taking his trade from him, from renting out his purpose-built premises to clubs in need of accommodation. If hotel premises are being underused and can, by some legal rearrangements, be let to bona fide clubs to provide proper accommodation for the club and facilities, then I submit this is the forces of the marketplace at work in levelling the playing field once again. As we well know, the Minister abhors market force operations, and seeks to incline the playing field to the party of his choice. Mr Beattie: Have a drink of water this time. Mr VEIVERS: I am enjoying it. In considering again his second-reading speech, the Minister states particularly that he is targeting this amendment against “hotel premises”. It should be remembered that hotels are already disadvantaged in the number of gaming machines that are permitted on their premises. Also, it should be remembered that the Gaming Machine Act does not permit revenue from gaming machines to be transmitted to a lessor or for a rental to be fixed according to gaming machines revenues. So what is the Minister on about? The Minister says that he wants to prevent creative arrangements that provide obvious opportunities for improper practices involving gaming machines. He does not tell us what those improper practices are, but the statement tells the listener that the Liquor Act 1992 and the Gaming Machine Act 1991 have created opportunities for creative arrangements—not unlawful arrangements, not improper arrangements, but creative arrangements. I draw the distinction between lawful and proper creative arrangements, which free enterprise fosters, and improper and unlawful arrangements, but the Minister does not. He seeks to stifle any development and the reuse of licensed premises that have been made redundant by his bias towards the club lobby. The Minister speaks of the emergence of a few super-clubs, but what evidence is there of that? The Minister has not named any of these alleged super-clubs, nor any of the practices that he says are improper practices. The Minister has said that “it is reasonable to suspect that large amounts of revenue generated by club gaming machines could find its way into the hands of other licensees and entrepreneurs.” Is there something wrong with that revenue being circulated in the community? Is the 2922 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Minister implying that the revenue will come into the hands of other licensees and entrepreneurs unlawfully? No, the Minister is not suggesting that. He is really suggesting that a proprietor of a hotel who leases a part of his licensed premises to a club for club activities that will come under the control of the club cannot derive rental revenue from that club because the revenue clearly comes from the gaming machines. This is also utter piffle because, without the premises, the club cannot operate, and without the revenue from the gaming machines, the club cannot pay the rental. The concern about revenue from gaming machines coming into the hands of criminal elements is a valid concern, but revenue coming to law-abiding, honest traders, landlords and merchants is also apparently abhorred by the Minister, who seeks by this amendment to stop the freedom of trade. The Minister also said that a proliferation of clubs that are being managed in conjunction with other licensed premises is clearly at variance with the Government’s philosophy that was espoused when it introduced gaming machines. I have referred to the Minister’s second-reading speech on the 1992 Liquor Amendment Bill, and we are now debating an amendment to that legislation. There is no statement of philosophy in the Minister’s second-reading speech on the Liquor Amendment Bill. It seems to me that this philosophy has suddenly sprung to mind rather than having been foremost in the Minister’s mind when he introduced the Liquor Amendment Bill. What was foremost in the Minister’s mind when he introduced the Liquor Amendment Bill was appeasing the club lobby, once again. Mr Bennett: Ha, ha! Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member laughs, but he has not read the second- reading speech and he is not following what I am saying. He does not know what I am talking about because he does not have the intelligence to grasp it. The Minister said that gaming machines were introduced to assist clubs to further their objects. However, this amendment does not do that. It is directed at preventing hoteliers from the lawful, commercial use of their premises and denies the clubs the opportunity of using their revenues for furtherance of their objects rather than the creation of club premises. Of what use is a clubhouse to the furtherance of the objects of a club other than to provide a point of assembly? This can be done adequately in premises owned or leased by the club. The lawful title makes little difference, but what makes a difference is that the revenues are used for the club’s objects. The Minister cannot suggest that the leasing of premises from a hotelier is not in furtherance of the objects of a club, whereas the leasing of premises from another commercial entity is, because that is utter tripe. This amendment will not curb the development of schemes to utilise revenue from gaming machines for individuals or commercial gain. It merely frustrates hoteliers from competition in the marketplace. Mr Welford: Nonsense! Mr VEIVERS: The member must have helped to put this arrangement together, because he is not going to say much. He does not think very well. It is no wonder he gave up his legal practice and, for protection, came into this place. Mr Welford: You didn’t write this speech. Mr VEIVERS: I would not want to go to court with the honourable member looking after me. Under the Liquor Amendment Act, the chief executive presently has power to consider an application for a club licence and to decline it. This appears in Division 6 of the Act. Section 86, which forms part of that Division, presently states that a chief executive may grant a club licence only if he is satisfied— “(a) the primary purpose of the premises to which the licence relates is the business of a club; and (b) the club in question is a non-proprietary club.” This is a clear statement of intention which the Minister says is the purpose of this amendment. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2923

Instead of amending the legislation, why does the Minister not have the chief executive enforce section 86? At least that section is not discriminatory against hoteliers as this amendment is. To be fair to other licence holders, such as cabaret licence holders, the amendment is equally detrimental to them, but the competition is principally between hotels and clubs rather than cabarets, which are fewer in number. The Minister’s amendment takes no account of whether there may presently be applications before the chief executive and the effect that this amendment may have on those applications. When a club applies for a club licence knowing that the rules are set forth in the Liquor Amendment Act, that club proceeds and incurs expenses on the basis that the rules will not be changed before its application is completed. It is that certainty that the citizens of this State look for in the operations of entities such as the Liquor Licensing Division that enables them to confidently make applications for club licences. This Minister now wants to change the rules. It is a pity that we could not have done that last night halfway through the State of Origin match, but we could not. This Minister is trying to do exactly that and ignores those who may have already made applications. I expect that the Minister will protest and say that the aims of this amendment are to prevent “improper practices involving gaming machines”. The suggestion inherent in this amendment, which does not have any transitional provisions to make allowance for existing applications, is that there is already a ground swell of applications which seek improper practices. The ground swell must be enormous, because this amendment may not be found to prevent many applications presently before the chief executive, or may affect only one such application to my knowledge. The application to which I refer is by the East Coast Cougars in respect of part of the Beenleigh Tavern. The Minister would be aware of this application because he has visited the venue and has been shown the proposal. He would also be aware that the application is presently before the chief executive, and that it was made in November last year. The enactment of this amendment will be the death knell for that application and will result in the loss of all funds that have been expended by the applicant club. The suggestion by the amending Bill that that applicant club is involved in improper practices involving gaming machines is an allegation that I would like the Minister to make outside of the protection of this House and allow the applicant club to test through the courts the Minister’s allegations, because that is what it is getting at. The second part of the Act relates to the sunset clause. We were informed by the Minister on 29 April 1992 that— “As part of the Government’s commitment to the ongoing development of liquor legislation that reflects the contemporary needs of society, there is a requirement that the legislation be reviewed 12 months after the commencement of its operation.” That was enshrined in section 225 of the Act, which did not quite say what the Minister told us in his second-reading speech, in that it states that the Minister must cause a review of this Act to be undertaken at a time one year after the commencement of this section with a view to amending the Act as is considered appropriate. The Minister’s second-reading speech to the amending Bill suggests that the interdepartmental working group has confined its research to those provisions dealt with in Part 8—provisions affecting communities, Aborigines or Islanders—and section 164—conduct causing public nuisance. The movement of the amendment of those provisions, sections 164 and 192, to 30 June 1994 suggests that the Minister and his department are about to break a promise to the House that the legislation would be reviewed one year after its commencement; otherwise, why was the legislation redrawn with a provision stating, “This section expires one year after its commencement”? Clearly, the legislation envisaged that not only would there be a review but also there would be a finalised review obviating the need for that patchwork amendment. The Minister should report to the House what steps he has taken to fill the promises enshrined in his Liquor Act 1992 before moving the amendments to those sections. Without such a report, this House can cannot 2924 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly debate and consider the inappropriateness or appropriateness of those amendments. The present explanation by the Minister is tantamount to an admission of neglect to get on with the job that he promised the House would be done 12 months ago. I move that this House reject the Liquor Amendment Bill. Mr WELFORD (Everton) (3.48 p.m.): I support the Minister in putting the amendment Bill before the House. The two major effects of the amendment Bill are: firstly, to rectify an irregularity in relation to club licences, which I will address in more detail in a moment in response to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Southport; and, secondly, to extend the operation of section 164 of the principal Act relating to the offence of causing a public nuisance. Those amendments are required, and it is true that they do in a sense provide a patch over the previous provisions of the Act. However, they are a very important and necessary part of the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Liquor Act operates effectively. It is true that the Government has undertaken to review the Liquor Act after its initial 12-month period, and that review will be proceeded with. However, it is also the responsibility of the Government to ensure that there are no half-sharp operators out there, many of whom are no doubt counselling and sponsoring the member for Southport and who are trying to abuse the spirit and intent of the law. It is not a question of creative work in any positive sense. Mr Beattie: You have scared him out of the House. Mr WELFORD: I take the interjection from the member for Brisbane Central that I have scared the member for Southport out of the House. He cannot face the heat because the reality is that he is here as advocate for cheats and tax frauds who want to get around the provisions of the Liquor Act and who want to use clubs for their own benefit so that they can get more poker machines into a pub premises than the law would otherwise entitle them to. That is the sort of creativity that the Government is trying to stamp out. It is a creativity that is very improper, in precisely that sense of the word that the Minister has used. The Bill is designed to ensure that clubs are not being exploited. It is not designed to limit the legitimate rights of hotels under the Liquor Act. Hotels understand very clearly what their rights are under the Liquor Act. Some hoteliers are offering deals to clubs whereby the clubs move in and use part of the hotel premises, but the cost to the clubs is that they do not retain all the benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to retain from poker machines and liquor sales in their own club premises. In other words, the clubs are only getting access to hotel premises under an arrangement whereby the hotelier is exploiting the clubs for a portion of the benefits that would otherwise belong to those clubs. A number of areas such as that could well be looked at in the course of our review of the Liquor Act, but this is a glaring example that requires immediate attention. It clearly is a case in which a hotel is circumventing the clear spirit of the Act, namely, that hotels should be used entirely for hotel purposes and that the limitations that are imposed on hotels with respect to the number of poker machines that they can have should apply irrespective of whether or not clubs use hotels. Clearly, the loophole that is being rectified by the Bill is one through which bogus clubs are established. Under the existing arrangement, there is nothing stopping a hotelier setting up a bogus club. It could be a social club. It could be a darts club that meets once every six months with a dartboard on the wall. Mr Pearce: A mickey mouse club. Mr WELFORD: It could be a mickey mouse club, as the member for Fitzroy says—not a genuine club, but a contrived arrangement that is simply a device whereby the hotelier accesses those provisions which allow the use of a club to gain more poker machine revenue for the hotel. If that is not an illegitimate use or abuse of the spirit of the Act, I do not know what is. That is all there is to the amendment Bill. There is nothing sinister in it. The Bill contains nothing that prevents hoteliers from operating under the Act as they were originally intended to operate. There is nothing that prevents hoteliers from engaging in legitimate market arrangements with whatever clients they wish. It Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2925 simply provides a mechanism whereby clubs are protected against undue influence and improper exploitation by nefarious hoteliers. If, indeed, as the member for Southport suggests, this will not curb all the schemes or cosy arrangements that might be dreamt up by these people, I put it to the Minister that we should bring in more amendments to correct any anomalies of this kind if they occur to the detriment of clubs and are used for improper purposes by hoteliers. If that is the case, we will introduce more amendments to make sure that the system operates properly. We are not going to allow at any time, whether there is a review pending or not, the Liquor Act to be circumvented and its spirit to be undermined by people with untoward intent. That is all that this legislation is designed to achieve. I think it is an admirable tactic by the Minister to move so quickly to rectify a situation which, as the member for Southport indicated, could clearly put to expense a number of clubs which might be goaded into these sorts of arrangements. They might make applications and they are put to the expense of preparing them. But before that occurs to any great degree, we are getting in with an amendment to make it very clear, not just to the club industry but also to the hotel industry, that this sort of thing will not be tolerated. Under the Liquor Act, there are circumstances which I would like to draw to the attention of the House and which I think should be the subject of further consideration in the course of our review of the Act. One of these is where clubs in other circumstances use premises which are not their own. In this regard, I refer specifically to sporting clubs, a matter I have mentioned briefly to the Minister. In such circumstances, clubs seek club licences—which of course come with concessional benefits for clubs—in relation to premises that are not strictly their club premises but which are simply part of a commercial operation, perhaps in a shopping centre or in some other commercial development. The whole purpose of sporting club licences, as I understand it, is to provide an arrangement whereby sporting clubs have a bar operation on their club premises which is proximate to the sporting facility at which they operate. In other words, if it is a football club, it has a club licence for the clubhouse at the football field. In the course of my experience, I have detected that some clubs are going away from their club premises or their club facilities to set up a club bar or bistro in a commercial development, whether it be a shopping centre or some other facility, and then, with the benefit of that, gaining the concessional benefits that clubs get under the Liquor Act, as well as the opportunity to apply to have gaming machines in greater numbers than a hotel or tavern might otherwise be entitled to in a similar commercial development. I think clubs should be limited in using their licences for that purpose. I do think that that would give clubs an undue advantage over restaurant owners, hoteliers and commercial interests. That is a relevant factor to be considered. The interests of normal commercial operators should be protected in that regard. Quite unapologetically, I must say, the particular benefits that we do provide to clubs throughout Queensland are designed for the benefit of sporting clubs and non-voluntary organisations, not for the benefit of those organisations to go out and then operate as commercial profit- making enterprises in what are not really their club premises. With regard to the extension of the operation of section 164—it is not the case that there has been any error in the operation of that section. Clearly, that provision is required until the Department of Family Services and other relevant departments look at ways in which the problems that that particular provision is designed to encounter can be addressed in a more direct social context as distinct from a prohibition law of the kind that is in the legislation at the moment. Until those other social supports can be put in place, we do have to provide an appropriate mechanism whereby improper behaviour of this kind in a public place can be limited. With those few comments, let me say that there is nothing in this Bill that does not warrant the support of all members of this House. I thoroughly commend the Minister for introducing it. Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (3.58 p.m.): This Bill proposes three amendments to the Liquor Act of 1992. They are: to restrict the granting of club licences; to continue for a further 12 months the operation of section 164 (2) relating to the offence of being drunk 2926 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly in a public place; and to continue until 30 June 1994 the operation of section 192 which provides for a council to make a prohibition order on a resident in the council’s community area. This Government has evidently found its Liquor Act and Gaming Machine Act of 1991 deficient because obviously—and I know this to be the case—a lot of hotel proprietors are approaching the Minister’s department with proposals to establish clubs in what was formally a part of the hotel’s premises. Let us look at the original idea behind the introduction of gaming machines into clubs. Firstly, it was to help prop up the Goss Labor Government’s finances. The hollow logs have been raided. The good little moles had been running into the hollow logs and emptied them out, and they needed a top-up. So there was a good way to top up the coffers. The other idea for their introduction was to raise the income of clubs so they could provide better facilities for their members. That is fine. The Minister is concerned that should hotels sublet part of their premises to a club, the moneys raised would find their way into the hands of licensees and entrepreneurs. Surely, ways could have been found—and can be found—by the Minister and his department to ensure that the number of machines in sublet areas is limited and that any profits made go directly to the club and not the landlord. Evidently, they think it is easier to ban the whole proposal rather than see if it can be adopted or modified and made workable in a way acceptable to the Minister. I believe that what the Minister and his advisers have failed to realise is that proposals to generate more gaming machine revenue for hotels will continue to be developed because the Minister’s original legislation was faulty. The Minister will be aware that clubs receive a return of 10 per cent from gaming machines and hotels receive only 6 per cent. Until he closes the gap between what hotels and clubs earn from gaming machines, he will have to continue to amend this legislation. I suggest that the Minister should stop papering over the cracks and should rebuild the wall. I urge him to re-examine his legislation to remove the inequities contained in it. I turn now to the Minister’s proposal that the offence of public drunkenness should be extended for another year to 30 June 1994. In his second-reading speech, the Minister mentioned that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that the offence of public drunkenness be decriminalised as soon as facilities were in place for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons. Is the Minister aware that, in 1989, moves were made by the National Party Government to decriminalise the offence of drunkenness? That is right—four years ago, we were working on that amendment. Three and a half years into Labor, we are still waiting. Mr Beattie: You are always a bit slow. Mr GRICE: We are three and a half years into Labor and we are still waiting. That is a long gestation period. It will be a large baby. Mr Beattie: Come on! You had 32 years. Mr GRICE: The honourable member should not argue, because the facilities in which to treat people are not in place. In 1989, the National Party Government was already well advanced in looking at the construction of detoxification facilities at Townsville and at Mount Isa. What do we find now—four years later? Nothing has been done! Mr Budd: Thirty-two years to do it. Mr GRICE: The National Party has not been in Government for the past three and a half years. It is all too hard and too complicated for the Minister and his advisers. He wants more time. He needs five years to develop some strategies. In the meantime, how many poor unfortunates will find themselves destroying their lives or the lives of others, making nuisances of themselves in the Cairns Mall, and taking up far too much of the time of our police officers? If the Minister gets his 12 months’ extension, hopefully his biological time clock will speed up quickly enough to enable him to make that decision. Naturally, because the Minister cannot make a decision on drunkenness, he must now extend the provisions for councils to prohibit the sale of alcohol to particular residents Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2927 of some communities. The Opposition does not support that extension. I urge the Minister and his advisers to move quickly to resolve those outstanding issues. The Labor Party has been in Government for almost three and a half years—long enough to have worked out its strategies and to have implemented them. It is all very well for the Minister to use the Labor Party’s in words—“coordinated”, “whole of Government”, “innovative” and “consultation”—but when they become a litany of excuses for sitting on his hands and doing nothing, the Minister becomes morally culpable for his inaction. I am sure that the Aboriginal communities of Queensland are thoroughly fed up with the delays and want action in the next 12 months. I support the member for Southport in rejecting the Liquor Amendment Bill. Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (4.03 p.m.): I am happy to support the Liquor Amendment Bill 1993. It was not the intention of the Liquor Amendment Act to allow the establishment of clubs for the purpose of providing hotel or any other licensees with indirect profits from the use of poker machines. The purpose of a club is to provide the objects of its members and not to be used as a device for the personal gain of an individual. The introduction of gaming machines has been an important vehicle of growth for Queensland’s club industry. The purpose of this Bill is to clarify and implement fully this Government’s intentions in relation to the introduction of poker machines in clubs in Queensland. The revenue generated by poker machines has enabled clubs of all sorts to expand and to offer better and wider services to their members, and it has assisted them to generally make ends meet within the context of providing their members a specific service. This Government’s intention has always been to assist clubs to stay viable in relation to the services that they provide for members, and hence to the wider community. Poker machines are an important part of that strategy. In the Currumbin electorate, clubs such as the Currumbin RSL, the Currumbin RSL Bowls Club, the Palm Beach/Currumbin Sports Club and the Palm Beach/Currumbin Bowls Club have benefited from poker machines and continue to be prominent, well- patronised organisations. The Currumbin RSL Club has carried out extensive refurbishing work and has extended its club facilities. Recently, I officially switched on a new set of night playing lights at the Currumbin RSL Bowls Club. I am sure that the Currumbin RSL and its bowls club found the task of raising funds for the extensions and the installation of the new night playing lights less of a strain in light of the revenue it raised from poker machines. As a result, the Currumbin RSL Bowls Club has a new nights bowls competition, which is a marvellous addition to the social and sporting infrastructure in the Currumbin/Palm Beach community. Mr Gibbs: They tell me they actually called it a very “Merri” night. Mrs ROSE: Only that I lost $5 on their pokies. The Currumbin RSL Club has experienced a huge boost in membership. One could say that, as an indirect result of the introduction of poker machines in that club and in many others, club members and the whole community of the southern Gold Coast have been afforded more and more diverse community assets. It offers additional services for existing club members and, significantly for the clubs themselves, it encourages more and more local people to take out membership. That is a prime example of the structural role of poker machines in the club industry. The Minister has said—and I agree—that, as a result of the high level of competition in the industry, licensees are now looking for more innovative ways in which to operate. A problem associated with the introduction of gaming machines is the opportunity for entrepreneurs to take advantage of the immense revenue-raising potential that poker machines have to create massive commercially oriented clubs to the detriment of smaller clubs. The Government sees that one obvious opportunity for that to take place is through the possible granting of licences to clubs that propose to establish within what was formerly part of a hotel premises. In that instance, potentially, the club would be a revenue-raising appendage to some other larger commercial operation. In conjunction with other licensed premises, the management of clubs may 2928 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly compromise the importance of poker machines as a means to allowing clubs a degree of sustainability in relation to their function as organisations that provide a community based focal point for particular interests or activities. The utilisation of clubs by existing licensees as a means to exploit the revenue- raising potential of poker machines compromises the Government’s intentions of the functional role of poker machines in the club industry. This Bill will galvanise the Government’s position on that matter and, by prohibiting the granting of a licence for the establishment of a club on a premise which formerly comprised part of another licensed premises which is still operating, will protect the viability of those existing clubs that rely on poker machine revenue. That means that licensees who wish to use clubs to gain more poker machines at a better rate will be unable to do so. This is a loophole which, by virtue of this Act, will be closed. Naturally, smaller clubs on the Gold Coast, such as the Currumbin RSL, are utilising the revenue raised by poker machines to improve the services and facilities that they make available to their members. Indeed, on the southern Gold Coast, a higher concentration of clubs exists than one might find elsewhere in Queensland. It has one of the highest concentrations of organised sporting, recreational and other community-based activities. Mr Bennett: And lifesaving clubs. Mrs ROSE: And lifesaving clubs. This infrastructure relies on, and is most certainly based on, the existence of clubs. As I have said, clubs on the Gold Coast are the focal point for much activity. They are an important part of the community’s social infrastructure. Gaming machines provide many of those clubs the opportunity to flourish, thereby increasing their worth to the community greatly. From a Gold Coaster’s perspective, I congratulate the Minister on taking this stand in relation to clubs. The primary focus of a club, which is contributing to the community’s general amenity to residents and tourists, is its membership. If clubs were allowed to become vehicles for certain groups or individuals to furnish their own financial interests, then the focus that clubs should have on providing benefits to their members would be subverted. The Government has put in place already measures that ensure that the profits of gambling are used to benefit club members and the community. This amendment will reinforce such measures. I would be extremely disappointed to see compromised in any way the benefits to the general community that are offered by clubs on the southern Gold Coast. I commend the Minister for the introduction of this Bill, and I am happy to lend my support to it. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (4.11 p.m.): I will be brief, because a number of the points that I wish to make have been covered very ably already by the Opposition spokesman. However, I will be unlike the honourable member for Everton who, upon listening to his words momentarily before reading through the Minister’s second-reading speech, became somewhat of a Sir Echo of the Minister’s speech. It is clear that the effect of this amending legislation comes about because of the way in which the take from poker machines is being divvied up at the end of the day. From reading the Minister’s second-reading speech, it would appear quite clearly that efforts are being made by some publicans to perhaps get around the current arrangements. However, after reviewing the Minister’s second-reading speech, it occurred to me: what would happen in the reverse situation? I presume that a club would be prevented from taking an area in a hotel, or some other licensed area. I am talking about a genuine club, such as a community club, or a sports club in any member’s electorate that wanted to take an area above licensed premises or on the side of licensed premises. I raise this matter because that situation could arise. I am not aware of such a situation offhand, but it could occur easily. From reading the Minister’s second-reading speech, I take it that such clubs would be prohibited from doing so. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation. It is certainly true to say that the introduction of poker machines in Queensland has been successful, and that was to be expected. However, it has had an effect on a number of areas, because there is always a reaction to a new course of action. One consequence of the introduction of poker machines to date is that charities and Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2929 community groups, such as local churches that conduct the game of bingo, are receiving less funding than they were previously. I am sure that situation will worsen, because I notice that more and more clubs are installing poker machines. Naturally, they are attracting more and more people. As I indicated at the outset, the introduction of poker machines has been very successful. From my reading of the Minister’s speech, I am not sure whether further down the track the Government is considering making a change to the way in which the percentages are divvied up from poker machines—the Government’s take, the take that goes to the clubs and the take that goes to the publicans or the licensees. Now that poker machines have been operating in Queensland for over 12 months, I would be pleased to hear from the Minister about any changes that he has in mind. As conditions settle down, one is able to gain a better idea of the success or otherwise of the machines. I turn now to speak about the other section of this legislation that relates to sunset clauses on the conduct of public nuisance, as well as prohibition orders. In his second- reading speech, the Minister rightly pointed out that members would be aware of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which recommended that the offence of public drunkenness be decriminalised as soon as proper alternatives were in place for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons. That report was released in April 1991—two years ago. Time gets away in these situations. Bearing in mind that the report was released two years ago, I ask the Minister how long it will take to put in place those proper alternatives and ensure that the proper administrative capability or capacity exists to deal with this problem. This legislation represents an extension of the sunset clauses. One could ask how many more deaths there will be before this Government puts in place this and other recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. However, because we are discussing the Liquor Amendment Act, I will deal only with this particular recommendation. I would have thought that two years would be sufficient. I am not saying that there is a magical solution or cure to this problem, because we all know that there is not, otherwise previous Governments would have come up with it long before this Government came to office. This is not a new problem; it has existed for quite a long time. However, that royal commission, which was conducted at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of this nation, did make recommendations. Therefore, I question how much longer it will be before this Government is in a position to implement those recommendations. This matter is of major concern to many people in the community. As the Opposition Justice spokesman, I am continually hearing about problems with Aboriginal legal aid. Although this relates largely to the jurisdiction of Family Services, people regard it as part of Justice. I can understand that. We want to be able to dispense justice to Aboriginal people. But Aboriginal legal aid funding is also feeling the pinch with Government cutbacks, and it is difficult to obtain sufficient funding for it. This is another reason why there is an urgent need for the Government to get cracking in this regard. The Government employs a huge number of public servants in the Premier’s Department, and there are 108 of them on big salaries in the Cabinet Office. Because those people are getting paid so much money, they should be able to put their minds to this exercise, as has occurred in many other sectors of Government administration. Mr Gibbs: A little drink might help. Mr BEANLAND: It might help them. I do not know. Drink is certainly the problem in relation to this issue that we are discussing. Having visited some Aboriginal settlements, I can well appreciate the concern that is expressed by Aboriginal women in those communities and the course of action that they have had to take on a number of occasions to outlaw alcohol altogether in order to have a dry Aboriginal community. This is a major issue confronting the Aboriginal communities of this State. I urge the Minister and the Government to get cracking on this problem. I trust that we will not see further extensions to this legislation in 12 months’ time, and another 12 months after that. We are told that the Government has a deal of expertise in this regard. There is certainly a 2930 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly plentiful supply of public servants who should be able to put their minds to the resolution of this problem. I plead with the Government to get on with it and resolve what I believe is a major problem within the community. Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (4.19 p.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about this particular piece of legislation. As most, if not all, of the other speakers have indicated during this debate, the significant part of this Bill relates to the attempts that are being made to prevent hotels from getting into the club industry, so to speak. Having regard to what the Opposition spokesperson had to say, it must be remembered that one of the reasons behind the introduction of poker machines by this Government was to help the sporting clubs of this State. Members would be aware that for many years under the previous Government in-line machines were located in clubs. Those particular machines generated a lot of income for various clubs. When moves were afoot to ban those machines or prohibit the way in which they were being used, those clubs suffered the prospect of a downturn in their revenue. Their prohibition placed the clubs in very difficult circumstances. As a matter of fact, quite a number of clubs were very close to going to the wall. As has been illustrated in my electorate and throughout the State, the introduction of poker machines has been a terrific benefit to clubs. Mr Stoneman: Yes, but what about the community? Mr VAUGHAN: I have watched them pretty carefully. I do not know what happens in the honourable member’s electorate, nor do I know whether he pays much attention to what goes on in his electorate, but in my electorate, the introduction of poker machines seems to have been managed quite satisfactorily. I have not had people coming to me with real problems following the introduction of poker machines. However, I am aware that clubs in my electorate have found that they can provide more facilities for their members than they were able to provide in the past. As to some of the remarks made by the member for Southport about the situation in which hotels find themselves—the honourable member indicated that hotels felt that they were disadvantaged in comparison with clubs in their areas. I am relying on my memory at this time, but I recall that, even though they were allowed a maximum of 10 machines, and 10c machines only, hotels were given poker machines at the same time so that they would still be able to attract customers. The prime activity of a hotel is to sell alcohol and provide entertainment to hotel patrons who go there to consume alcohol. Hotels were given poker machines to enable them to compete against clubs. The member for Southport spoke about revenue going to entrepreneurs. Many entrepreneurs would dearly love to get their hands on revenue from poker machines. The last thing that we want to see is the white-shoe brigade breaking into this form of revenue raising that is conducted by the clubs. If this legislation did not go through, we may have on hotel premises a form of speak-easy re-created. We would have the owner of a large hotel charging exorbitant rentals, raking off huge profits and laughing all the way to the bank. The legislation is good legislation and is very timely. If it achieves its goal, it will be advantageous for the club industry. The fact of life is that a change in drinking habits has occurred. For many years, I have been concerned about the creation of large hotels and taverns with huge parking areas at the same time as we introduced a .05 blood alcohol limit. With new liquor legislation and the advent of poker machines, a club atmosphere has been developed and people can go down to the local club to enjoy those facilities. Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the end for large hotels with huge car parks. As the Minister indicated in his second-reading speech, poker machines were not intended for individual or commercial gain. They were introduced for the benefit of the club industry, which is benefiting to a greater degree than people believed it would benefit. The introduction of poker machines has been a great boon for clubs. The other two provisions in the Bill relate to public drunkenness. I was not aware of the previous provisions in the legislation relating to conduct causing public nuisance, that is, being drunk in public. I note that a person must not be drunk or disorderly or Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2931 create a disturbance in premises to which a licence or permit relates. If they do, the legislation provides for a maximum penalty of 25 penalty units, which at present equates to $1,500. However, a person convicted of being drunk in a public place is liable to a fine of one penalty unit. The aim of the legislation is to decriminalise public drunkenness. I agree with that. Unfortunately, we have not reached the stage at which we are able to achieve that, and that is why we are seeking to extend the period to 30 June 1994. I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation, which is timely for the hotels. I support the Bill. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (4.26 p.m.): The Inter-departmental Working Group on Public Intoxication and Allied Matters was established by this Government in November 1992 in response to, in the main, the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The clear objective of that group was to examine issues relating to public intoxication and to recommend legislation and procedural initiatives to ensure the appropriate management of this behaviour, including the decriminalisation of public drunkenness and the provision of culturally appropriate safe diversion facilities. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, experience demonstrates that the act of decriminalising public drunkenness by itself is not sufficient to decrease the likelihood of Aboriginal people being held in custody. A number of key issues need to be addressed, including types of diversionary models and how they may be used to suit a specific locality or circumstance. Further, it is essential that the alternatives or different models for different localities must be sufficiently resourced. Experience shows that, without that commitment, the alternative models were almost certainly doomed to failure. Experience shows also that there is a desperate need for local consultation on a suitable model and that the implementation should have community support and advice, including a whole-of- government approach encompassing all relevant departments. It should be noted, however, that the extension of the public drunkenness provision applies to the community generally and not just to Aboriginal communities. In saying that, I must condemn in this place a commercial on television following the last amendment to the legislation. In the commercial the issue of public drunkenness was discussed. Comparison footage was taken in a Rockhampton park. When the item referred to public drunkenness and loutish behaviour, the TV screen showed drunken Aborigines; but, when discussing drink over a barbecue, it showed a non-Aboriginal family, together with happy children, enjoying a quiet drink from wine glasses. The subliminal message does not need to be explained. I appeal to the news media reporting this matter in tomorrow’s media to be sensible in their approach. The IWG has consulted with several communities in north Queensland, which has heightened the Government’s awareness of the need for local input into the development and implementation of strategies for the management of public drunkenness. In March 1992, the inter-departmental committee on Aboriginal deaths in custody approved an initial allocation of $1.725m from the 1992-93 Budget allocation. Those funds were primarily for the development of diversionary facilities in Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and Brisbane. As well, part of the funds would be for the operating costs associated with newly established facilities in Mount Isa designed specifically for that purpose, demonstrating that the Government is sincere in its commitment to address the issue of public drunkenness. However, I need to point out that, although they are major provincial cities, a need exists for further consultation to address alternatives in areas of diversionary models or alternatives for smaller country towns throughout the State. Although local authorities in my electorate, especially the Whitsunday Shire, expressed their nervousness at the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, they were concerned that the outdoor and open entertainment that reflects the lifestyle of the Whitsundays—it is presently a particularly beautiful time to visit the Whitsundays; the sky is blue and the water is blue—may be damaged by over-restrictive legislation. In essence, their concern reflected some comments from the tourist industry which emphasised that a sensible approach to the legislation is required. The clear message 2932 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly coming through from the communities and the local authorities is, “Don’t criminalise unless you get it right.” The extension of the sunset clause until 30 June 1994 confirms that this Government has a genuine commitment to decriminalising public drunkenness but, at the same time, safeguarding against repealing legislation until a comprehensive set of alternative strategies can be developed. Mr BUDD (Redlands) (4.31 p.m.): I was quite intrigued by the statements from the troglodytes opposite, particularly the member for Southport, from whom I think I have learned a trick: to give a speech in Parliament, all one has to do is pick up a copy of the Minister’s second-reading speech, which was made some time ago, quote directly from it and just disagree with it. If I was the member for Southport, that would take me through for about the next 20 minutes. But, unlike him, I will confine my remarks to the Bill before the House today. When the Liquor Act 1992 was introduced, it provided a great deal of flexibility for the liquor industry in this State, and was instrumental in the adoption of a number of creative and very imaginative practices. For instance, when the Liquor Act was combined with the Gaming Machine Act 1991, it provided for the introduction of gaming machines in this State. The introduction of those machines has brought about the most substantial growth in the club industry that this State has ever seen. For instance, prior to the introduction of poker machines at the Broncos Leagues Club, that club employed approximately 30 people. That included permanent, temporary and casual staff. The club now has on its books some 130 staff—an increase of over 400 per cent. Not only has that club been directly responsible for taking some 100 people off the dole queue; it has also generated millions of dollars worth of indirect work in the community. For example, several million dollars was spent on refurbishing the club and, in the near future, it will be spending $10m on extensions. As a result of those extensions, more than likely the club will need more staff, so it will again be of great assistance in taking some people off the dole queue. Honourable members must also take into account that the Broncos Leagues Club pays some $200,000 per month in taxes to the State Government, which is able to be put to a useful purpose in other areas. The majority of the patrons of the Broncos Leagues Club are honest, good, working class people who look upon the club as their own lounge room, as a place where they can go to enjoy a good time. The community aspect of the club will go on forever. That is a result of the recent legislative initiatives that brought about the high level of competition within the industry and, at the same time, made some operators more resourceful and look at other ways of competing. For instance, some ingenious proposals have been put forward to the Liquor Licensing Division such as establishing a club in what was previously a part of hotel premises. Although this may appear to be very resourceful, the Government is not prepared to allow those types of arrangements, which could provide unfair and obvious opportunities for some improper practices involving the gaming machines. The initial intention of the introduction of gaming machines was to enable clubs to increase their facilities, as the Broncos League Club has done, and not to assist developments by some schemers that would only line the pockets of a few individuals. Although the Government is prepared to allow for good, sensible proposals to be fostered, it is not prepared to allow proposals that would enable licensees to allow a part of their licensed premises to be leased as a club in order to boost their own economic position. It is unfortunate, but some operators would try to do that. However, the introduction of this amendment means that it just will not happen. I believe that the introduction of this amendment should alleviate the fears held by members of the Opposition when gaming machines were introduced into licensed clubs and hotels. They were of the belief that all types of wrongdoings were going to occur in the liquor industry. The Government has a very innovative Minister who has the full support of his staff and the department. He has simply introduced an amendment into this House that means that if there were any wrongdoings they will soon have the plug pulled on them. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2933

This Bill will also amend provisions of the Act relating to public drunkenness and prohibition orders. The Government takes into account the problems and considers alternatives that can be developed, such as the sunset clause which was included in the offence provision relating to public drunkenness and which was to expire one year after the commencement of the Act at the end of June 1993. However, the working group intends to make further recommendations for amendment of the appropriate legislation, and this sunset clause will therefore remain in force for some time. I support the Bill before the House. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (4.36 p.m.): It is with a degree of reservation that I support the Bill before the House. I want to focus particularly on the change by these amendments to the sunset clause on the offence of public drunkenness. I acknowledge the contributions of previous speakers from both sides of the House and, particularly, the contribution of the member for Whitsunday, who just spoke on the issue at some length. In my speech on the Liquor Bill in this House on 7 May last year, I supported the sunset clause and the need to abolish the offence of public drunkenness. At the time, I acknowledged the need to ensure that satisfactory alternatives were in place. If honourable members look at the Hansard record of my speech at that time, I said that I was anxious that the public offence of drunkenness be abolished, that I did not believe that we should continue to have that offence on the statute book, but that I recognised that there was a need to have mechanisms for dealing with and constraining, from time to time, people who may be creating a nuisance while under the influence of alcohol. I noted also in my speech last year the support of the Minister for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. I acknowledge here that that support from the Minister still continues. I think that it is important for people to recognise that in earlier contributions in this debate, criticism has been levelled at the Minister for the amendment which extends the sunset clause on those particular issues. I think that the criticism of the Minister is unjust to the extent that, although he is responsible for the Liquor Act, he is not the Minister responsible for many of the associated issues which will ultimately enable us to repeal the Act. There has been some reference to the interdepartmental working group, which indicates, obviously, that the Government is working across a range of departments. However, I wish to reiterate my view that the issue of public drunkenness must be removed from the domain of the criminal justice system. I refer specifically to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and to volume 3 of its national report. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to that commission as “the inquiry” during the remainder of my speech. Recommendation 79 states— “That, in jurisdictions where drunkenness has not been decriminalized, governments should legislate to abolish the offence of public drunkenness.” Recommendation 80 states— “That the abolition of the offence of drunkenness should be accompanied by adequately funded programs to establish and maintain non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons.” It is quite clear from the inquiry’s recommendations that the two statements must go hand in hand. Further reading of the report, however, shows that at the time of writing the report, a number of jurisdictions had been slow to investigate and fund such alternatives. The report states, at paragraph 21.1.36— “Experience suggests that a counterpart of removing public drunkenness from the range of offences is the provision of adequate alternatives to police intervention and detention. However, although the legislation governing public drunkenness provides in most places for the establishment of further facilities to police cells for the care of apprehended persons, the actual provision of these facilities (and in some cases the use of such facilities) has been tardy.” 2934 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The point I make is that I believe the decision by this Minister to amend the sunset clause is a judicious one and is probably politically correct. Nevertheless, the community and the Government must not fall into the trap of procrastinating on the issue. Later, the report notes that various agencies will oppose change to public drunkenness laws on the basis that inadequate facilities are available to deal with people who may be intoxicated. I quote briefly from paragraph 21.1.38— “Some police and other government departments and agencies have opposed the criminalization in the absence of provision of alternative custodial facilities. Considering the Interim Report’s recommendation from the decriminalization of drunkenness, the Queensland Police Service responded that there should be no such move unless proper facilities were made available, warning that the cost of such ‘would have enormous financial consequences for the government and the department responsible’.” What I am trying to establish is that people are saying that the Government should not move to decriminalise public drunkenness until such time as these other measures are in place. I hope that what is not happening is that there is a degree of procrastination on the issue. The reform of laws relating to public drunkenness is a necessary reform and one which the Government continues to support. Mention should be made of the fact that this Government has made progress on the establishment of diversionary facilities as an alternative to custody. I refer to comments made by the member for Broadwater, who intimated that approximately four years ago there was a National Party Government which was working on the decriminalisation of drunkenness. He also said that in the three and a half years that this Government has been in office, nothing has occurred. His statement is incorrect because, currently, projects are under way or are about to commence in Cairns, Mount Isa and Townsville. Nearly $1m of the State Government’s commitment to funding the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations will be spent in this way, that is, in providing the facilities to which I have referred. Additional facilities are also planned for Rockhampton and Brisbane. However, it is not just the formal establishment of diversionary centres which forms the basis of alternatives to custody. This is the important point I want to make. The inquiry’s report notes at paragraph 21.1.40— “Yet decriminalization should not imply that an institutional alternative (i.e. police cell or sobering-up centre) is always required for the management of intoxicated persons.” In South Australia, for example, legislation allows for people to be discharged at their place of residence, or to be discharged into the care of a solicitor, relative or friend. The Government does not actually have to have a diversionary centre to discharge a person who is intoxicated and who has been picked up by the police. If the appropriate legislation is in place, other alternatives are available, and the South Australia example is a good one. It is clearly not possible to have sobering-up facilities available throughout the State or for them to be operating all day, every day. I am sure that every community in Queensland would argue that it has a need for such facilities at different times. It is clearly not economically possible for the Government or the community to sustain the cost of having hundreds of these facilities around the State and for them to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The point I make is that people who participate in the broader community debate about public drunkenness, its manifestations, and how we, as a Government, and the community should deal with the issue need to widen the parameters of the investigations into possible solutions. The Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has said, for example, that the suggestion that we should throw money at the problem is simplistic and, ultimately, ineffective. Essentially, I agree with her view, but that is not to say that the Government does not have a responsibility to find the funds with which to adequately resource custody alternatives. We should not have a single-minded view of what the alternatives are. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2935

In the debate that is taking place in the broader community at present, a single- minded view is at large, that is, what every community needs is a diversionary centre, which is generally expensive to operate and is intensive in terms of the staff required to manage it. I suggest that this issue needs to be thought about in a broader context. Obviously, the interdepartmental working group is thinking in that way, but members of Parliament and the community generally need to have a wider view of the problem. As further evidence, I again cite the South Australian experience, where that Government has funded an Aboriginal organisation to provide mobile patrols to attend to intoxicated people on Adelaide streets. The patrol operates throughout the night and the early morning and checks on Aboriginal people. It also transfers them to appropriate facilities or to their homes, as required. This has the added benefit of removing those people from any contact with police. Obviously, anything that can be done to reduce the need for people who may be intoxicated—particularly Aboriginal people—to come into contact with police will also reduce the prospect of their running foul of the criminal justice system and finishing up in correctional institutions. That brings me to my next point, which is that the police need to have a clear understanding of their role in dealing with intoxicated people, including what alternatives to custody are available. If I could refer to the inquiry report again briefly, recommendation 81 states— “That legislation decriminalizing drunkenness should place a statutory duty upon police to consider and utilize alternatives to the detention of intoxicated persons in police cells. Alternatives should include the options of taking the intoxicated person home or to a facility established for the care of intoxicated persons.” The report is saying that it is not enough to have the facilities available but that we should actively encourage the police, and in this case the report is suggesting that police should be under a statutory obligation to consider those alternatives to formal custody. The Government and the community must support the police by making our expectations clear to them and by providing the appropriate training in dealing with circumstances as they arise. I make that point very clearly, because the community does have expectations of the Police Service and there are times when the Police Service does not live up to those expectations. I, for one, get very annoyed when the police have a tendency to throw their hands in the air and say that they are powerless to act when the appropriate legislation clearly does give them the capacity to act. Although I do not support an argument for the retention of the offence of public drunkenness, that is an area in which the police at this time clearly do have some responsibility and it is not good enough for them to say that their hands are tied. Section 21.1.48 of the inquiry report also notes— “Given that the police role in the apprehension of intoxicated persons is likely to continue, it is important that officers be thoroughly trained in the exercise of their powers of apprehension and in the use of diversionary facilities.” I want to support that wholeheartedly. Police require appropriate education and training so that they are able to deal with, particularly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are intoxicated, with whom they come into contact. I return to the South Australian example, in which the use of the Aboriginal organisation to provide mobile patrols is a way in which we can civilianise that issue. If there are ways in which intoxicated people, particularly Aborigines and Islanders, can deal with civilians rather than police, that idea has considerable merit as it reduces the likelihood of people running foul of the criminal justice system. We must also be careful that, if intoxicated people are being picked up by the police, they may not be arrested for public drunkenness if we decriminalise that issue, but we do not want them being arrested for other offences such as using offensive language. 2936 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Generally speaking, I support the amendment Bill that the Minister has brought before the House, but I also note the need for the interdepartmental working group to get on with the job of providing us with the appropriate alternatives. I urge people to widen the debate when they are considering those alternatives and not to become fixated on the diversionary centre issues. The member for Broadwater, who spoke about the proposal in 1989 by the National Party for a diversionary centre in Townsville, has a bit of a hide to talk in this place about those issues. Earlier in this House, the member for Mundingburra spoke about certain suggestions of impropriety in relation to land dealings in those matters. The major concern, of course, was that the Minister at that time and member for Flinders, Bob Katter Junior, was involved in a great deal of procrastinating over the expenditure of funds that had been made available by the Federal Government. It was because of procrastination by the former Government—and, more importantly, the Minister—that the facility was not built. That having been said, I welcome generally the comments of the member for Broadwater and the member for Indooroopilly today. I hope that, in the next 12 months when we come to debate the issue of the repeal of the provisions for public drunkenness, they are as good as their word, that they will support in the community the Government’s attempts to decriminalise the issue of public drunkenness and that they may take a leadership role within their respective parties and ensure tripartite support for the Government’s moves to decriminalise public drunkenness. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (4.50 p.m.): I wish to respond to the issue raised in the debate by the member for Cook, who was critical of the previous Government’s handling of the Aboriginal centre in Townsville. I want to correct the record. I was the Minister in charge of Aboriginal Affairs for the last three months of the National Party Government in 1989. I took over the portfolio from the Honourable Tom Gilmore, who was the Minister preceding me. I will correct the honourable member for Cook on the issue. He blamed the previous Government for procrastinating and not spending the money that was made available by the Federal Government for diversionary centres. I totally deny that. I had telephone conversations with Gerry Hand and I had difficulty with his department in getting approval for a scheme that I put forward to him and that my officers had put forward to him, which recommended the immediate purchase of the old Mater Hospital centre in Townsville. We had entered into negotiations. We believed that it was most suitable. I agree with the honourable member that we need civilians rather than the police to look after that problem. I agree totally with that attitude towards handling the problem. We wanted to go ahead. At that time, those premises were for sale and the Queensland Government had an option on them. With regard to Mount Isa and Cherbourg—the former Government was already investigating those matters and I was ready to go straight ahead with the Townsville proposal. I place on record that the previous Government’s proposal was held up by the lack of approval by Gerard Hand. That was his problem, not my problem. I regret that the problem was not cleaned up before the election; however, at that time I was unable to obtain cooperation from the Federal Government. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (4.52 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions, and I will respond to a number of the points made. Firstly, let me correct the member for Southport, who spoke in his usual fashion. I do not know who writes those speeches for him, but he should get somebody who knows a little about the subject to start doing some preparatory work for him in a more professional manner. The subject that we are talking about relates to the licensing laws of Queensland. I would suggest that the honourable member’s presentation to the House sounded like something that was prepared at 10 o’clock on a Friday night in one of the public bars at Southport. Mr FitzGerald: With Bob Gibbs in attendance. Mr GIBBS: No, I would not drink with him, to be quite honest. I would not give him the pleasure of my excellent company, to be quite honest. The fact is that my department has not been dragging the ball and chain in relation to responding to clubs Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2937 or organisations which have put applications forward. Certainly, there has been a deluge from that section of the community, and that could only be expected after the introduction of poker machines. The only requirement that we have—and I will read it out—which goes out when people make the application on behalf of the club is— “As a result of the large increase in applications lodged with the Division since the commencement of the new Liquor Act in July, your assistance is requested in streamlining the consideration of your application. 1. Please forward outstanding items together, not separately as each piece of information comes to hand. 2. Do not fax documentation. Originals or photocopies only will be accepted. 3. Ensure that work and home phone numbers are on your correspondence. 4. Ensure you use our reference numbers in any correspondence.” They are the only requirements that go out with the applications. It was only fair that a number of those provisions were inserted as a result, as I said, of that large deluge of applications. This matter has been raised: is in fact this a prelude to saying that the second review of the Act, which I undertook last year to proceed with this year, is going to be cancelled? No, it is not. The Act will be reviewed. At the end of June, we will commence to look at it again. I understand that submissions for that have opened. On 24 May, they will close and consultation will then take place with the industry in order to look at a number of the problems which I admit openly have occurred as a result of the amendments to the Act. When a major review of any piece of legislation is undertaken, it would be a fool in this place who did not acknowledge that there can be a number of small problems with it and that the Government has a responsibility to the community to carry out a further review. The legislation may need upgrading in some areas, and there may be other areas which perhaps need to be changed a little. In relation to this legislation—I consulted both with the Queensland Hotels Association and with the Licensed Clubs Association of Queensland prior to bringing this legislation either to Cabinet or to this Parliament. It was certainly the attitude of the Queensland Hotels Association that the change should take place. In all fairness, I will say for the QHA that it expressed to me the same view as that expressed by the member for Southport, the member for Indooroopilly and a number of other people, namely, that the major reason for this happening is that there is a feeling among the membership of the QHA that it is not getting a fair go in relation to profits from the introduction of poker machines; they claim that they should have a larger number of poker machines on the premises; and they claim that their return should be higher than what it is at present. I will say that my view has always been that the introduction of poker machines was not intended as a pocket-lining exercise for hoteliers, that is, for personal profit by any section or person or persons in the community. But it does appear to me, as the Minister responsible for the hotel industry, that perhaps the playing field could do with a little rejigging. I am not unsympathetic to the club industry. I believe, for example, that this will be an area that needs to be reviewed when we have a look at the Liquor Act. The whole definition of what is a club obviously now needs to be fully clarified. As we are all aware, the object of a club is to have people who have a common cause or a common interest in the community utilising club premises. It is obvious from the practice of some clubs that that is not occurring, so we will have a look at the definition of a club when we carry out that further review of the Act later this year. I will now address some of the comments that were raised. I am not going to be goaded into retaliation by the member for Southport. He did in fact make a point about one licensee whom he chose to name. I did not choose to name him, but the member for Southport did, so I will respond to that. It was Mr Nev Pask, who owns the premises at Beenleigh. Indeed, it has been Mr Pask who has led the charge in relation to a number of applications which have come in, which have been precipitated by the specific 2938 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly application associated with the Gold Coast Dolphins baseball team wishing to utilise premises currently occupied at the Beenleigh Tavern. At no stage have I ever made any suggestion—and neither would I make any suggestion—that there is anything improper about the Gold Coast Dolphins or any other club making an application to operate on the premises of a licensed hotel. But the clear intention of the legislation has been that the majority of profits which come out of the poker machines go back into improvements of club premises, and so on. What has happened at the Beenleigh Tavern—and this is the story that the honourable member for Southport neglected to tell the Parliament tonight—is that at the same time as the application went in for the Gold Coast Dolphins to move onto the licensed premises, an application also came to the department to de-license the larger proportion of the hotel premises themselves. It was sought that only a small area which could be utilised as a public bar would remain and that Mr Pask would in fact still retain control over the bottle shop outlet and all of the food preparation on the premises. In fact, his objective was quite clear. He wanted to get the Dolphins into the hotel and charge them an absolute premium on rental based on what he estimated would be their profits from the poker machines. He would have the liquor side of the operation virtually tied up by virtue of the fact that he operated the only public bar on the premises. More importantly, he would have total control also over the bottle shop department, which would sell liquor to club members as they were leaving the premises. Further to all of that, he wanted control of the catering rights to the club. Clearly, that was not the intention of putting poker machines into club premises. As a result of that application, there were a couple of other try-ons. I reiterate that, broadly speaking, the legislation that I am introducing has the support of the QHA. One other problem seems to have passed over the small-mindedness of the member for Southport. I put this scenario to those members who represent provincial city areas: if we allowed such domination of a premises to occur, the operator of a very up-market hotel in a provincial city could well say to a number of club operators, “Look, we should band together. Move into my premises. I will sublease you the top floor of the premises for club purposes.” If that were allowed to occur, we would finish up with a miniature version of the St George Leagues Club in a provincial city area. Because they operate as a two-person operation, publicans who run smaller premises often invest their own savings and those of their wives in a business. In a very short period, such operators simply will not be able to compete with a facility which offers a hotel downstairs and a club upstairs. Virtually overnight, people will be going out of business. That should be of concern to all members who care about an important part of the small- business community. As part of my reply, the honourable member for Southport challenged me to answer some questions. My response to him is this: indeed, it is time that he asked me some questions in this Parliament. I do not mind responding to questions. I want to place on record the performance of the member for Southport over the past four years in this Parliament. In that period, in his capacity as the shadow Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, he has asked of me only four questions. Week in, week out, while we are in session, I sit here waiting, but he never asks me a question. The best judgment of his abilities can be made on that basis. For some unknown reason, the member for Broadwater, Mr Grice, tried to make a vitriolic attack on me during his contribution to this debate. The poor old member for Broadwater. I often look at him and think that he is probably one of the best advertisements for Windscreens O’Brien that I have ever seen, and he is probably the worst ad for seat belts. He announced that, in 1989, the National Party intended to decriminalise public drunkenness. I welcome that information being placed before the public and before the Parliament. I welcome also the comments by the member for Lockyer, Mr FitzGerald, and I hope that he sticks to them. If the National Party was considering decriminalising public drunkenness in 1989, its members really ought to reflect on the extremely hypocritical Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2939 way in which so many of them have handled themselves since the major changes were made to the Liquor Act last year. There has been no worse group in this State. Members opposite have tried to stir up public controversy and brawls all over the place on the issue of public drunkenness. Downstairs in my office, I have a swathe of press statements attributed to various members opposite. They have said, “It would be a dreadful thing if this were to happen!” I welcome the comments by the member for Lockyer. I hope that he remembers them when I come back in the not-too-distant future with some further changes to the Act. I thank the member for Indooroopilly for his comments. By and large, he carries out a welcome practice—he is fairly constructive in his offerings to this Parliament. The assumption made by him is correct. After this legislation is passed, any club which applies for an extension to operate on a hotel premises will not have that extension granted. The member for Indooroopilly asked whether I was alluding to the fact that a review could be made of the percentages relative to poker machine distribution for hotels. I cannot fully answer that question fully as I am not the Minister responsible for that section of the portfolio. However, I reiterate that I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the QHA. My advice to them was that, if they feel there is a good case for a review, they should proffer that case professionally and have a discussion with me, and I will be happy to facilitate some further discussions with the Treasurer on that issue. The member for Indooroopilly mentioned also the very vexing issue of overindulgence in alcohol by members of Aboriginal communities. I thought that the contribution made by the member for Cook in this debate was excellent. I congratulate him on his contribution. He has covered many of the issues to which the member for Indooroopilly alluded. That is not a simple problem to overcome. As to the interdepartmental working group—recently, a whip-cracking exercise has taken place in that regard. If my memory serves me correctly, by 30 June, the IWG is required to submit a report in relation to its recommendations on the review of this Act. The member for Cook made some appropriate comments about detoxification units. It is not simply a matter of saying, “A poultice of money is available. Let us build detoxification units all over the State.” The matter goes a lot further than that. I must emphasise that the issue of public drunkenness is not simply confined to Aboriginal and Islander people in our community; it covers a broad spectrum of the community. I share with the member for Cook his concern about the attitude of some sections of the Queensland Police Service. I have expressed that concern in this House on a previous occasion. A couple of months ago, when we heard the outcry from some sections of the public—as I said, guided quite deliberately by some people on the Opposition side of the House—I made the comment that I thought it was time that a number of people in the Police Service sat down and made themselves a little more familiar with the Act and, in fact, made themselves a lot more familiar with what they could and could not do under that Act. For example, if there is a drinking problem among minors in the community, under the Children’s Services Act, adequate measures are in place upon which the Queensland Police Service could act. If members of the Police Service thought it fit and proper to perhaps bring themselves a little more up-to-date with some legislation, they could refer to sections of the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, which allows them adequate scope. If there was not such an offence as public drunkenness, or if it was wiped out tomorrow, under the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, there would still be adequate measures that the police could take to apprehend people or by which to make judgments on people’s behaviour in public when they were in a state of intoxication. In conclusion, my commitment to removing the offence of public drunkenness stands. Although it has been extended for a further 12 months, that has been brought about by the fact that there simply—— Mr FitzGerald: You got it wrong. 2940 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr GIBBS: No. At this time, there simply are not proper programs, detoxification centres and other supportive services in place. Advice received from interstate and authoritative sources from overseas has been such that the Government would be absolutely crazy to remove this provision until such time as those programs are in place. When I next bring to this place legislation in relation to the removal of that offence, honourable members can rest assured that it will be on the basis that those adequate provisions and programs are in place. I thank all members for their contributions. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. J. Gibbs (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr SPRINGBORG (5.12 p.m.): Before the shadow Minister left the Chamber to go to another engagement, earlier this afternoon he requested me to oppose this clause on behalf of the Opposition. Earlier today, in his extremely intelligent and lucid contribution, the shadow Minister pointed out that by this clause the Minister seeks to prevent the hotelier from renting out his underused, purpose-built premises to clubs in need of accommodation. The Opposition also urges the Committee to look again at the Minister’s second-reading speech, which states that he is targeting this amendment against hotel premises. Hotels are disadvantaged already in the number of gaming machines that are permitted on their premises. It should also be remembered that the Gaming Machine Act does not permit revenue from gaming machines to be transmitted to a lessor or for a rental to be fixed according to gaming machine revenue. For that reason, the Opposition will be opposing this clause. Mr GIBBS: It is a shame that the member for Southport has fled this place and left one so young and tender to defend him. Because I am a merciful person, I do not intend to respond. Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. Over the last couple of weeks in this place, we have heard much about discrimination and such matters. On the basis of age, I find the Minister’s comments quite discriminatory. Because his party supposedly represents everybody in the community equally, I appeal to the Minister to withdraw those remarks. The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! The Minister will withdraw those comments. Mr GIBBS: If the honourable member regards being young and tender as offensive, I withdraw those remarks. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2941

Question—That clause 3, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— In division— The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I advise honourable members that, for all future divisions, the bells will ring for two minutes. AYES, 45 NOES, 28 Ardill McElligott Beanland Turner Barton McGrady Connor Watson Beattie Nunn Cooper Bennett Nuttall Davidson Bird Pearce Elliott Braddy Purcell FitzGerald Bredhauer Pyke Gamin Budd Robertson Gilmore Campbell Rose Goss J. N. Casey Smith Grice Clark Spence Healy D’Arcy Sullivan J. H. Hobbs Davies Sullivan T. B. Lester De Lacy Szczerbanik Lingard Dollin Vaughan McCauley Edmond Warner Mitchell Elder Welford Perrett Fenlon Wells Quinn Foley Woodgate Randell Gibbs Rowell Hamill Sheldon Hayward Tellers: Simpson Tellers: Hollis Pitt Stephan Springborg Mackenroth Livingstone Stoneman Laming Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

BANK INTEGRATION (BANK OF QUEENSLAND) BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 March (see p. 2412). Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.21 p.m.): I rise today to speak on a piece of banking legislation which is designed to facilitate the integration of savings and trading banks in Queensland. Unlike other States, the only bank affected in Queensland is the Bank of Queensland and, as such, this legislation should have been specifically drafted to cater for the integration of the savings and trading bank entities into a single Bank of Queensland. The intention is that this would occur without penalty to the bank, its stakeholders or its clients. I was concerned and, again, disappointed by the actions of the Labor Government when it was revealed to me that the process by which the Bill was drafted left much to be desired. Again, we see a process which was ill-conceived and poorly executed. The Labor Government has had two years to get it right, and again we see that the bulk of this time has been consumed by blatant procrastination and a lack of competence on the Government’s part. The legislation is supposed to contain clauses that are intended to provide for the exemption from 2942 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly taxation which would have been triggered as a result of the transition. Even at this late stage, ambiguity and uncertainty hang over this legislation in regard to these matters. The Queensland legislation was supposed to be drafted from the Victorian legislation. However, there remain many discrepancies between this template legislation from Victoria and the Queensland Bill. When I refer to discrepancies between these two pieces of legislation, I do not refer to the many clauses contained in the Victorian Act which have not been included in the Queensland Bill. The provisions contained in the Victorian Act which are silent in the Queensland Bill cover translation instruments, legal proceedings and evidence, the fact that employment is unaffected, etc. Following discussions with the Bank of Queensland, we understand that those provisions are not relevant. I will refer to other more important matters in a moment. Firstly, I want to discuss briefly the history behind the development of this Bill. In 1991, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Bank Integration Act. The Victorian legislation, the Bank Integration Act, was introduced in 1992. It was understood that the Victorian legislation would act as a template for all other relevant States to draft similar and complementary legislation. It is interesting to note that all other relevant State Governments have long since introduced that complementary legislation—all, that is, with the exception of Queensland. In reading the Victorian Act and the Queensland Bill, I see many divergences in the wording and construction of the Bill from that contained in the Victorian Act. Clause 8 of the Queensland Bill, which refers to exemption from taxation, is a good case in point. The equivalent section in the Victorian Act, section 14, differs from the Queensland Bill in that it includes the words “or Commonwealth Act”. The implications of the difference in that wording is not clear. Despite the time that has elapsed, when questioned, the Government was unable to explain the differences, if any, of the implications on the financial affairs of the Bank of Queensland resulting from the different wording. On 13 October 1992, the Government was approached about this matter by the Bank of Queensland, but nothing was resolved. The question of whether the difference in wording between the Victorian Act and the Queensland Bill may or may not have any significant financial implications is still unanswered. We have subsequently learnt that the advice which the Government has sought did not extend to include Crown law advice on this matter. Instead, the Government simply instructed Parliamentary Counsel and looked to some legal eagles within Treasury for its advice. Given the six months that has elapsed since the Bank of Queensland first raised its concerns, it is, at worst, negligent that no further action was undertaken. Crown law has not been consulted. My office approached Tony Bellas from Treasury on Tuesday, 11 May 1993, to clarify any implications resulting from the discrepancy in wording, only to find out just how flawed the process has been. Following legal advice from within Treasury, Mr Bellas explained that the wording contained in the equivalent clause 8 of the Victorian legislation was flawed—end of story! Advice given to my office on the same day from Parliamentary Counsel revealed that those words omitted from the Queensland Bill could be included. However, the financial implications flowing from that change were beyond their scope of advice. Despite unresolved concerns expressed by the Bank of Queensland as early as October last year, no specific action was undertaken. Instead, Mr De Lacy has chosen to rely on the advice from within his department. If this is the flawed process that is used when developing legislation, what do Queenslanders have in store from Mr De Lacy’s department on more important and complex legislation? As the ramifications of a number of sections of the Bill are unclear, we are opposed to the legislation in its current form. Given that the advice on this matter is not from an authoritative source such as Crown law, we do not accept that the Victorian legislation is flawed. However, I am aware that, after discussions with my office and the Bank of Queensland, an amendment will be moved in Committee by the Treasurer to rectify our major concern with the Bill. As early as October last year, it was clear that an Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2943 authoritative source of advice was needed to resolve concerns expressed by the Bank of Queensland. That was not done. Again the processes of the Treasury Department leave much to be desired. The ambiguities raised in this Bill leave all Queenslanders to wonder who is running Treasury. If something as simple as the development of the Bank Integration Bill results in uncertainty, what else will Queenslanders have to endure as a result of the Treasury Department’s procrastination and lack of positive consultation? Following intervention last week, we understand that the Treasurer’s office has finally moved itself and investigated the matter. We now have learnt that the Treasurer’s office recognises that the Victorian equivalent of clause 8 is not flawed, as Mr Bellas previously advised us, but in fact clause 8 does require modification and will require the incorporation of the words “or Commonwealth Act”. My office received a telephone call late on Thursday afternoon from Mr Bellas in which he stated that he was wrong in his advice to my office and, more importantly, in his advice to the Bank of Queensland. Finally, the Treasury Department has acted on a request by the Bank of Queensland which has been outstanding for some six months, but only after intervention by me and my office in this matter. Following the introduction of the Treasurer’s amendment in Committee—I do not have a copy of it—the Opposition will support the Bill and the amendment, if an amendment is coming forth. Mr FitzGerald: It is just being handed out while you are speaking. Mrs SHELDON: It is difficult to consider an amendment when I do not receive it before I have finished my speech. Mr De Lacy: We gave it to the attendants, and it is up to them. Mrs SHELDON: Surely it is the Treasurer’s responsibility to ensure that the shadow Minister receives a copy of an amendment before finishing her speech in the House. Mr De Lacy: I am not going to tap them on the shoulder and say, “Did you circularise it?” Mrs SHELDON: Well, one presumes that the amendment is in order. As I have not had time to review it, I hope that I can rely on the Treasurer in this matter, because I cannot do so in any other matter. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (5.29 p.m.): I rise to support the Bank Integration (Bank of Queensland) Bill. It was interesting to hear the protestations of the Leader of the Liberal Party. I am sure that she will now have time to consider the amendment before it is moved at the Committee stage. The Commonwealth Banking Legislation Amendment Act 1989 was essentially the event which has precipitated this Bill coming before the House. That piece of Commonwealth legislation removed the distinction between trading and savings banks for regulatory purposes. To facilitate the restructuring of banks, the Commonwealth passed the Bank Integration Act 1991 to provide for the assets and liabilities of the savings banks to vest in their parent bodies. Section 11 (2) of that Act requires complementary State legislation to be enacted in the State of a bank’s incorporation. That is what is now commonly referred to and is becoming more common practice as template legislation, that is, there is a master set of legislation that is set up and specific legislation around the country then fits neatly within the pro-forma model, as it were. The legislation should be seen in the overall tendency in this country, especially in terms of financial regulation, towards the creation of more universal financial legislation. We have already seen this development to a very large degree in the context of corporations law and the current companies legislation that has been developed, and the very fine cooperative efforts around the country to fit into that new form of legislation. This legislation is in a similar vein, in terms of complying with and fitting into a trend towards that universal financial regulation. It is a good trend to see in this country, because we are essentially trying to ensure that similar standards of competition and similar standards of performance exist throughout the country. In order to achieve that, 2944 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly it is important that we have a common competitive environment and common laws which establish that common competitive environment. Law enforcement in this sphere is very important because, in terms of the growing size of capital blocs in every industry around the country, it is very unusual to see a capital base which exists solely within a State. We have our major institutions, our major organisations and our major financial institutes straddling State boundaries and, indeed, international boundaries; therefore it is important that the universal legislation acknowledges and copes with those structural realities that we face today. In terms of the legislation and its application within Queensland, the Bank of Queensland Limited is the only bank affected by this proposed legislation and that is the case, in particular, because it is incorporated accordingly. The Queensland legislation for the receiving bank, in this case the Bank of Queensland Limited, to be the successor in law of the associated transferring bank, in this case the Queensland Savings Bank Limited will affect the transfer of assets and liabilities as well the dissolution of the transferring bank. The Queensland legislation provides specific exemption from relevant State taxes and fees. Further, the legislation allows the Bank of Queensland to continue to operate in the State under the name of the Bank of Queensland Savings Limited for a period of six months commencing on the succession day. So the legislation is composed of a range of machinery provisions which put those requisites into place. The amendment that has been circulated covers the concerns that have been raised by the bank and, indeed, by the previous speaker. Essentially, I commend the Treasurer in acknowledging this because it demonstrates that the Government has been receptive to an abundance of caution in terms of taking up this particular amendment to make sure that the appropriate safety nets are in place for the operation of this particular piece of legislation. I support the legislation before the House, and I congratulate the Treasurer on his efforts. Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.36 p.m.), in reply: As the member for Greenslopes said, the reason the Government proposes to introduce an amendment is through an abundance of caution, as it were. I must say that I was quite amazed by the speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. She went to extraordinary lengths to imply that there was something faulty about this piece of legislation. She must be reading a different piece of legislation. Probably, the reason is that the speech was written by Mr Borbidge’s speech writer. I have never before heard Mrs Sheldon’s speech writer get into so much hyperbole in a speech over nothing. I know that Mr Borbidge tends to be given to great flights of hyperbole. I want to address a couple of points made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The draft legislation which was circulated by the Australian Bankers Association, the Victorian model, is not template legislation; it was never supposed to be template legislation. The Australian Bankers Association circulated it to different States suggesting that it was a desirable model. We in Queensland are sometimes a little reluctant to accept anything from Victoria as a desirable model, particularly as it relates to banks, so we tend to write our own legislation, but to imply that the Bank of Queensland is somehow unhappy with Treasury or what the Government is doing in this respect is just plain dead wrong. All along, we have consulted with the Bank of Queensland and told it what we are doing. A request was made to amend clause 8 to make it absolutely certain that no tax would be payable on this transaction, and, out of an abundance of caution, we have acquiesced. As honourable members know, this Bill is complementary to Commonwealth legislation. It follows upon the removal of the distinction between savings banks and trading banks. Only one bank in Queensland or incorporated in Queensland that requires complementary State legislation is affected, and that is the Bank of Queensland. Therefore, I thank all honourable members for supporting this rather simple piece of legislation. Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2945

Committee Hon. K. E. De Lacy (Cairns—Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr De LACY (5.40 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 6, line 5— after ‘Act’, insert ‘or the Commonwealth Act’.” I apologise to members of the Parliament for not having the amendment circulated earlier. We provided it to Parliament and the Clerk has just advised me that the reason why it was not circulated previously was that he did not know earlier today that this piece of legislation was coming on. Mr FitzGerald: It is not on today’s program, you see. Mr De LACY: It is on the notice paper. Mr Mackenroth: That program shows the first four Bills only. Mr FitzGerald: This is separate. Mr De LACY: Yes. That is why the Clerk did not circulate it at the beginning of the day. As soon as the parliamentary officers were aware that the legislation would be debated, however, it was circulated. To the extent that that has taken members of the Opposition by surprise, I apologise. But, after all, it is the simplest of simple amendments. Mr FitzGerald: What does it mean? Mr De LACY: The clause states that tax is not payable under a law of the State in respect of the operation or effect of this Act. We are proposing that after the words, “this Act”, the Bill should state, “or the Commonwealth Act”. We are of the view that it can be vested only once, not twice, and that the tax could therefore be paid only once. However, some concern has been expressed about two Acts covering this procedure and that it may be possible for the State to claim stamp duty under one of the Acts, but not the other Act. As I said, the amendment is proposed out of an abundance of caution, but we believe it is unnecessary. Nevertheless, as I also said, we are from the Government and we are here to help. Mr FITZGERALD: We are from the Opposition, and we are here to help, too. I notice that the Treasurer has stated that this amendment is not really necessary and that we certainly do not take notice of anything that comes from Victoria. He implied that we do not want to import anything from Victoria into Queensland. However, it is passing strange that the Victorian Bank Integration Act states, in section 14— “(1) Tax is not payable under a law of Victoria in respect of— (a) the operation or effect of this Act or the Commonwealth Act in its application to the vesting of the business of a transferring in the relevant receiving bank; or (b) anything done for a purpose connected with, or arising out of, that operation or effect.” The provision is exactly the same as what clause 8 will state when the amendment is passed. The only difference is that the Victorian legislation refers to “a law of Victoria” and not “this Act”. The Treasurer is copying exactly what is contained in the Victorian Act. Obviously, someone thought that the amendment was necessary. On a cautionary note, I reject the Treasurer’s statement that Queensland does not accept what happens in Victoria. The truth is that we are mindful of what happens in other States and somebody in Victoria obviously thought that the provision was necessary. Apparently, the advice eventually got through to the Treasurer, even though he really does not 2946 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly support the amendment that he is putting before the Parliament. The Opposition will be supporting it. I do not know what the Government will do. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

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

NATIONAL PARK 135 COUNTY OF SALISBURY (EXTENSION) ORDER 1992

Disallowance Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (5.45 p.m.): I move— “That National Park 135 County of Salisbury (Extension) Order 1992, No. 389 tabled in this House on 23 February 1993, be disallowed.” In moving this disallowance motion, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not opposing the principle of the extension of the national park for anti-national park reasons. It is the possible consequences that might flow from that extension that give me cause for concern. That is the process that I intend to outline to the House. I have spoken with the chairman and councillors of the Bowen Shire. Although some initial concerns were expressed about the extension, particularly that area of the extension that is separated and attached to the Elliot River, fronting onto Abbot Bay, those concerns were overcome and clarified with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Bowen Shire Council did not present any opposition to the declaration of the national park. Unfortunately, since that time, a reasonable degree of publicity has been given to the fact that a particular Aboriginal group is planning—and I understand that it already has in train to some extent—a process by which it would seek to have that land put on the register of land in Queensland able to be claimed under the Aboriginal and Islander land claims legislation. That is the basis of my concern, particularly in this instance. I make the point that I do not believe—and I continue to not believe—that the Aboriginal Land Act as passed by this House some time ago is in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At that time, the Opposition opposed that Act and continues to oppose it simply because it will not work in the best interests of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Mr Welford: Why not? Mr STONEMAN: If the honourable member listens, I will tell him. With the recent prominence of the Mabo case, we have seen the uncertainty that has resulted from that decision of the High Court. A great deal of nervousness is running throughout the community. I am not suggesting that this matter is necessarily parallel with the Mabo case, but a proposition has been stated publicly that the Cape Upstart claim could well become “the Mabo case of Queensland”. I propose to put to the House that it is unreasonable to approve an extension of an area and therefore make the potential claimable area under that Act larger until the community knows the position not only of the State Government but also of the Federal Government and, more particularly, the legal processes involved in land claims throughout this State and Australia. I have a particular concern that the backlash that is very obvious in certain sectors of the community, the concerns that are obvious in the community and the nervousness that was created by the uncertainty of all those matters will work against the Aboriginal and Islander people. Let me say without equivocation that I support a process that recognises the culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2947

Islander people. In many, many instances, I support the fact that they are entitled to customs, beliefs and traditions. However, I am concerned about the culture that also seems to have developed of “claim and be damned”. I have talked with Aboriginal and Islander people in my community. In this instance, I have talked with the chief elder of the Birriguba tribal structure. He is not only a most sincere but also an extremely wise gentleman. He is very elderly. I made a particular point of talking to him and telling him my concerns. Although I would disagree with the claim if it were to come to fruition, I do not disagree with the principle behind some of the concerns that the Aboriginal and Islander people have in respect of the maintenance of their customs, traditions and beliefs. I positively support that. I made that very clear to Mr Peter Prior, the gentleman in question. Let us consider an options paper that was issued by the regional council of elders of the Birriguba group. It has at the head the tribunal lands committee. That is reasonable. Then there is the Cape Upstart National Park land claim subcommittee, the Hook Island land claim subcommittee and the Woodwark Bay land claim subcommittee. The fact of the matter is that the group is planning into its structure a series of claims. I talked to the elders on the basis that we need a process that can be accommodated within the structure of the full community, not only one section—in this case the Aboriginal and Islander community—whereby the control, the recognition of particular sites, the access to particular sites and those types of things could be accommodated within their management structure and within the framework of their customs, beliefs and traditions, just as other groups have either items, areas or edifices that have a special significance and are accessible largely to themselves only. However, to declare a whole area of land to be subject under the land claims structure because it has within it some sites is not reasonable. It is a divisive process within the community. It is a process that will set colour against colour. Honourable members should have no doubt about that. It is a process that in this instance cannot be equated with the Northern Territory or Western Australia as particularly as it can with the more populated areas of this State. It is of huge concern throughout the community. Cape Upstart, which is located approximately midway between Ayr and Bowen, has also a traditional structure and place in Australian white man history in that it was one of the seven landfalls made by Captain Cook back in 1770 when he sailed up the east coast of Australia. Where do customs, beliefs and traditions commence and end? It is also an area where there is a considerable amount of freehold land that is accessible only by sea, but in the future we may well need to take into consideration some sort of an overland access, and that has to be through the national park. This national park land could not only be extended but also claimed and subsequently granted to the Aboriginal group which I think quite legitimately—absolutely legitimately—has some claim to specific areas of it. I make no bones about that. I do not deny that whatsoever. In fact, I am supporting the structuring of a special youth camp within this area and in fact the granting of land to the Birriguba group as a mechanism and a means by which they might help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youths who have sad family circumstances, who might be living on the fringe of the law, or who are having problems adjusting within the community. I support that publicly, and have done so very publicly by way of press releases, by radio and by communications with the working groups. I support that totally. One of the things that that group plans to do is take the young people back there and teach them some of the traditions and educate them about some of the areas which are sacred and which have a special interest to them in the Cape Upstart area. I support that totally, but I support also the right of every Australian to be able to maintain absolute and total access there in the appropriate manner, to have that as a part of our national estate in the full sense rather than have it excluded to another group of Australians—a group who are purely and simply Australians. I totally support those processes. I would not like any member in this House to suggest that anything other than that is the case. 2948 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

I will indicate the breadth of this situation. I have here a copy of a letter from the Regional Director of the Lands Department to a local authority not far from here. It states— “With reference to the above, this Department is currently undertaking an inventory and evaluation program of the Vacant Crown Land within the Region in order to assess its availability and suitability for Aboriginal Claim under the Aboriginal Land Act and Torres Strait Islander Land Act. As part of this exercise it is necessary to request from Local Authorities and other Agencies the details of any interest in the land in order to assess whether the land should or should not be gazetted as being available for Aboriginal Claim. The Department therefore requests the Council to assess the parcels as attached and to return its comments by 1 March 1993.” Some of the comments and concerns are that the land being suggested by this proposal is to be equivalent in area to all vacant Crown land. That is not to suggest that the vacant Crown land will be so granted. However, the memo says— “A number of questions arise in regard to this process and Lands Department officers can provide only limited advice.” The problem is that the Lands Department itself, and therefore the Government, does not know what the ground rules are. That is the basis of what we are talking about in this disallowance motion tonight. The proposal is that we expand the national park—— Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will defer to your ruling, but it needs to be placed on the record in this debate that the member for Burdekin is engaging in an abuse of the Standing Orders by virtue of the fact that he is not addressing at all the question of the Order in Council; he is engaging in a debate about the Aboriginal Land Act, which is unrelated and irrelevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! There is no point of order. Mr STONEMAN: The council memo states— “It is obvious that the reserves of public lands to meet future (and unforeseen) community needs will be eroded by this process.” The officer concerned, who is not a Lands Department officer but a council officer, states further— “I do not know who will receive title to the land nor the purposes to which it might be put.” I refer also to an editorial in the Townsville Bulletin of 11 May, which states in part in respect of the concerns— “Now a senior member of the Aboriginal race has spoken out, saying the debate about Aboriginal needs has run off the rails and he blames ‘the Aboriginal industry’ which, he says, is powered by ‘lefties, greenies, the Uniting Church, anthropologists and activists’. These are strong criticisms (some may think others should also be included) but they have been made by someone who has the rank to make them . . . ” The editorial goes on to talk about that particular gentleman. In my communications with the Aboriginal and Islander people, the same concern comes out, namely, that they are being used in many instances as instruments in a much larger fight, in a much larger debate, in a process. A Government member interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I have just said that it is these people with vested interests in the debate. In my considered opinion—and I go back a long time; as long as most other members in this House—in my daily contact with members of the Aboriginal and Islander community, they are basic in their suggestion when they say, “We don’t own the land; we are of the land.” In other words—“The land owns us.” That is the type of process Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2949 that I believe underlies the genuine Aboriginal and Islander philosophy. In this instance, I am concerned that an unknown, to the extent that the land is incorporated in national park which is proposed to be expanded, will drive a wedge in the community that will not be in the best interests of either the Aboriginal and Islander people in this State or the rest of the community. If we are ever to become one community, we cannot afford to have question marks such as those raised by this situation whereby a national park is expanded in the face of a proclamation by a group of people that they intend to seek the listing of that land under the Aboriginal Land Act for claim. I do not believe that is reasonable. I do not believe it is reasonable for any of the members of the community, much less the community that is associated with my particular area. This falls within the middle of my electorate, and there is a concern there. Time expired. Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (7.30 p.m.): I second the disallowance motion moved by the member for Burdekin. The Opposition moves this motion with some regret, but it has some grave concerns about the policy of the Government in relation to land declarations. Although the Opposition does not dispute the extension orders made in the Cape Upstart National Park, we must take stock and examine the progress of the national park acquisition program and the fate of national parks. It must be remembered that they belong to the people of Queensland. The member for Burdekin mentioned that the area which is the subject of this motion was visited by Captain Cook. It is a very historical site, and one which all Queenslanders want to see preserved. Generally, Queenslanders are very parochial. This area is part of our heritage. We do not want to leave it open so that people make claims on the basis that they may be able to secure exclusive ownership of it. Such a claim could be made in the future, and we should be very concerned about it. In this area, the Government has dedicated quite a few freehold leases. If this extension order stands, access to those pieces of land could be restricted. We must preserve the right of all Queenslanders to have access to this land, and that will require careful planning. The local people have raised their concerns about this matter with the Opposition. Mr Welford: Raised by one of them—Mark Stoneman. Mr HOBBS: It has been raised by quite a lot of people. Government members may deny that this matter is a problem, but Opposition members have been listening to the concerns of these people. We must recognise that this is of concern to Queenslanders. Mr Bredhauer: How many property owners are we talking about—6, 10, 20? Mr HOBBS: I take the honourable member’s interjection and I inform him that 4 per cent of Queensland is involved here. That is a large portion of land. Quite frankly, this Government has experimented with the Aboriginal land claims position. I do not believe that it has fully considered the implications for Queensland. As a result of the Mabo case, a question mark has hung over which land Queenslanders have title to. I believe that many Queenslanders are concerned about how far Aboriginal land claims will go. Originally, the Premier stated that 1 per cent of Queensland may be subject to Aboriginal land claims. However, it seems that national parks are very open to those ambit-type claims. In the near future, 4 per cent of Queensland will have been dedicated as national park areas. As a result of the Mabo case, much leasehold land will also be in doubt. 2950 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Government does not know how much land may be tied up because of Aboriginal land claims. The people in my area have real concerns about that—not just those who live close to national parks but also those who live in towns and cities in northern Queensland. However, my constituents are not the only ones who hold concerns. I have here a couple of quotes which are very relevant to this debate. Dr Colin Howard, a barrister-at-law, commented on the High Court Mabo decision. He said— “It is a novel idea and, with respect, not a welcome one, that it should be any part of a judicial power to consciously set about reshaping society, let alone on a scale adopted by the majority of the High Court in Mabo v Queensland.” Mr Welford: Who was that barrister? Mr HOBBS: A fellow named Dr Colin Howard made that comment. Mine Talk Queensland contained an article on this topic. It stated— “The degree of uncertainty will clearly impede future investment decisions and requires the fastest possible response from the Federal Government as to any directions it intends to take following the decision.” The article states further— “A report in the Canberra Times suggested that although it was very hard to say how much land might be at stake, under the Federal Land Rights Act 53 per cent of the Northern Territory had been claimed or was under claim.” The article continues on and says that it is— “. . . estimated that between 30-40 per cent of Western Australia could now be claimed and ‘perhaps as much as 20 per cent of Queensland’.” Obviously, the public is concerned that these land claims will go wider and wider. Is that fair? I can understand that people want to acquire land. Those who do not have it would like to have it, and those who have it would like more. That concept is quite simple. However, the fact is that all they are doing is taking it from somebody else. People have to understand that, if they want land, they have to buy it or obtain it by legal tender. People should not be allowed to steal land. It is all very well to have a nice, warm feeling, to be very socialistic and say, “We will take land off the rich and give it to the poor”, in the vein of Robin Hood. However, at the end of the day, that is not fair. I think that we must consider the matter rationally, and listen to what people are saying, because they have a genuine concern. Opposition members speak to all types of people, and they are receiving the same message. Quite frankly, it is a great concern and we must do something about it. Tonight, this debate is an opportunity to talk about those problems, and I am interested to hear what Government members have to say. The other point that I would like to make is that different types of claims can be made on different types of national parks. Uluru National Park even restricts access by air. I do not think that this national park we are discussing would qualify for that restriction. However, next week, or the week after, or the week after that, another national park might qualify for that restriction. So we have to be aware of these matters. It is all very well to say that we really want to help these people, but we must understand where we are going. We must keep our eye on the ball. As many members would be aware, Federal anti-discrimination legislation was passed in 1975. Since then, any transactions that have taken place, particularly in regard to leasehold land, would be in question. I am talking not only about national parkland that may be eligible for claim by Aboriginal people but also, because of the Mabo case, other areas that may be eligible. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2951

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (7.40 p.m.): I have listened to the mover and the seconder of the motion and, basically, I have come to the conclusion that the Government and the Minister have no case to answer in this disallowance motion. Neither of those two speakers referred to the disallowance. They have raised a lot of what they regard as associated, or related issues but, in essence, there was no debate about the disallowance motion itself. I note that when the member for Everton raised a point of order earlier in the debate, he made that abundantly clear. The other reason that makes me conclude that the Government has no case to answer is the media statement that was referred to by the member for Burdekin, which was published on 15 January 1993 in the Ayr Advocate. The article states, in part— “I personally have no real objection to the extension of the National Park in this instance.” I acknowledge that he goes on to express his reservations about the Aboriginal Land Act and the land claims process. However, in his media statement, the member for Burdekin stated that he has no objection to the extensions to the national park which, ostensibly, is what we are meant to be debating. I also refer to the seconder of the motion who, in one of his earlier statements, said that he does not disagree with the extension. So I am pleased to note that neither of those Opposition speakers actually disagrees with the extensions to the national park, which is supposedly the reason why they moved this disallowance motion. Because they have raised some other issues, I will refer to them. Those members went on with a lot of arrant nonsense about Mabo and its relationship to the extension of the Cape Upstart National Park. It is nonsense for them to talk about Mabo in the context of the national park. They have also demonstrated—— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: The honourable member cited the eminent barrister, Dr Colin Howard. Who is Colin Howard? As the member for Thuringowa said, for all we know he could be John Howard’s brother. I have no doubt that there are 1 000 legal experts on Mabo, but in speaking to this disallowance motion, by selecting one person’s legal opinion and citing that opinion as an authority means absolutely nothing. I could line up another 950 eminent barristers who would give me an opinion which supported my point of view. In terms of the context of this debate, for the honourable member to come into this place and say that Dr Colin Howard has said what he wants him to say does not mean much. The two previous speakers to this motion also displayed an abject and abysmal ignorance of the Aboriginal Land Act, the Torres Strait Islander Land Act and the Nature Conservation Act. The member for Burdekin spoke about how he opposed them and how he thought that they were an exercise in tokenism by this Government. He said that they were not in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Obviously, he does not even know the Acts relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those sections of the Nature Conservation Act which relate to national park issues. He said that an area subject to claim should not be declared because it contains sites of significance and that those claims would subsequently set colour against colour. The fact is that, under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Act, the Cape Upstart National Park has not been gazetted for claim. However, if it is gazetted for claim under the Aboriginal Land Act—and I think that it would be quite reasonable for the Aboriginal people in that area to ask the Government if it would consider gazetting the Cape Upstart National Park for claim under the Act—then it must go through the Aboriginal Land Tribunal process. Specific provisions that relate to the claims process are contained in the Act, and the objections to those claims should be rightly heard before the Land Tribunal, not here, in some concocted debate about a disallowance of the extensions to the national park. This is not the forum to lodge such objections. 2952 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The member for Burdekin went on to say that it is the right of every Australian to retain resolute and total access rather than exclude it for another group of Australians. That remark demonstrates his ignorance of the Aboriginal Land Act. Under that Act and the Nature Conservation Act, even if the national park in question is claimed successfully by the Aboriginal group, then it must be leased back to the National Parks and Wildlife Service in perpetuity. When it is leased back, a plan of management must be put in place. We will go through that process for all our national parks. There is no suggestion that this national park or any other national park would be excluded for the specific use of one group of people, or otherwise. In fact, if the honourable member had listened to the debate and read the legislation, he would know that this Government, this Minister and Ministers preceding her have given assurances to the people of Queensland that they will not be excluded from national parks through the process of Aboriginal land claims. To suggest that Aboriginal people want to exclude the public from national parks is arrant nonsense. It is untrue. Aboriginal people are not trying to preclude access by other people to national parks. The honourable member for Burdekin went on to talk about a letter from the Lands Department. He spoke about the Lands Department asking for advice from a particular council about a VCL in its area. The member then made a statement about how somebody said that it could be to the detriment of the community. He quietly slipped in that it was not the Lands Department that said it could be to the detriment of the community, but that it was a council employee. Let me put that squarely on the record, and in its context. The member for Burdekin was not referring to the Lands Department talking about detriment to the community, he was referring to a council officer talking about detriment to the community. The honourable member for Burdekin then went on to talk about an article in the Townsville Bulletin, that eminent carrier of social justice issues throughout recent decades. He spoke about an editorial relating to an Aboriginal elder, who talked about the socialists, the greenies and the do-gooders on the bandwagon of the Aboriginal cause. It is novel that members are discussing legitimate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. Not many honourable members speak about those issues. But when they do, they can always find one. I have known Aboriginal people since I was a kid. I used to knock about with them and play football with them. Members can always talk about a fellow who lived next door to them, or they can always find the one Aboriginal elder from Western Australia who thinks that the whole movement towards some form of land justice for Aboriginal people and the Mabo decision generally involves some communist conspiracy cooked up by the Labor Government. It is nonsense for honourable members to cite those things, because for every one that they can trot out, I can trot out another 950—as I said before about the solicitor. Mr Hobbs: Do it. We challenge you to do it. Mr BREDHAUER: I will do it in my own good time. On many occasions, I have spoken about these issues. But let me get down to tintacks with the member for Burdekin. On 18 January, an article in the Townsville Bulletin stated— “State Member for Burdekin Mark Stoneman said the land claim mentality had to be stopped before it became endemic and racial resentment, aggravated by Aboriginal claims, became a threat to community stability.” Now we get down to the tintacks of the member’s complaint. It is not Aboriginal land claims that are driving a wedge between people in the community, it is the scaremongering of people such as the member for Burdekin, who comes into this Chamber and makes outrageous claims under the guise of speaking to a disallowance motion for an extension to a national park. He is trying to drive a wedge between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Australia, and making up nonsense about land claims and a whole range of other issues. Something that never ceases to amaze me is that Opposition members represent the party of the land. They are the farmers, the people who till the soil. How often are we regaled in this House about how they care for the land; about their generations of Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2953 association with the land; about how much it means to them; and about how much it is the lifeblood of Queensland and Australia? What I cannot understand is that, if they have that empathy and association with the land, why can they not understand that a culture that has existed here for 40 000 years, or even longer, has that very same empathy for the land? Tomorrow, if I drove onto Mark Stoneman’s property, sent him away in a boat and said, “I am taking you to Thursday Island for your shots”, and then before he got out of sight of the land I pushed over his house with a bulldozer and put a match to it, would he not feel for that and harbour that feeling for as long as he lived? And would he not pass that feeling on to the next generation? The disallowance motion is nonsense, and should not be supported. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (7.50 p.m.): In taking part in this debate, I shall make a couple of comments about what was said by the previous speaker. It is interesting how, one after the other, Government members have said, “Isn’t it terrible that these people are straying all over the flat?” At no stage have they spoken to the motion. Basically, those members have spoken a lot of drivel. What did members just hear from the member for Cook? He wandered all over the place. I suggest that he wandered wider by far than did the member for Warrego. Mr Stoneman: He was concise. Mr ELLIOTT: He was concise compared with the member for Cook. Government members always make blanket statements about everyone on this side of the House. Basically, they have said that everyone on this side of the House has no interest in, or empathy with, the Aboriginal people, and no regard for the conservation values of our State. Those members should read tomorrow’s Hansard to find out what they said, because that is the way that I have interpreted their comments. As a former National Parks Minister, I find those remarks offensive. I instigated the establishment of a large number of national parks, particularly in the cape region. National parks were declared over areas where the Aboriginal people of this country had been hunting traditionally for thousands of years. Mr Bredhauer: They were declared national parks, which excluded them from country where they had lived for thousands of years. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member is wrong. It depends which ones he is talking about. I am talking about the parks with which I was associated. The previous Government specifically included in the legislation the right for those people to continue their traditional food gathering and hunting. The honourable member is speaking with a forked tongue. He does not know what he is talking about. I invite him to search the records of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, because he will learn that what I am saying is correct. There is a tremendous difference between those people in that sort of country and people of the Aboriginal race who are running around in four-wheel drives with .243 rifles in the back. That bears no relationship to what we are talking about in the national parks in the cape. I do not accept the principle that urban Aboriginal people, regardless of where they live, should be treated any differently from the way in which the rest of us in this place or in the community generally should be treated. As the honourable member said, they have supposedly been the custodians of the land for 40 000 years and, as such, they have tremendous empathy with the land. If the honourable member is talking about traditional Aborigines, I accept his point. They are fantastic people. I have had much to do with those people in various areas, particularly in Cape York. I find them interesting to talk to about their understanding of and feeling for the land on which they live. I place on the record that they would no more damage that land than would any of the rest of us who have been responsible for the care and custody of any of the national park areas of this State. The traditional Aborigines are different from urban Aborigines who feel that, because the legislation is in place, they will trade on it and use it not in the spirit in which it was drafted but to enable themselves to have an unfair advantage over everyone else in the community. They will hunt and do whatever they desire on that land 2954 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly and say, “This is our land. You people are not welcome here to do the same sort of thing.” Because I was not on the list of speakers and came into this debate at the last minute, I gave an undertaking to my Whip that I would not speak for long. I will not go on further other than to say that it is wrong to think that everyone on this side of the House has the attitudes espoused by the member for Cook in the diatribe that he delivered. It is not true and I resent it. I merely want to point out the difference between the two groups of Aborigines, because there is a vast difference in how they feel and how they relate to the land. Mr WELFORD (Everton) (7.56 p.m.): That was a pathetic apology for the disgraceful stunt being pulled here tonight. Let us be brutally frank about this. This is a shabby and cynical stunt by the member for Burdekin for personal political self- aggrandisement. As I said in my point of order, it is an abuse of the Standing Orders of this Parliament and a misuse of the processes of this Parliament for the sole purpose of reopening the debate about the Aboriginal land rights legislation in this State, which has been well and truly entrenched in this place for a couple of years. The honourable member is reopening those issues, fanning the flames of prejudice and giving misinformation for the sole purpose of pursuing his own personal publicity in his area. That is the reason behind this motion. It is a disgraceful performance. It has nothing to do with national parks. It is nothing more than a shabby attempt to gain publicity for himself by reopening the tensions. Mr Stoneman: I’ll tell you what I did. I went in front of the Aboriginal people before I said a word. Mr WELFORD: The honourable member should wait; I will come to what he said. Mr Stoneman: I’ve gone to those people. You haven’t seen one of them. Mr WELFORD: I take the interjection from the member for Burdekin. We know how he stood up in this place, patronisingly telling us how he cares for and empathises with the Aboriginal people and how he cares about other people with freehold land. He cares for the whole world, but he still uses this Parliament in a shabby attempt to gain publicity for himself by fanning the tensions between the Aboriginal people and the land-holders of that area. It is a disgraceful stunt of scaremongering and giving misinformation. The honourable member spoke in waffling terms about the process. It was evident from his speech that he has no idea of the process. He has no idea about how the Aboriginal Land Act works and absolutely no idea about the processes that allow people to claim Aboriginal land for very defined and specific purposes and in no way to encroach upon the rights and interests of freehold land-holders in those neighbouring areas. He has absolutely no idea of the process, yet he waffles in the most vague terms about the process being improper. The real motivation behind the motion is evident from his base and crude comments in the media directed specifically at the entire process that recognises Aboriginal people’s needs and interests in relation to land. Opposition members talk about their concern for Aborigines’ understanding of their land, their appreciation of the land and what land rights mean to their culture. They mouth platitudes about that but, when it comes to legislating about it and putting it into effect in a real and practical way, what do they do? They stand up in this Chamber and surreptitiously use what purports to be a motion of disallowance regarding the extension of a national park—an order that merely extends the national park and does nothing about Aboriginal land rights—to reopen the wounds of racial tension for their own purposes. Mr Stoneman: I’ve talked to the elders. Mr WELFORD: The honourable member says that he has talked to the Aboriginal people. He has talked down to the Aboriginal people. He wants to prey on them, to target a minority group for his own political advantage. He has used the Parliament dishonestly. I will be telling the media in the north what the honourable member is about. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2955

He is a cynical political manipulator. That is what he is about and that is what he has used this Parliament for tonight. Let us consider what the member for Burdekin said in the media. He said that the land claim mentality had to be stopped before it became endemic and racial resentment aggravated by Aboriginal claims became a threat to community stability. What a pathetic attempt at using that sort of language to create community resentment! That is what the honourable member is about. If he wanted to prevent community resentment about these issues, then he would not be making those sorts of statements. He would not be raising the very issue that he does not want to be raised. Why does he raise it? He raises it—— Mr Stoneman: They are coming to me saying, “We know we can trust you.” Mr WELFORD: Let us consider how much they trust him. The spokesman for the Aboriginal community, Wayne Wharton, said that the comments fuelled a fire of ignorance. Mr STONEMAN: I rise to a point of order. On behalf of the Birriguba people, I make the point that they have disowned the spokesman that the member is talking about because he does not speak for them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! There is no point of order. Mr WELFORD: The Aboriginal people know—and, before long, the rest of the Burdekin community will realise—the ulterior motives of the member for Burdekin. We know because we are in this place. He interjects enthusiastically because he cannot handle the truth being exposed. We know that he stood up in this place to abuse the processes of the Parliament; to mislead the Parliament and the people of Queensland; to mislead the Aboriginal community in this area; to scare and frighten the freehold landowners in this area; and to misuse this place simply for personal political purposes. That is all it is about. Nothing he said in any way focused on a single relevant point relating to extension of the national park or, for that matter, the real processes that do occur in consulting the community and giving the community access to the decisions in the Aboriginal Land Tribunal. Nothing he said, clearly or directly, addressed any of those issues. It was all vague waffle, designed to simply fan the flames of ignorance—the fire of ignorance, as the Aboriginal spokesperson said. That is what it is about. Then the members opposite raised the Mabo case. Anything they can throw into the melting pot, they do. Why do they do it? They do it because they have no point to raise about the national park. I am very disappointed that the member for Cunningham was drawn into this debate. I accept his point that he had a genuine interest in national parks when he was the responsible Minister. The member for Warrego, who lives light years away from this community, was drawn in to support the member for Burdekin because no-one else would be silly enough to do so. No-one else had any idea about the issues. He swanned around the caucus of the National Party on Wednesday and said, “Who’s the bunny who’s going to come with me on this one? I need to get a bit of publicity in the local paper.” Who did he get? The poor old member for Warrego. Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the member’s comments are unfair. I ask that they be withdrawn. I point out also that a lot of Aboriginal people live in my area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw the words that offend the member for Warrego. I accept the fact that not even he could be silly enough to be drawn in by the member for—— Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. Obviously the member does not want to finish his speech, and I will give him a hand not to finish it. I am totally offended and wounded by the comments of the member. I ask that he withdraw those comments. Mr WELFORD: Talk about faint hearts and timorous souls! The final point that I want to make—— 2956 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the comments. Mr WELFORD: I said that I withdraw the words. The final point that I want to make is this: I note from departmental records that the member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, was consulted prior to this extension and the Order in Council being made. He has betrayed that courtesy. Rather than going into the community and simply announcing, as he might have, that the national park was extended and that this was an opportunity for greater recreation for the people of that area, what did he do? He twisted it around and fanned the flames of prejudice. Time expired. Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (8.06 p.m.): I rise to oppose the disallowance of this order that has been tabled in the House to enlarge the Cape Upstart park by one half of the previous area. Previously, it was somewhere around 5 600 hectares, and this motion will extend that to somewhere around 8 400 hectares. Cape Upstart is a very prominent part of the landscape of the Bowen to Townsville region. I must say that, on numerous journeys, I have noted it over the past 20-odd years since the Sunlander rail service has gone through that area in daylight. Previous to that, all journeys through—— Mr Stoneman: I’ll put the flag up every time you go past. Mr ARDILL: I thank the honourable member. All journeys through that area were previously during the hours of darkness. But for the past 20-odd years we have been able to enjoy travelling by train through that particular section of Queensland in daylight. On numerous occasions, I have noted that particular point of the landscape as a place of great beauty. Looking at it from a distance of about 16 kilometres on the railway line looking north, one can see Cape Upstart for a considerable distance along the rail track. I can understand why Aborigines would have a great affinity with that particular part of the landscape. I can understand also why they would want to see that area preserved. Of course, the area has significance in terms of the recent European history of Australia, too, because it separates Upstart Bay from the area where Captain Cook actually landed and took samples. Mr Stoneman: No. He landed at Cape Upstart. It was one of seven landfalls in Australia. Mr ARDILL: No. Actually, it was not. It was the third. Mr Stoneman: It was one of seven. Mr ARDILL: It was the third. Mr Stoneman: It was the third, but it was seven that he made. There is a plaque there which I helped to unveil. Mr ARDILL: Right. Mrs Woodgate: There is a clock going. Mr ARDILL: It is all right. There is plenty of time. The member for Burdekin can interject as much as he likes. I will allow all the interjections to be put on the record because most of the speech that he gave in the House today will condemn him forever in regard to his attitude to Aboriginal people. As I was saying, Captain Cook landed there, so it has significance from the point of view of European settlement as well. Obviously, the Aboriginal people feel a great affinity with this area. The descendants of the people who have occupied that land for thousands of years would have a greater affinity with it than would most other people. I must say that I certainly understand that affinity. In point of fact, a report has been compiled by the Department of Environment and Heritage on the area which has already been included in the national park. The report states— “The area is boulder strewn and has stony shallow soils. It supports an unusual dwarf silver-leaved ironbark. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2957

An area of vine scrub to the north of the Elliott River now also included in the National Park was found to contain 62 species in ‘an excellent small patch of shrubland/semi-deciduous notophyll vine forest’. No weeds were recorded in this scrub or at its margin. These littoral rainforest communities are now extremely rare and are arguably the most threatened rainforest type in Queensland. Every opportunity should be taken to preserve threatened remnants and to ensure their availability for migratory species along the coastline.” The member for Burdekin is opposing the recommendation that this area of land be included in a national park. Why does he do that? There are two reasons. First of all, he has had complaints from a very vocal minority of people who actually squatted on that land. He has spoken about the great number of people who are opposed to its inclusion, but in point of fact there are only 139 electors in the whole district from the southern section of the Burdekin electorate right up to Inkerman, which is probably some 40 kilometres to the north west. There is no great public objection to the proposal at all. Mr Bredhauer: He even said in one of his press releases that most people thought it was already in the national park. Mr ARDILL: In point of fact, there are Aboriginal middens in the area and there is a proposal for a camp to be established at Station Creek to enable restoration work to be done in the area. Up to 12 young Aborigines will be placed at that camp on a rotational basis and they will be able to work on that restoration program. Mr Stoneman: I have publicly supported that. I have been to their meetings. I have supported it, and they are in constant contact with me. Mr ARDILL: Right. As I said, those Aborigines will actually do restoration work under the direction of police officers and various other authorities, including the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. The member for Burdekin has said that there is opposition to the proposal, and there is. Mr Stoneman: No. Mr ARDILL: Not to that program, but to the proposal in toto. The opposition to which the honourable member refers comes from squatters. It is okay for a number of squatters—white people—to settle in that area. The member for Burdekin and other members of the previous National Party Government supported those squatters being in that area to the extent that they freeholded land which was intended since 1967 to be included in the national park. It is okay for those people but, according to the member for Burdekin, we would not want Aborigines in the area. I can only assume that his main objection, in line with that of a section of the community, is to oppose anything that Aborigines want to do that is useful. Mr Stoneman: You have slipped a cog. You were going really well. For 18 minutes you were talking sense. Mrs Woodgate: Oh, give it a rest! Mr ARDILL: It is okay. Let him go. As I said on another occasion when I referred to the native mounted police and their depredations in Queensland since 1840 when they went around murdering Aborigines almost at will with the support of white officers, there is a section of the community who do not believe that Aborigines are entitled to anything. In spite of the fact that Aborigines have been in this country all those years, some people believe that Aborigines are somewhat inferior to white people. I can only assume that the member for Burdekin supports that type of attitude. That sort of attitude must change. There are people in the community who like to portray the average Aboriginal person as a person of poor attitude and violent behaviour. That is totally at variance with the facts. I refer to stories indicating that a large percentage of Aborigines are in prison for violent offences. In point of fact, they are not true. The majority of Aborigines are not in prison for violent offences at all. I table a list of percentages that indicate that Aboriginal people are not naturally violent. In this community, we need 2958 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly reconciliation, but that will never happen while the attitude that has been demonstrated in this Parliament today persists, that is, preventing Aborigines from having any say in the management of national parks. No doubt the Minister will deal with the way in which national parks, even under Aboriginal ownership, are managed in the interests of the total population. Unless we cease denying our violent past, we will never achieve reconciliation with the Aborigines. Time expired. Hon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—Minister for Environment and Heritage) (8.16 p.m.), in reply: This has been a rather disappointing debate from the Opposition, because I had expected to hear some very strong reasons for opposing the expansion of that particular national park. It is disappointing to know that the member for Burdekin put the motion on the notice paper for all the wrong reasons. It seems to me that not one of the members of the Opposition has addressed the reality of the disallowance motion that the honourable member placed on the notice paper. My understanding is that there must be some relevance in the debate, so I find it very difficult to suddenly become enmeshed in a debate about Aboriginal land rights and potential land claims over land which is not even gazetted for claim at this time. It is a little bit unfair that if the honourable member wanted to debate Aboriginal land claims he should have done it in that way. It is rather underhanded and sneaky. However, I will address some of the points that were raised by the members of the Opposition and try to get across some of the information that they do not seem to have and that they do not seem very happy to accept. From what I have heard from Mr Stoneman, the member for Burdekin, it seems that he has no objection to the increase in the size of the park on any technical or scientific basis. He has said that in various media releases that I have in front of me. He does not seem to disagree with the fact that those additions are important for conservation purposes or recreational purposes, nor that they will increase recreational opportunities by the provision of boat access to the park. I presume that the honourable member will not object to the proposal to provide camping facilities at Coconut Bay to further improve recreational opportunities for the public. Mr Stoneman: No. Ms ROBSON: None of that? The honourable member does not object to any of that? That is a start. I assume also that the honourable member will have no objection to the fact that the Government has provided for an additional 80 rangers in the 1992-93 budget and that, as a result of that initiative, additional staff will be available to increase supervision in parks such as Cape Upstart and additional staff to work on the planning of Cape Upstart’s development conservation. Mr Stoneman: What I would like to see is some of the Aboriginal people trained and put into that area. Ms ROBSON: The honourable member will see it. Mr Stoneman: That is what I want to know. Ms ROBSON: The honourable member ought to ask the relevant questions, and he will get the answers. He will see all of that. Mr Hamill: It would be a very novel thing for him to ask a relevant question. Ms ROBSON: I realise that. All that I can get out of the debate from Opposition members, if we can call it a debate, is that the Government should not make the park any bigger because the Aboriginal people might get it. That point has been illustrated clearly by speakers on the Government side. That is a very sad state of affairs. It is not what the disallowance motion was about. It also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the way in which the Aboriginal Land Act works. Again, that was very clearly addressed by the member for Cook and the member for Everton. Under that process, a piece of land must be gazetted for claim. All claims must go through a very strict process. The claim must have relevance. The references by the member for Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2959

Cunningham, who is no longer in the Chamber, indicated that anyone could walk off the street and, if that person had Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, that person could make a claim. That is simply not the case. Again, members of the Opposition have not been paying attention to that very definitive process that is in place to address land claims. Mr Stoneman: What I am concerned about is that it could divide the community that has great togetherness. The Aboriginal people are expressing concerns. Ms ROBSON: That is an unbelievable approach. The Aboriginal people have not expressed those concerns to us. Mr Stoneman: Let me tell you that is a fact of life. Ms ROBSON: The reality is that the Government is dealing with the Aboriginal people on a daily basis. The Government is negotiating with them. The Aboriginal people are negotiating very strongly and firmly, and they are quite definite on what they want. I do not know who has been telling stories to the honourable member, but I am telling him right now that the debate that is going on in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community does not indicate what the honourable member is talking about. I would like to see some evidence of what the honourable member is saying, because it is absolute rubbish. Mr Stoneman: Tell me the name of the chief elder. Ms ROBSON: This is wonderful! The honourable member is the world’s greatest name dropper. “I have been everywhere. I know everybody.” Mr Stoneman: You cannot. I know the people. Ms ROBSON: The honourable member should give me the evidence and the names of the people who are raising that controversy. Mr Stoneman: You tell me you are doing it on a daily basis. You have just made the statement. Ms ROBSON: No. The honourable member is the one who is making the claims. The process in place works. We are having dialogue with the Aboriginal people, which they never had with the former National Party Government. On this issue, they are moving forward with the Government. The honourable member had better produce some evidence to the Government. In his speech, the member for Burdekin indicated clearly that, although he has no real objection to the expansion of that national park—and I am delighted, although I do not know why his disallowance motion is on the notice paper—he has concerns about the relevance of the expansion of national parks. He clearly has concerns about the significance of the Government’s acquisition program. I will say a few words about that. Having been in this Ministry for less than eight months, I have been extremely impressed with the processes by which the Government has determined areas to be converted to national park. I have been very impressed because they are representative of specific communities. The Government has not gone out and simply grabbed parcels of land. Mr Stoneman: I want to know how you are going to manage Cherbourg. Ms ROBSON: That is a different issue, again. It would be wonderful if the honourable member could be relevant. The Government has not gone out and grabbed pieces of national park and forests only for the sake of expanding the national park estate. It has been done carefully, correctly and in consultation with communities, and people by and large are very, very happy. Mr Stoneman: They are outraged. Ms ROBSON: The honourable member should show me the evidence of the outrage. As yet, I have not seen it. I only have his word for it, and that has very little credibility with me. I will make a few comments on what I thought was a very uncomfortable contribution by the member for Warrego, who said that he seconded the 2960 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly motion with regret. I would have thought that was a fairly damning statement. He referred to freehold properties in that particular area. There are some 200 freehold properties in that area, and a lot of them are actually properties which had been squatted on and to which the former National Party Government in this State gave freehold. Mr Stoneman: Sold. Ms ROBSON: Oh, yes, and the processes are interesting, too! I am afraid that we were not responsible for the acquisition of freehold property. However, we have taken into account, in terms of management, how those properties can be integrated into national parks with the most advantage to the national parks and the people who use them. It was a challenge, but we are doing it. Mr Stoneman: Are you going to integrate the freehold into the national park? That is what you just said. Ms ROBSON: No, we are not integrating. I am talking about management of the total area—integrated management plans which include various types of land-holdings. Mr Stoneman: You just said, “We are going to integrate it into the national park.” I just wanted to make sure you got it right. Ms ROBSON: Okay. One final point that I want to make in terms of the debate that was raised by the member for Warrego which, as I said, was a reluctant debate, is that I constantly hear references to our giving land to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I constantly hear references to their not being entitled to it. I studied Australian history. My understanding is that just over 200 years ago we came in and we took it all from them. Why, all of a sudden, when they have achieved through our legal system, not theirs, rights to make claims to that land, to have some sort of holdings of their own which are significant to them culturally and traditionally, do they have no right? Are we talking about the fact that they do not have the big bucks to go out and buy those sites? That is really a shame, but it was their land in the first place, and the Mabo case has recognised that right to proceed with a claim. It is a very important democratic right. It is their right. This disallowance motion that is being debated tonight does not actually talk about that. Unfortunately, that is where members opposite have taken this debate. The members for Cook and Everton clearly understand that issue and, I think, have spoken very well on it and have raised some interesting points. I think they are points that we all need to bear in mind when we are thinking about this particular debate. What we are talking about in Queensland in terms of national parks is just over 3 per cent of the total State. That is a very small part of a State the size of Queensland. I really do not think there is anything too significant about that amount of land. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with giving back to people that which belonged to them or which they have a right to claim back. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): Order! The honourable member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. Mr Elliott: The NIMBY syndrome. Ms ROBSON: I was very pleased, actually, to note that the member for Cunningham has a good relationship with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is a bit of a comfort to know that is happening and that, as a former Minister, he does have an understanding of their traditions and their culture. That really gave me a bit of a ray of hope. Even though it had nothing to do with the disallowance motion, it was nice to hear him say that. I am sure it was a great comfort to many members on this side that he does hold those views. Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2961

I was very pleased to hear the contribution made by the member for Archerfield. Again, it came from his heart. He is a person who feels very clearly that those areas up there are to be shared, that they are beautiful, and that they need to be protected. That is what the debate on this motion should have been about. It should have been about that particular area at Cape Upstart. It should have been about the acquisition of that park and why members opposite objected to it. It should not have been a debate about Aboriginal land rights, which will take place in this Parliament again as we go along. If that particular piece of land—that particular piece of national park—is gazetted for claim by the Aboriginal people, that will be the appropriate time to have the debate that we have had today, not now. Those things will be brought before this House and members opposite will have an ample opportunity to debate them. I will not speak any longer. I think that Government members have clearly covered the essence of this debate. I thank all members for their contributions, even though it is disappointing, as I have said, that the Opposition shows a lack of support for such a progressive move forward in our national park acquisition plan and has not fundamentally addressed the real essence of this debate. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 29 NOES, 47 Beanland Veivers Ardill McElligott Connor Watson Barton McGrady Cooper Beattie Nunn Davidson Bennett Nuttall Elliott Bird Pearce FitzGerald Braddy Purcell Gamin Bredhauer Pyke Gilmore Budd Robertson Goss J. N. Burns Robson Grice Campbell Rose Healy Casey Smith Hobbs Clark Spence Lester D’Arcy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Davies Sullivan T. B. McCauley De Lacy Szczerbanik Mitchell Dollin Vaughan Perrett Edmond Warner Quinn Elder Welford Randell Fenlon Wells Rowell Foley Woodgate Sheldon Gibbs Simpson Hamill Stephan Tellers: Hayward Tellers: Stoneman Springborg Hollis Pitt Turner Laming Mackenroth Livingstone Resolved in the negative.

TRAFFIC AMENDMENT REGULATION (No. 6) 1992 Disallowance Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (8.35 p.m.): I move— “That the Traffic Amendment Regulation (No. 6) of 1992 tabled in this House on 23 February 1993 be disallowed.” Traffic Amendment Regulation (No. 6) refers to riding on a footway or reservation. The amendment allows a person to ride a bicycle on a footway, if the person— “(a) takes reasonable precautions to avoid colliding with persons and things on the footway; and 2962 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

(b) rides in such a way as to not cause danger or an obstruction to persons and things on the footway.” It is all very well to use words such as “ride to avoid collision and so as not to cause danger or obstruction”, but that is a very broad approach and it will be difficult—in fact, one could say impossible—to administer and police. Already, a number of accidents have occurred between cyclists and pedestrians. In most cases, a cyclist can remount his or her bike and ride away without leaving any identification or without checking to see whether the person who has been hit is injured seriously. Recently in the city, an accident occurred in which a woman was knocked over and injured seriously. The culprit was apprehended only because a witness happened to recognise him as a person who had been to the office at which the witness worked on a number of occasions. Reports from New South Wales and Victoria demonstrate that, if the victim is elderly and the injuries are serious, in many cases, the person never recovers fully. Such an accident can mean that an elderly person’s quality of life is lost and it quite often leads to a premature death. In Victoria, cycling is permitted on footpaths, but only in a number of small local authority areas. That has been allowed for 18 months on a trial basis. The introduction of footpath cycling has been a very slow process. The authorities claim that they are holding their own at this time. A considerable amount of—— Mrs Bird: Where did you get that information? Mr J. N. GOSS: From the Victorian Government. For 48 months, extensive public consultation and education has been carried out in those local authority areas. Schools in the designated areas have conducted intensive bike education programs which teach students how to ride a bike on the footpath, how cyclists should warn people walking on the footpath ahead of them and the exact responsibility that cyclists—including young cyclists—have. In addition to that, local authorities choose which footpaths are suitable for use by cyclists. I know that the intention of the amendment was to get very young children off the road. However, I have a copy of a recent article by the Federal Road Safety Council which calls for children under the age of 10 to be banned from riding on public roads if they are unaccompanied. The council is considering making that the law throughout Australia through the Federal Office of Road Safety. I am saying that it may be a good proposal that children under the age of 10—who are often involved in serious accidents on our roads—and other children of a very young age ride on the footpath. However, most of the problems occur with teenage youths who ride at high speeds through shopping centres. By giving cyclists open slather, they can ride on the footpath in Adelaide Street. I am sure that that was never the intention. However, the fact is that people are riding on footpaths at high speed. An elderly person steps out of a shop doorway, and what happens? He or she is bowled over by a bike. The impact of that bike colliding with that person can be quite severe. Mr Hamill: Would that person be in breach of that regulation? Mr J. N. GOSS: The cyclist gets up and rides away. How is that person identified? The cyclist is in breach of the law, but he or she gets up and rides away. When the Minister has his chance to speak, he can explain that matter. However, frequently, because of the speed of teenage cyclists, no opportunity is given to avoid collisions with pedestrians. There is also the problem of motorists reversing out of their driveways. As honourable members know, over the years, trees and shrubs on Brisbane’s footpaths have developed. Although it is against the law for people to reverse out of their driveways, 99 per cent of them do so because their land is not big enough to allow them to turn and come out frontways. Consequently, if a cyclist is riding at 20 kilometres an hour down the footpath and runs into the side of a car, even though that driver has looked and could not see anybody, he or she is in the wrong. By the time a driver reverses out of his or her driveway, stops at the edge of the road and checks the traffic from both ways, and the cyclist rides into his or her car, that motorist Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2963 is then in the wrong. On top of that, the areas that the council in Victoria has chosen specifically to trial the bicycle riding have concrete strip footpaths. There is still a great belief by young cyclists that they are exempt from stop signs, give-way signs, and the general traffic rules of the day. A typical example of that belief is a cyclist riding down the road, wanting to turn right, but seeing a red light ahead, and deciding that the easiest thing to do is to move over to the right-hand side of the road, ride around the corner on the footpath and, having turned the corner, cross the road again and end up back on the road or the footpath on the other side. The idea is for the cyclist to ride as fast as he or she can to get around the corner without having to stop at a red light. However, cyclists do not roam only on the footpaths. Mr Beattie: What? Mr J. N. GOSS: Many footpaths are simply not suitable for cyclists to ride on. Some roads are wide and have good, wide shoulders painted on them. I would hope that, in those cases, cyclists would still use those roads. However, I am concerned about bicycle couriers travelling in the heart of the city. Traffic police in the city have admitted that unless the cyclist remains at the scene of the accident, it is almost impossible to effect a prosecution. Mr Beattie: That could happen whatever we do. Mr J. N. GOSS: As more cyclists start using the footpaths—and they are encouraged to do so—the injury rate to pedestrians will increase. The honourable member may not be worried about elderly pedestrians. However, I know that he is a very caring man, and that he just wants to say the opposite to what I am saying. This amendment is a cheap way out of not providing a proper bikeway system. Before the last election, we were told that $15m would be spent on bikeways. Perhaps saying that the footpath is now the bikeway is a cheap way of providing a bikeway system. It was disappointing to me that this measure was announced at a time when the Travelsafe Committee is examining bicycle and pedestrian safety. Mr Hamill: Are you reading from the Travelsafe report? Is that where you are getting this evidence from? Mr J. N. GOSS: No. I have information from Victoria and New South Wales, and also press releases from those States, so the Minister need not try to imply that this information has come from the Travelsafe report. Mr Hamill: I bet it did. Mr J. N. GOSS: The Minister is just wasting my time. The key issues are the injury rates and the lack of consultation. This Parliament has an all-party committee that is looking into this matter. It will make a determination. The Minister has just ignored the Travelsafe Committee, or perhaps he did not know that it was looking at pedestrian and bicycle safety. Mr Hamill: No. Mr J. N. GOSS: The Minister did not know. That is a terrible admission; that the Minister would just ignore the recommendation of an all-party committee. Why have a road safety committee if the Minister wants to ignore it? Mr Hamill: What recommendation have I ignored? Mr J. N. GOSS: There is no recommendation at this time, but it is part of the committee’s responsibility to look into these matters. I strongly support the notion that local authorities should be able to choose what footpaths are suitable for cyclists to ride on. Many of the concrete strip footpaths are 900 millimetres wide. If we are to encourage cyclists to ride on them, we must look at local authorities being involved in widening the concrete strips along footpaths. I wonder what will happen to local authorities when cyclists have accidents or slip on footpaths. If a footpath does not have a concrete strip, what happens if it is so rough that a cyclist falls? Claims such as Leo McLeay’s $65,000 compensation might be made against local authorities. Have we 2964 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly taken into consideration the possible accident rate? The number of pedestrians making claims after falling over on footpaths or tripping on stones or uneven pieces of concrete is increasing. No doubt this will add to the costs of local government. Local authorities assure me that there was no consultation with them about this; that all of a sudden it was thrust upon them. It would be great if we could say that children under 10 years of age shall ride on the footpaths. However, they do not ride only on the footpaths; they have to ride across intersections. Vehicles turning in and out of intersections are not expecting young children or anybody else to ride straight off a footpath and across an intersection. We are creating more problems because we have not gone into schools and undertaken an education program about riding on footpaths and how to exit them. I have seen children who ride along footpaths and then go straight out across pedestrian crossings. There is a perception, especially among young children, that they will not be hit by a motorist, especially on a pedestrian crossing. I am sincerely concerned about the safety aspect. I believe that pedestrians should have the right to feel secure on a footpath without the risk of being run down. Mr Nunn: Bravo! A stinging attack upon the Minister! Mr J. N. GOSS: It does not have to be a stinging attack on the Minister. There should simply be a practical discussion on this issue. What happens in areas where children walk to school? The real problem is that because we have not undertaken an education program, greater numbers of elderly and very young people will be injured on footpaths. Because many footpaths in Brisbane are too narrow, they are unsuitable for cyclists. In some cases, people waiting under the shelter shed at a bus stop have been knocked over by a cyclist. The cyclist simply hopped on his bike and rode off. What can we do about that? The Minister does not really care about pedestrians. All he is saying is that if we can get the cyclists off the road, fewer of them will be injured, but he is not saying what will happen to elderly pedestrians and young children around schools and preschools when irresponsible motorists on the road take no notice of the rules and drive straight through crossings at high speed. Time expired. Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (8.51 p.m.): I second the disallowance motion moved by the member for Aspley. In speaking to this motion, I do so with some feeling. The amendment in question certainly came as a surprise, and now that its effects have become apparent, it is cause for grave concern. The amendment was brought forward to correct one problem, that is, the compulsory wearing of safety helmets by cyclists and the penalties for non-compliance, which I support fully, but it has only created more problems as its wider ramifications are felt. Concerns have been expressed publicly in many newspapers and in other sections of the media. I have had numerous contacts from residents in my electorate who are worried that cyclists are now allowed to ride on footpaths. They are even more worried that there seems to be no method of protecting pedestrians. Footpaths were initially built for pedestrians, at their expense as local ratepayers, and by the local councils—not by the State Government, which has now changed the rules. As an elected member on the receiving end of constituency complaints, on 5 April I wrote to the Minister for Transport and expressed my own and their concerns. On 16 April, the Minister replied at some length. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Minister’s letter. The regulation is quite clear in that cyclists are obliged to observe all road traffic rules and required to ride in a careful manner. They must wear a helmet, keep to the left, indicate to change direction and take reasonable precautions to avoid colliding with pedestrians and things on the footway. They must not cause obstruction to persons or things on the footpath. Most cyclists are law abiding, but some of them are not. In my electorate, I have had several instances in which pedestrians have been knocked to the ground, with the offenders riding off at speed and laughing as they go. The Minister described such behaviour as antisocial, but it is really much worse than Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2965 that. In one instance, a constituent who was knocked over outside a Chinese restaurant in West Street, Burleigh Heads, climbed to his feet, got into his car and chased the two 15-year-old offenders. He caught up with them, jumped out of his car and confronted them. One of the boys pulled out his bicycle pump, unscrewed the top and out popped a knife. My constituent got back into his car. Already badly bruised, he was not going to get knifed as well. There have been numerous other incidents, and some pedestrians have been badly hurt. Only last Wednesday, 12 May, an elderly lady was knocked over in James Street— the main shopping street in Burleigh Heads—by an 11 or 12-year-old on a bicycle. She was badly shaken and bruised and is now in the care of a medical practitioner. In common with the member for Aspley, I, too, am a member of the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee, and have been involved in that committee’s investigations into pedestrian and cycling safety. Those investigations were still proceeding when this traffic regulation amendment came into effect. The committee’s report has not yet been prepared, and it is certainly not my place here to discuss committee matters. All the matters I shall raise today have been canvassed either directly with me by constituents or in the public media, or from other sources independent of the committee. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the Minister took the trouble to reply at length to my letter. Although it sounds very reasonable and plausible, his reply still does not address the problems that the amendment has created, that is, the safety of people of all ages for whom the footpaths were built. The cutaway gutters at the end of each street footpath—a fairly recent innovation in kerbing and guttering design—were introduced to assist physically handicapped people in wheelchairs, and mothers with babies in prams who had difficulty in negotiating gutters. Those changes were certainly not made to give cyclists easier access to the footpaths. From the beginning, the bicycle was designed for use on the road and not on the footpath. Obviously, we all share the Minister’s concerns as to the safety of cyclists, particularly young cyclists. Their safety is of paramount importance. Riding on busy roads and streets is dangerous, simply because a small number of road users do not obey the traffic rules. There would be few accidents if everyone observed the road rules, most of which are plain commonsense. There are many other avenues that should have been explored so that cyclists do not have to fight the traffic on the roads and streets. Queensland has by far the worst cyclist fatality record of any State. In the 12 months to March this year, 20 cyclists were killed in Queensland, more than half the nation’s total of 39, according to statistics issued by the Federal Office of Road Safety in Canberra. During the past year, 16 of the cyclists killed in Australia were aged 5 years to 16 years, which emphasises the need to focus on protection of the young—not to give the antisocial hoodlum the right to injure and terrorise every footpath user, including the very young. Perhaps a better course of action would have been to restrict use of the footpath to cyclists most at risk—the young cyclists—and to impose realistic penalties and speed limits. Most young cyclists are not a threat to pedestrians; the main danger is created by older cyclists who ride on footpaths as fast as they do on roads. Mr Hamill: What sort of age cut-off are you talking about? Mrs GAMIN: I would have to leave that to the department, but the problem area in my electorate appears to be 15 years and older. Mr Hamill: So, you say under 15 would be okay; 15 and over would not? Mrs GAMIN: I am saying that the problem complaints that I am receiving relate to cyclists15 years and over. It is my contention that the amendment was brought in too hastily, without sufficient thought being given as to how it would be controlled, whether cyclists would obey normal traffic rules or, indeed, whether they would behave with normal courtesy. As I have just explained to the Minister, the complaints I have received are not all about young cyclists, but mostly about those in their mid to late teens. They 2966 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly ride fast, they are careless, and woe betide an elderly citizen who ticks them off or asks them to take more care. The senior citizen often receives a mouthful of abuse, and that can be a pretty scary experience, too. In his letter, the Minister stated that Department of Transport officers will monitor this aspect of the new bicycle provisions closely and report any danger to pedestrians. But how are they going to monitor it? Every day we see cyclists flouting the laws—no helmets, double dinking, riding three and four abreast, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding the wrong way in one-way streets—endangering their lives and the lives of others. Most people who have been knocked over do not think of reporting to the Minister or to the Department of Transport; they get in touch with their member of Parliament. Elected members like myself are the ones who receive reports of these and other incidents. Although I appreciate the Minister’s confidence that the Queensland Police Service has stated that this area of enforcement will receive high priority, there is absolutely no doubt that it is quite impossible to police unless we have police officers watching every footpath and checking up on every person riding a bicycle. In my area, we are strapped for police, we are short of trained police officers, the crime clean-up rate is causing grave concern and we have had a spate of break-and-enter offences. So ask any self-respecting officer what priority he is going to give to policing the footpaths ahead of dealing with crime and I know what answer he will give. As footpaths come under the control of the local authority, I understand that the Gold Coast City Council is seeking legal advice as to its position on this matter. It is quite possible that other councils are doing the same. Inquiries made at my electorate office indicate that traffic rules for bicycle riders and the penalties for offences are still causing confusion. I know that cycling safety is a problem, but so is pedestrian safety. It should not be impossible to tackle safety aspects that will protect all sections of the community. This amendment regulation was brought in too quickly, without enough forethought. Without doubt, it is going to have to be amended again. The sensible thing to do is to disallow this regulation and then get it right so that a bit of sanity can be restored to our footpaths. For instance, the central business districts are most unsuitable places for footpath bike riders, and so are shopping streets and shopping centres. So this aspect must be considered, although there may be problems in the definition of a shopping street. Perhaps it may be defined as being an area where there are parking meters or having marked parking bays? Certainly, cyclists deserve to be protected from traffic danger, but so do pedestrians going about their normal business. Elderly people particularly are often a bit hard of hearing and their reaction times are slower. As their bones are more brittle, they are injured more easily. Every instance of a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian reported to me involves an elderly person. In conclusion—the Minister acted very quickly—I thank him—on my request to disallow “jet paks”—those 35 cc backpack motors that can propel a skateboard or rollerblade rider at speeds up to 60 kilometres an hour. I am pleased that Queensland has followed the example of New South Wales and banned those devices which, in their current state of design, are unsafe for inexperienced users and people on roads and footpaths. But now that the 6 January amendment to sections of the Traffic Act which concern cyclists has come into effect and is causing so many problems, I hope that the Minister will also agree that this amendment be disallowed just as quickly to enable thorough examination to be made of this whole problem matter of cycling and pedestrian safety. The compulsory safety helmet legislation is good; it is on the footpaths where the problems are apparent. Over many months, the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee has done a lot of work on those problems. I submit that it would be wise to wait until the report and the recommendations are completed. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (9 p.m.): I rise in total opposition to this disallowance motion. Unlike the member for Aspley, I am not trying to have a bob each way. The member for Aspley, rather than opposing this legislation, seemed to be Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2967 advocating enforcement of the legislation and education, and I heartily agree with that. Last week, my mother, who I hope will forgive me if I describe her as a little old lady who is very keen about walking on footpaths, was extolling the virtues of the Bundaberg City Council and telling me how it had finally solved the problem of cyclists in Bundaberg by allowing them to ride on the footpath, therefore, reducing the risk to themselves and to motorists. The council had also improved the footpaths to facilitate this. I explained that that had been, in fact, a State regulation, and that the Opposition had that very day moved a disallowance motion on the regulation. My mother could not believe anyone could be so stupid and, frankly, neither can I. Most members of this House would be aware of my commitment to road safety and, indeed, to reducing road trauma. I have urged the Minister on many of the measures the Government has introduced to reduce the incidence of trauma and publicly and loudly supported those road safety initiatives. This current measure is one that I have sought and supported and have pushed for strongly within the community groups, such as the p. and c. associations in my electorate. I have not heard one word of dissension. I have heard arguments from some bicycle lobby groups, but those arguments have been based solely on the grounds that it would weaken their case for more and improved dedicated bikeways. Separate, dedicated bikeways are an excellent aim, but in the meantime we have vast mileages of empty footpaths used primarily by the very fit or would-be-fit between 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock in the morning, and they are not used for the rest of the day. In the meantime, we have wobbly cyclists mixing with heavy traffic. I welcome anyone to come out to my electorate and look at that lethal mix and say that this is a bad regulation. Amendments to the traffic regulations which concern cyclists came into effect on 1 January 1993 based on recommendations by the Department of Transport and the Queensland Police Service. The primary effect of those amendments was to introduce a system of penalties for bicycle offences and a bicycle offence notice system to enable police to enforce helmet wearing legislation and other requirements for cyclists. A secondary effect was to generally permit riding on the footpath in Queensland, except where such riding is likely to constitute a danger to pedestrians. This would have the effect of prohibiting riding on footpaths in a careless manner when pedestrians are on the path. I am impressed by the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Perth, in particular, to share paths without danger or detriment by behaving in a mutually courteous manner. Cyclists ring their bells to warn pedestrian traffic, who move out of their way. Yes, it takes some education and, yes, it takes some courtesy, but I refuse to believe that Queenslanders are incapable of such behaviour, which seems to be the proposition being put forward by the Opposition. This regulation states quite clearly that it allows for bicycles and tricycles to be ridden on footpaths if the person takes reasonable precautions to avoid colliding with persons and things on the footway, and rides in such a way as not to cause danger or obstruction to persons and things on the footway. Members speaking for this motion have acknowledged this and at the same time attempted to claim that the law needs to be changed because of some people’s dangerous behaviour. The legislation arises out of discussion about the impact of the bicycle offence notice system. It was recognised that many, especially young cyclists, used the footpath at that time illegally. The offence notice system and its enforcement might have had the effect of forcing those young, often learner cyclists, onto the roadway into the mainstream traffic where they are obviously in greater danger. Without the amendment to the regulations, we would have seen the anomaly whereby one safety measure aimed at saving young cyclists’ lives would have the effect of endangering them further and putting them at greater risk of serious trauma. Discussions regarding this amendment provoked the idea of limiting the age at which cyclists were allowed on footpaths. I note that both previous speakers raised the possibility of having an age cut-off. This concept was dismissed as unworkable because it was recognised that young cyclists are 2968 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly frequently accompanied by, monitored by and, indeed, taught by older cyclists, often their parents, and that this is to be encouraged, not discouraged, and it does not pose any serious solution to separate them. Senior experienced road cyclists have stated clearly that they are not interested in using footpaths as they are too slow and, as people have said, they are not built as expeditious bikeways. They prefer to use the roadway and take their risks with the traffic as they are in control and that is their right of choice. The Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory allow the practice of footpath cycling. Victoria has held extensive trials, and those two States were consulted, paying particular heed to their safety implications. No significant problems were noted. Counts of cyclists using footpaths and accident rates were taken before, during and after the trials in Victoria with no significant differences being found. This indicates that there is little behavioural change and that, in reality, current practice is being legitimised. In all discussions I have had with community representatives, the general reaction has been one of relief that such cautionary behaviour has been allowed. Caring parents felt that they could not allow children to cycle on the road and, at the same time, had felt guilty for trying to protect their child by encouraging them to ride on the footpath in what was an illegal action until 1 January 1993. Recent reports from police indicate that the complaints from pedestrians about cyclists on footpaths have not increased since that date. The number of injuries due to collisions between pedestrians and cyclists is low, and has not increased since footpath cycling was introduced. I want to also point out that the dangers of being hit by a cyclist are far less than the dangers of being hit by a moving vehicle. Although a pedestrian hit by a cyclist may suffer bruising and occasional breaks—and I am not trying to minimise the effect of that on an elderly person—the cyclist who is hit by a car usually does not recover. Of course, there are some members of society who use antisocial behaviour in any format, whether as pedestrians, motorists or cyclists. I accept that the small minority can have a nuisance value and can cause real problems. I know that my local shopping area has had problems in the past because of youths on bikes. More latterly, the same youths have moved on to skateboards and, even more recently, onto rollerblades. I think there is a definite need to control such behaviour; but, again, outlawing the sensible behaviour of the majority because of the thoughtless behaviour of a few young hoons is a nonsense—a giant dose of overkill. These antisocial youngsters are unlikely to have any regard for reversals in the law, anyway. It was not the law when they started doing it in the first place, and they would not know anything about the fact that the law has changed. Community concern regarding the possibility of such conflicts has been raised as an issue in this debate. However, it must be pointed out that prior to the introduction of the bicycle offence notice system, police officers found it difficult to enforce any of the range of bicycle offences, including cycling on footpaths, riding against traffic lights and riding over pedestrian crossings. This system ensures that the behaviour of cyclists is controllable and that they do not constitute a danger to pedestrians. The Queensland Police Service has stated that this area of enforcement will receive a high priority because the police are concerned about all risks to safety. This Government, the Federal Labor Government, the Brisbane City Council and many other councils in the State are committed to increasing the number of cycle paths. Significant sums of money are being spent on a range of projects. I have to admit to being a pedestrian who takes early morning walks and uses a bikeway for one of the most pleasant walks along a creek. This little old lady has no qualms about sharing the area with cyclists. I am more afraid of driving around cyclists, even experienced cyclists. I am aware of the fragility of the cycle that offers absolutely no protection to the cyclist’s person and I am aware of the balance that is necessary and the forces such as gutters, ruts, potholes and wind gusts that can cause loss of balance and a change in direction. Bicycles make me nervous. As a motorist, I would love all of them to be taken off the road. However, I also Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2969 believe that we should be aiming to encourage environmentally friendly and fitness- inducing methods of transport. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (9.10 p.m.): I congratulate the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha on bringing some commonsense to this debate after the contributions we heard from the honourable member for Aspley and the honourable member for Burleigh. The real nub of this issue is very simple. Last year, the Government introduced regulations relating to young cyclists wearing helmets, which provided that failure to do so would be regarded as an offence attracting a fine of $30, applying from 1 January this year. Because the Government did not want to encourage young children onto the roadway, it ran into a slight problem with the new regulation. I can sympathise with some of the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Aspley and the honourable member for Burleigh in relation to senior citizens. However, the reality is that if we are going to protect our children—and, as a parent, I speak with some particular interest in this subject—we have to have laws that will work. In terms of threats to the elderly or accidents, nothing said by the honourable member who moved this motion for disallowance will be changed by the passing of this motion. At present, the reality is—and we have to live in the real world—that kids have always ridden their bicycles on the footpath and still do. That is a fact of life. Hoons of the type to whom the honourable member for Burleigh referred have been using footpaths since Adam and Eve were in shorts. They did so even when it was illegal to do so. The Government’s intention is to create as safe an environment as is possible for the users of bicycles. The antisocial behaviour referred to by the honourable member for Burleigh— and no-one in this House supports that type of behaviour—will go on, whether it is legal or not. Mr Hamill: Precisely! Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection, because that is the point. The kids who threatened one of the honourable member for Burleigh’s constituents with a knife will ride on the footpath whatever the law says. No member of this Parliament supports that type of behaviour and we all hope that that behaviour is met with the full force of the law. However, the Government’s intention is to protect kids and do something about ensuring the provision of optimum conditions for bicycle safety. I make it clear that it is very difficult to have it both ways, which the honourable member for Aspley tried to do. The honourable member stated—and I agree with part of this—that children under the age of 10 tend to be the ones who have accidents. The honourable member for Burleigh produced statistics which supported that contention, if I understood her correctly. Obviously, the changes in traffic regulations are designed to protect young children. The honourable member for Aspley said that it is basically fine for children under 10 years of age to ride their bikes on the footpath. However, whenever an arbitrary age limit is attached to regulations, police officers find it very difficult to enforce the law by having to run around checking kids’ birth certificates. Bearing in mind the demands that are made of the Police Service, we either make it permissible for kids to ride their bikes on the footpath or we do not, because it is too difficult to impose an age limit. Mrs Gamin: What about the CBDs? Mr BEATTIE: I am grateful to the honourable member for reminding me. I will come back to that subject in a moment. My electorate of Brisbane Central comprises the CBD and Fortitude Valley and also suburbs in which a number of large schools are located—for example, the New Farm State School, the Wilston State School and St Columba's. In those areas, there are a large number of footpaths and very few pedestrians. Kids who are going to those schools and who ride their bikes on the footpaths are not going to be a threat to anybody. In the suburb of Wilston where I live—I am speaking now about the future of my young kids who are in Year 2 and in Year 3—schoolchildren have to cross Kedron Brook Road and there are also a number 2970 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly of other busy roads in the area. As a parent, I am a lot happier about the safety of my children when they use the footpath while getting from where they live to their school. They will not be a threat to anybody. On some of these streets a person could fire a shotgun and be unlucky to hit anybody. That is the reality of suburbia. We talking about suburban streets. The likelihood of an accident involving young kids on bicycles—particularly when they are using the bicycles to go to school—will be minimal. That point cannot be lost in this debate. I turn to the issue that was raised by the honourable member for Burleigh when she interjected and said, “What about the CBD?” That is a very valid point. The regulations specifically provide for the people who use the footpath to take reasonable precautions to avoid colliding with persons and things on the footway and to ride in such a way as not to cause danger or an obstruction to persons and things on the footpath. The Government is not opening the floodgates. There are clear restrictions relating to reasonable precautions and riding in such a way as not to cause danger. The real concern of the honourable members for Burleigh and Aspley seemed to be about those in their late teens. I think that I am being fair to those members when I say that they did not seem to have a problem with the under-15s. I say for the benefit of the record that those in the over-15 category must be aware that, in common with anyone else, they are subject to the force of the law if they ride in a reckless manner. I stress again that the regulations that exist will not support the instances that were related to this House by the honourable member for Burleigh. Those instances are covered by the existing regulations. Mrs Gamin: I would be happy to get them banned in the CBD and the shopping streets, as indeed the Minister suggested in his letter. I would be satisfied if we could get them banned out of the city. Mr BEATTIE: Let me make this point, because it is relevant to what the honourable member for Burleigh said earlier. The point remains that those people who would ride without taking reasonable precautions or in a way that could cause danger or in fact causes danger are subject to the civil law of negligence. In common with anyone else who is guilty of negligence, they would end up being sued. The honourable member for Aspley said that people do not stop after an accident. The reality is that some cyclists will never stop after an accident. Mr FitzGerald: A lawyer himself! You are touting for business. Mr BEATTIE: Does the honourable member have a shadow ministry yet or is he still whingeing? When he gets a shadow ministry, I will take his interjections. The question of whether or not people will stop after an accident is a red herring and a furphy. If they will not stop now under the existing provisions, they will never stop whether or not it is legal. Therefore, we need enforcement agencies—the police or whoever—to pursue those people. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about. The provision by the Government talks about the real world. It talks about a real situation. It does not talk about fantasy land. I do not for one minute want to dismiss the genuine concerns that the honourable members for Aspley and Burleigh raised. I am simply saying to them that what is being proposed by the Government is the only sensible thing that will work. I conclude my remarks in opposing the disallowance resolution by pointing out that the Government—and I am one of the members who will benefit from the provision—is a strong supporter of bikeways. The Government has committed $15.2m to the construction of bikeways around the State. If honourable members look at what is being done, they will understand that for all sorts of good reasons—environmental reasons, conservation of energy reasons and pollution reasons—the Government is trying to encourage people to use bikes. That is why the Safe Bikeways Program for 1992-93 provided for the following bikeways in my electorate alone. A bikeway is being provided in the New Farm/Story Bridge cliff area, and construction will commence in June 1993 to the value of $200,000. The Albion bikeway starts slightly outside my electorate but will go through my electorate, through the suburbs of Albion, Windsor, Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2971

Herston and Spring Hill into the city. The cost of that is $690,000. It is linked up to another part of that bikeway towards which the Government is allocating $300,000, that is, the Normanby-Roma Street section. That is a total in my electorate of $1,190,000 towards bikeways. As the two relevant honourable Ministers sitting in the House—the Honourable the Minister for Employment and the Honourable the Minister for Transport—will know, not only is it designed to provide an encouragement to people who use bikes; it also creates employment. It has a dual effect. Let me conclude my remarks by saying that this is the only practical solution that the Government can come up with. It is the only one that will work. I know that there are difficulties with it, but it is the only one that will work. Time expired. Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (9.21 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to support the Government in opposing the motion moved by the member for Aspley. To be quite frank, I do not know much about the electorate of Aspley, but I do know a lot about my own electorate of Sunnybank. Mr J. H. Sullivan: You have something in common with the member for Aspley— he doesn’t know much about it, either. Mr ROBERTSON: I take that interjection. I do know about my electorate of Sunnybank and I do know about the network of main roads that crisscross it. I do know where my schools are located. Tonight, I would particularly like to acknowledge one school, representatives of which have come to Parliament House and are sitting in the gallery. I refer to the Runcorn Heights State Primary School Parents and Citizens Association. A Government member: A worthy school. Mr ROBERTSON: Indeed, it is a very worthy school. I know where that school is located. The relevance of the location of that school is that it also is on a main road. It is not serviced by a bike path. I am concerned—and I have spoken to a number of schools about this—about increasing the provision of bike paths throughout the Sunnybank area. My electorate has a large number of primary and secondary schools. I acknowledge the work that the Government is doing to extend the network of bike paths, and the Soorley council administration is doing the same. The reality is that today, and indeed tomorrow, if the member for Aspley has his way, there will still not be a network of bike paths crisscrossing my electorate. If we force children who currently use bicycles to get to school back onto the main roads, frankly I fear the worst in terms of their safety. It makes no sense to me to be moving at this stage to disallow this regulation that was passed by the Government to take effect from 1 January. We are changing our attitudes towards transport. The days of using motor vehicles are long gone. In my electorate of Sunnybank, the traffic is—— Mr Randell: Come up to my electorate and see if you can get by without a motor vehicle. Mr ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, the honourable member opposite does not have a metropolitan electorate to look after. He would not understand the ever- increasing traffic problems in Brisbane and shows his ignorance by his interjection. The reality is that we do have a traffic problem in Brisbane, we need to make this city safer—particularly for our children—and we need to encourage increased usage of bicycles. Mr Randell interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: If the honourable member opposite who continues to interject cared to actually look at some of the traffic studies that have been undertaken over a number of years, he would see that one of the areas in which increased usage of motor vehicles is the highest is in local motor vehicle trips, that is, parents taking children to school and going to do the shopping. It is that increased usage that is causing the worst 2972 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly traffic problems in residential areas such as my own. We cannot solve that problem overnight. No-one in this Chamber could seriously suggest that we possibly could. Mr Randell: Four years! Mr ROBERTSON: Yes, and in four years we have started on a bicycle path program, which is more than the honourable member’s administration did in 32 years. As I have said, we are not going to solve those traffic problems overnight. Until we do, we need to take some interim measures. As I said at the beginning of my speech—and I will finish on this note—I think in this case the member for Aspley has a poor sense of timing. We should look at this after we have a comprehensive network of bikeways and certainly not before. Mr DAVIES (Mundingburra) (9.25 p.m.): I will contribute only a few additional comments to the debate tonight. Obviously, I am speaking against the disallowance motion. Quite frankly, I cannot understand the logic of the people on the other side. The logic that prevails upon the member for Aspley, Mr Goss, is something that amazes me. It also amazes me that a member of the Travelsafe Committee, which is currently looking into these types of matters, would stand up in the House and speak against it before the committee has brought down its recommendations. Mr Bennett: Disgraceful! Mr DAVIES: I think it is disgraceful and highly inappropriate for the member to move the disallowance motion and then to participate in the debate. Mrs Woodgate: The member for Burleigh is on the committee, too. Mr DAVIES: I was not aware of that. That is almost a double jeopardy then. Mrs Woodgate: Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Mr DAVIES: Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I will take that interjection. Mr Hamill: I know which one is Tweedledum. Mr DAVIES: Would the Minister like to be more specific? When my kids started riding to school—and it would not have been legal at that time—I told them the route to take to school. They were told to keep off the main roads. They left our house in Acacia Street in Mundingburra, went down to Sunset Avenue, down Wellington Street, across Wellington Street, down to the bowls club in Mundingburra, around the corner, then up onto the footpath on Ross River Road. They kept off Ross River Road. In the morning peak hour, Ross River Road carries about 7 000 cars past the Mundingburra State School and St Josephs School at Mundingburra. Since then, we have made it legal for kids to ride to school. But Mr Goss is proposing that we now turn the clock back and make it illegal. Quite frankly, that is absurd. The rules that existed before were absurd. We changed them to make it safer for kids to go to school. I will admit that there may be some problems around major shopping centres. I am sure that, with the passage of time, the Travelsafe Committee will consider those types of problems and it will probably make appropriate recommendations to the Parliament, to the Government and to the Minister. But one does not throw the baby out with the bath water. One does not go back to try to fix up that one little problem by throwing out the tremendous safety initiative that this Government has taken. As I said before, it is an initiative that many parents such as myself have taken for years. I would like to make a brief comment about a matter that I think has been covered by the member for Brisbane Central. Mr Goss said that we are trying to get out of it cheaply by not providing bikeways. The member for Brisbane Central has pointed out correctly that in this year—— Mr Randell: You don’t know. Mr DAVIES: I would know. In this year, the Government has committed $15.2m to the construction of bikeways throughout this State. Obviously, I will have to do a little bit more lobbying because not quite as much money has been spent in my electorate or Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2973 the ones near it as has been spent in the electorate of the member for Brisbane Central. However, I do not take that away from him. That is a goal to which I will have to aspire. In the electorate of Thuringowa—and the honourable member for Thuringowa, Mr McElligott, is in the Chamber tonight—$120,000 is being spent on bikeways this year on Peter Street, and another $35,000 is being spent up around the Weir School. In Townsville, $140,000 is being spent on the Saunders Street bikeway overpass, and on Stuart Drive near Edison Street and University Road. In Bowen, $62,000 is being spent. In Hinchinbrook, $100,000 is being spent. So in our area, about $457,000 is being spent this year. Mr Bennett: They will save many lives. Mr DAVIES: As the honourable member for Gladstone correctly points out, they will save many lives. I congratulate the Transport Minister on the tremendous initiatives that he has brought about in the three years that he has been the Minister. Day by day, he seems to come out with initiatives in the areas of rail and road and things such as bikeways. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (9.30 p.m.), in reply: I thank Government members for their support against this vicious onslaught by the Opposition. The tirade to which we were subjected by the member for Aspley, I am sure, would have left those of less stout height quivering in their boots. On a serious note, this debate involves a very important and serious issue. Although I accept the sincerity with which the member for Burleigh delivered her remarks in relation to her concerns for some of her elderly constituents—and I sympathise with those views—I believe that, in the case of this measure and in the case of road safety in general, we have to look at what is for the overall community good. The overall community good, with respect to road safety, is saving lives. The overall community good, with respect to bicycle safety, is also saving lives, reducing road trauma and recognising that many of the lives that will be saved are young lives. This measure was one of a number of measures taken by the Government to enhance road safety and particularly bicycle safety. It does not stand alone. As members have commented during this debate, this measure, which removes the legal impediment to a cyclist riding on a footpath, was taken not in isolation but as one of a range of measures to improve bicycle safety. It comes in line with the requirement and the enforcement of compulsory helmet wearing, a measure which has been acclaimed widely, endorsed widely and adhered to widely in Queensland. It comes as part of a range of measures, including the introduction of bicycle offence notices to clear up the confusion that surrounded the enforcement of bicycle safety. Previously, a ridiculous situation existed in which cyclists who rolled through a red light would be liable for a $130 fine and would lose points from their drivers’ licence, should they have one. Given the popularity of cycling, particularly among young people, it was quite unreasonable to expect a penalty of that magnitude to be levied upon the vast majority of cyclists in this State. Indeed, the Police Service identified that many of the penalties which were attached to offences that pertained to cyclists were inappropriate. It is little wonder, therefore, that there was very little enforcement in relation to bicycle offences in this State. Upon the advice and with the support of the Police Service, the measure which we are debating this evening was one of a range of other measures to enhance not only cyclist safety but also the enforcement of cyclist safety in this State. This measure comes on the heels of another important initiative of this Government in relation to bicycle safety—the Bike Ed program, which is being introduced to our schools. I take up the point that was correctly made by the member for Aspley, that education is an important part of road safety. Through Bike Ed programs, we can educate cyclists, starting from a young age, about the correct and safe ways of using cycles to their benefit and not to the detriment of other road or pathway users. That is an important facet of this regulation. Although it allows cyclists to use the footpath, it 2974 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly requires those cyclists to act in a responsible manner, to take reasonable precautions to avoid collisions with other people on those footways and not to ride in a way such as to cause danger or an obstruction to other people on those footways. The Government does not place all its store upon regulatory change. A number of Government members made the comment that, through its Safe Bikeways program, this Government has put its money where its mouth is with respect to bicycle safety. Although I heard one of the usual interjections from the Opposition ranks that this $15.2m project was pork-barrelling, when I looked through the schedules of bike safety, I saw plenty of references to local authorities which Labor members do not represent. I see that the member for Burleigh is nodding her head, and I thank her for that support. That program is a genuine effort on the part of this Government to combat two ills. The first ill is the danger to cyclists, which is overcome by the construction of safe pathways for young cyclists to travel to and from school and for adult cyclists to travel to and from work or to and from shopping centres. The second ill that this $15.2m program seeks to address—and I believe that it does so very effectively—is the problem of long-term unemployment. Through this program, those who have been unemployed for long periods are able to gain useful skills while providing infrastructure which will have a lasting community benefit. I am pleased to report that two-thirds of the 137 projects to be constructed under the Safe Bikeways program are located in the regional, provincial and country areas of Queensland. This year, 80 kilometres of safe bikeway has already been constructed under that program, which has created 280 jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The House will come to order. There are too many audible conversations in the Chamber. Mr HAMILL: Let me focus on the issues that surround this debate. Although the law said that on footpaths which were not shared footpaths or bikeways, cyclists were hitherto regarded as being illegal users, all honourable members are aware that many cyclists used those footpaths. Collisions between cyclists and pedestrians were not unknown prior to this new regulation being promulgated. However, this regulation seeks to reflect reality. The reality is that footpaths have been used by cyclists and will continue to be used by cyclists. However, as I have already stated, it is important that we educate cyclists on how to conduct themselves properly on the road or on the footpath. This debate involves the serious issue of road safety and the serious issue of personal safety. Before the Government introduced compulsory helmet wearing, each year in excess of 1 000 serious injuries were sustained by cyclists in Queensland. A very high proportion of those serious injuries were head injuries. Also, a significant number of those people who were suffering those injuries were children. I stand to be corrected—and I do not believe that I can be—when I say that, regardless of the age of the cyclist, it is unquestionably safer for the cyclist to be on the footpath than on the road, competing with traffic for road space. Not very many cyclists who get involved in a collision with a truck or another vehicle moving at speed live to tell the tale. If we are serious and sincere about trying to reduce road trauma, then it is only fitting that we adopt measures that are designed to do that. I concur with the views expressed by my colleague the member for Mundingburra who—and I believe quite responsibly as a parent—called his children aside and told them how they should travel to school. I believe that those were the actions of any responsible parent. I share the guilt that was expressed in this Chamber by the member for Mundingburra who advised his children to disobey the law as it then stood, because when my kids were little I told them to ride on the footpath and not to ride on the road. I value the lives of my children as, indeed, does any other parent. They are getting older every day, but the youngest—— Mr FitzGerald: How old were they when you allowed them to ride pushbikes out on the public road? Mr HAMILL: My eldest child started to ride a bike to school when he was eight years old. At that time, I instructed him to take his bike onto footpaths, to cross busy Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2975 roads at pedestrian lights, and not to run the risk of trying to compete with traffic at a busy intersection. That is commonsense. Members opposite, including the member for Lockyer, somehow claim that that was inappropriate advice. I ask honourable members: what responsible parent would have advised otherwise? The fact is that, in the interests of safety, cyclists have long used footpaths. Cyclists who use footpaths for the purpose of safety should act responsibly and have regard for other users of footpaths and, through this regulation, we can enforce that responsibility. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr HAMILL: I am pleased that I have won over the member for Lockyer. I expect that, when the vote is taken on this motion, he will vote with the Government. The member for Burleigh commented that the age of 15 should perhaps be a cut-off age—that if the cyclist is under 15, it is okay to ride on the footpath, but if the cyclist is over 15, then it is not. It is very difficult to identify a person who is 15 as opposed a person who is 14, or a person who is 16. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Kurwongbah has not aged a day since she has been in this place, but the same could not be said for many others. I also want to comment on the role of the Travelsafe Committee. Two members of the Travelsafe Committee from the Opposition parties have chosen to move and second this disallowance motion. Mrs Woodgate: Shame! Mr HAMILL: It is a shame on two counts: firstly, that they moved this motion and, secondly—at least in the case of the member for Aspley—they misinterpreted the role of the Travelsafe Committee. This Government established the Travelsafe Committee as an all-party forum to comment, monitor and report on matters pertaining to road safety. The Travelsafe Committee does not have a power of veto, but I am pleased to support its activities and to take on board recommendations that it makes in good faith in relation to road safety matters. In relation to this measure, the member for Aspley said that the Travelsafe Committee was not consulted, that it was compiling a report in relation to bicycle safety, and he questioned that the Minister would dare to go ahead and put forward a regulation while the Travelsafe Committee was yet to make a report. I think that it is interesting to contrast his attitude with that of the other member of the Travelsafe Committee, who congratulated the Government and me on the swift action that we took to ban the use of jet packs for in-line skates and cycles that were possibly going to be introduced on the Gold Coast. The Government took that action without reference to the Travelsafe Committee and without waiting for a report from that committee about the relevant safety aspects of the matter, and so it should have. I thank the member for Burleigh for her support of that measure. The Government has a responsibility for the safety of all members of the community, and it has a responsibility to adopt a responsible and balanced attitude towards safety. In relation to this matter, it is absolute nonsense for the member for Aspley to claim that no consultation with local authorities took place. I could go back three years and examine the correspondence that I entered into with the Gympie City Council in that regard. I could go back to the period during which I consulted and corresponded with the member for Aspley’s erstwhile leader in Brisbane City Hall, former Lord Mayor Alderman Atkinson, in relation to this very same issue. Indeed, considerable discussion, consultation and debate as to the merits or otherwise of taking this matter on has taken place. Following that extensive period of consultation, the Government decided that it was in the interests of safety in general, in the interests of road safety and for the overall community good to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths, but with due care and attention to be given to other footpath users. Government members spoke about reality. Opposition members talked about restoring sanity to our footpaths. As the member for Aspley well knows, the facts are that in those trials that were carried out in Victoria, when both cyclists and pedestrians 2976 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly were given the use of footpaths, there was no measurable change in behaviour in the cyclists using the footpaths. It has not been something which has changed people’s behaviour, nor do I believe that this regulation will change people’s behaviour. However, this regulation will stop it being an offence for cyclists who have due care for their own safety to use a footpath to get out of the way of heavy traffic. Why should we continue the farce of having an illegality put on a person who has due care for his or her own safety? Our children want to get to school safely, and they should be allowed to use the footpaths, rather than have to jostle with traffic on the road. Opposition members have really missed the point in this debate. The Government’s position on this matter is clear. If we are given the choice, we will vote in favour of road safety, and we will vote against road trauma. When we put this to the test shortly, those members who vote against this disallowance motion will be putting road safety first. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say “Aye”. Opposition members: Aye! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the contrary “No”. Government members: No! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the “Noes” have it. Mr Hamill: Divide! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! A division is required. Ring the bells. The bells being rung— Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have taken advice from the Clerk. In these circumstances, the Minister is not entitled to call a division. The bells will be stopped, and there will be no division on this motion. Motion negatived.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (9.48 p.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Increased Taxes and Charges; Electricity Accounts Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.49 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, after that episode from the Minister—— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I call the member for Gympie. Mr STEPHAN: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not something that members would want to see happen every night. However, at the present time in this State we are seeing a continuation of this Government’s increasing taxes and charges by whatever means and under any circumstances or camouflage. I do not have time to cite too many examples of this, but I can use land rents as a very good example. The Minister for Lands has said that his idea of a marginal increase in land rents is an increase ranging from 300 per cent to 570-odd per cent. On this basis, under the Minister’s so-called concession, the rental on a property with an unimproved value of $428,000 would be $4,700 per year, and the rental on a property with an unimproved value of $257,000 would be around $2,800 per year. When one takes into consideration Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2977 the recession, which has bitten hard into the community, this is an extraordinary sum of money. We can certainly do without such rentals. I turn now to the charges imposed by the Queensland Ambulance Service and the so-called free hospital system, particularly when a patient has to be transferred from one hospital to another simply because the necessary facilities to treat that patient are not available at the first hospital. People in my electorate are transferred to hospitals in Nambour or Brisbane. If a patient does not subscribe to the Ambulance Service, he or she must pay around $1,000 to be transferred from Gympie to Brisbane. Surely, the Government would not be very proud of that. The program for the registration of building contractors is not working very well at the moment. Since charges have been imposed for the registration of contractors, only a very small proportion of them have seen fit to become registered. The cost of registration is $215 for an individual contractor and $440 for a company. This represents another charge on a group of people who cannot afford it. As to electricity account payments—I have received a letter from a constituent of mine, who stated that if payment for an electricity bill is not received by the due date for four consecutive periods, the electricity supply is disconnected. This is done without any form of reminder notice or courtesy call from the electricity supplier. The only advice that is given of this new procedure is contained in a two-line paragraph on the back of the electricity bill. Not too many people would read that. Members should bear in mind that, as a normal accounting procedure, most businesses finalise their accounts at the end of each month, whereas electricity bills are issued in the middle of the month. The electricity authorities have seen their way clear to impose another charge on those accounts. I ask members to bear in mind that in some cases the electricity authority is holding a $1,000 bond on business accounts. It is not as though the businesses are not paying their accounts. They are paying them. A Government member interjected. Mr STEPHAN: It is all very well for Government members to interject “Why don’t they pay their bills?” They do pay their bills. Government members are not being realistic and are not taking into account the difficult times that companies and individuals are going through. In this instance, this motel is going through difficult times and it will have to adjust its accounting procedures. Time expired.

Grand Hotel, Gladstone; ICI Plant Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (9.54 p.m.): It is with great sadness that I report to this House a disaster of historical significance which occurred this afternoon with the burning down of Hanson’s Grand Hotel in Gladstone. Fortunately, no injuries were sustained. The building is more than 96 years old and is an historical landmark in the City of Gladstone. A great Labor family, the Hanson family, has owned the pub for the past 63 years. Indeed, a former member of this House, Martin Hanson, was a proprietor of that hotel until his death in 1976. He is survived by his wife, Mary, and family. Honourable members might recall that Mary is the daughter of a former Labor Premier, Ned Hanlon. The Grand Hotel has a major place in Gladstone’s history, and its proprietors, the Hansons, have been well regarded in Gladstone through their generosity to charitable and sporting causes. Mr Nuttall interjected. Mr BENNETT: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Sandgate. The hotel has been a meeting place for unions, church groups and clubs. It has strong links with the Labor Party. The number of campaign meetings held there over time would be too numerous to count. 2978 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Grand Hotel, containing some of the best-preserved architecture of its type, has been extensively damaged by fire, with damage running into several million dollars. In strong Labor tradition, the first consideration of its manager, Leo Zussino, the son-in- law of Martin Hanson, was that no loss of life occurred, and the staff were the first to be assured of their future—something that members on the other side of the House would not know about. My commiserations and those of the Gladstone Labor Party and the citizens of Gladstone go to Mrs Hanson, the Hanson family and the patrons and staff of the hotel on this very sad day. A building may be made of bricks and mortar, but the heritage value of this building is lost for all time. In the time remaining to me, I would like to pay tribute to the chemical industries in Gladstone. I refer firstly to the ICI plant commissioned at Yarwun in June 1990. That event was the culmination of three years of planning and development, allowing ICI to become the largest supplier of sodium cyanide in the Australian market and the second- largest producer in the world. Another company that has also been a good corporate citizen to the City of Gladstone is Minproc Chemical Company Pty Ltd, which began its operations in late 1991. Since that time, its production capacity and its client base has been expanding at a steady pace. Today the Gladstone plant produces high grade sodium cyanide for over 40 consumers in five countries. Minproc has developed stringent controls for the safe packaging and transport of its sodium cyanide, ensuring that a quality product is delivered to the customer’s store. ICI chose Gladstone for a number of reasons. Firstly, the company was made welcome. The community understood the benefits that the new plant would bring to the area and, whilst far from complacent, adopted a responsible and commonsense approach that ICI continues to respect. Secondly, Gladstone was chosen because of its infrastructure. Gladstone has excellent transport connections—road, rail, sea and air. Key raw materials are also readily accessible. Ample electricity is available from the power station nearby and water supply from Awonga Dam is plentiful. The natural gas pipeline from Wallumbilla services the plant. Housing, schooling and recreational facilities for employees are well developed. Thirdly, Gladstone was chosen because of its ease of access to markets. Gladstone is well placed for access to the gold mines in northern Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. It also lies midway between the major chlorine markets along the Queensland coast. Gladstone is a very strategic location for the markets that ICI serves. I point out also that on 20 August the Premier is opening ICI’s new ammonium nitrate plant. Construction work on the new plant commenced in 1991 and the plant is expected to be commissioned shortly. A permanent work force of 60 people will be employed, and maintenance and associated work will employ a further 30 people. Time expired.

Australian Republic Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (9.58 p.m.): To change Australia from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is not a simple matter; it is a complex one. The words “Queen” and “Governor-General” appear some 90 times in the Commonwealth Constitution. These amendments, together with their relevant sections of the Constitution, will mean massive complex changes. There are three key issues—the reserve powers of the head of State, the power of the Senate and the role of the States—to which we as a community must turn our attention. It is apparent that the Keating Labor Party wants to take away the current reserve powers of the Governor- General so that there will be no check or balance on an all-powerful Federal Government in Canberra. It is a grab for power. As the current Governor-General recently stated, the abolition of the links with the monarchy will not overcome situations such as those which in 1975 led to a political crisis and the sacking of a Government, followed by democratic elections. Those reserve powers must be detailed and incorporated in the Constitution. The reserve Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2979 powers need to include the ability for a head of State to dismiss Governments and call an election when the Government is unable to obtain approval for appropriation or money Bills, or ignores a vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives. The dismissal process for a head of State through impeachment by both Houses of Parliament will need to be thoroughly spelt out, particularly the majority required and the circumstances of impeachment, as will the election process. A further crucial issue involves that of the Senate. Under the Constitution, the Senate exists as a State’s House—a House of review with equal representation from the States to the advantage of less populated States such as Queensland. It is Prime Minister Keating who wants to erode the powers of the Senate of which he has frequently spoken in disparaging terms such as “unrepresentative swill”. The curtailing of the powers of the Senate would overcome the situation that existed in 1975 and it would end forever any check and balance on heavy-handed Government and politicians in Canberra. Currently, under section 53 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Senate has the same powers as the House of Representatives, except in certain aspects relating to money Bills. Those Senate powers were carefully drafted by our founders to ensure that the less populous States, such as Queensland and Western Australia, were given fair representation and not dictated to by News South Wales and Victoria. Today, we still see Queensland ignored by Canberra in favour of Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. Keating did just this in selection of the Republican Advisory Committee; six of the seven members whom he appointed come from Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne and none come from Queensland. Premier Goss has now shown Labor’s true colours by stating in Parliament his belief that the Senate might as well be abolished. The third key issue involves the State of Queensland. The first question that must be asked is: when will this Goss Labor Government stand up for Queensland, or is this Government going to allow the State Constitution to be undermined? If that happens, then the existence and effectiveness of State Governments will be entirely dependent on the political whims of the Australian Government. The Queensland Constitution Act says quite explicitly that to make changes to the definition of “Parliament” or to the “Office of Governor” requires majority support of the people of Queensland in a referendum. The Queensland Constitution says in section 2 (a) that the Parliament consists of the Queen and the Legislative Assembly, and that every Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly requires the Governor’s assent in the name of the Queen, otherwise it shall have no effect. Section 11 (a) says that the Governor is the Queen’s representative in Queensland, and that abolition or alteration shall be subject to majority support at a referendum of the people. However, it may be possible under sections 106 and 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which set out the method of altering the Constitution, including State Constitutions, to override the Queensland Constitution provided that a majority of the voters in Queensland approve the change through a referendum; therefore, it is imperative that this Goss Labor Government at last stands up for the interests of Queensland. It should not be forgotten that when Prime Minister Hawke was prepared to re-examine the financial and other relationships between the Commonwealth and the States, with the full agreement of the States, Keating strongly opposed him and wanted to curtail the powers of the States so that they would become even more dependent on Canberra, financially and politically, than they are today. At the next Premiers Conference, Keating will put the financial screws on the States. In this debate, however, the republic of Australia and constitutional and other restraints on the States will emerge as well. The long cherished rights of Queensland are more in peril today than they ever were under the Whitlam Labor Government. Four other points need to be made briefly. The first is: why do we need to change the title of the head of State from “Governor-General” to “President”? Why not have the Governor-General as head of State? Secondly, what will be the relationship between the State Governors and the head of State and what will be their role? Are they to be elected by the Queensland Parliament on the same basis as the Commonwealth head of 2980 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

State? Thirdly, the term “Commonwealth of Australia” should be retained as it properly describes the Federation of Australia. The fourth point is the issue in relation to the cost of a head of State. Australia, with a strong heritage, is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world—a nation with a stable, democratic Government—an independent nation, free of revolutions, with a multicultural society and freedoms only dreamt about in most countries. We are a large, diverse nation of six States suffering from the tyranny of distance, a country the size of the mainland United States, which consists of 48 States. It is imperative that we do not allow this emotionally charged republican debate to become a grab for power. Indeed, we have a duty to ensure that the whole agenda is on the table and that the rights of Queensland and its citizens are not surrendered to an all powerful, unaccountable Government in Canberra. Time expired.

Air Sea Rescue Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (10.04 p.m.): Every year, hundreds of lives are saved and dozens of potential tragedies are averted by the outstanding and courageous efforts of members of the Air Sea Rescue, who put their lives on the line, often in treacherous conditions, often at their own expense, to save others. Air Sea Rescue members and committees are motivated, dedicated and committed volunteers who give freely of their time to provide rescue services to boaties, board riders, swimmers, divers and other users of our waterways and the open sea. Air Sea Rescue is a volunteer marine rescue organisation whose main objectives fall into two categories: preservation of life and preservation of property. The Air Sea Rescue Association’s commitment to the public is to respond where and whenever possible to any life threatening situation with fully trained and dedicated rescue crews. There are two Air Sea Rescue groups in the Currumbin electorate—the Currumbin Air Sea Rescue and the Point Danger Air Sea Rescue. The Currumbin Air Sea Rescue group is an integral part of the Statewide network which provides a service for those who enjoy our coastline, and ensures that assistance is close at hand in times of emergency. I have seen at first hand the expertise and professionalism of the Currumbin Air Sea Rescue crew. I was on the rescue boat, a 7-metre Shark Cat, when we came across an overturned catamaran with the owner and his young son in the water and in obvious difficulty. The rescue crew took the young boy on board the rescue boat and skilfully executed the righting of the catamaran, which was badly damaged and had to be towed to shore. If it were not for the very observant volunteer Air Sea Rescue crew, the catamaran, the man and his young son could very easily have drifted out to sea. Currumbin Air Sea Rescue provides a 24-hour service to the community, and its members are also a vital part of the State Emergency Service and can be called upon during times of disasters such as fire and flood, as well in times of disaster at sea. Both the crews and the radio operators are provided with link pagers and are operational immediately upon summons. The Currumbin Air Sea Rescue administration building located near Throwers Bridge on Currumbin Creek is used for meetings and training programs, as well as social gatherings. The operational base is at a separate location at the Currumbin estuary, and houses the radio room, first aid station and crew quarters. The groups need a budget in the vicinity of $100,000 per annum to cover operational costs and provide equipment, including radios and motors, training programs, maintenance of radios, aerial masts, supplies for the first aid station and medical equipment for the rescue boat. General maintenance for the boat and engines to keep them in top condition is a constant drain of finances, with tow ropes alone costing $1,500 each. The history of the Air Sea Rescue Point Danger Association began in 1965 when the Northern Rivers and Gold Coast Land Sea and Air Rescue Organisation was formed. The area covered by the organisation was from Southport in Queensland to Brunswick Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2981

Heads in New South Wales. Their first rescue launch was a 16-foot Seafarer Vega, fitted with twin 40-horsepower outboard motors and was christened Jaycee 1. The rescue organisation was well established by 1968, and the official name of the group was changed to Northern Rivers and Gold Coast Rescue Organisation. Since that time, the organisation has been through other name changes, such as Tweed Group, Coolangatta Tweed Air Sea Rescue and, finally, with the opening of the Port Danger radio communications centre, became Air Sea Rescue Point Danger. It has established one of the best rescue communications networks on the Gold Coast and the northern New South Wales coast. In the 12 months ended 31 July 1992, its efforts included persons assisted, 146; persons rescued, 32; and loss of lives, one. It had 88 call-outs; 533 person hours on call-outs; and 14 836 hours monitoring radios. Air Sea Rescue Point Danger, which has been in existence for nearly 28 years, has progressed from a small, dedicated group using a 16-foot Seafarer to a membership of approximately 100 using a Haines Hunter rescue craft equipped with two 250-horsepower Yamaha engines. Present and past members of the Point Danger unit should be commended for their dedication and unselfish contribution in expanding their rescue services. I and, indeed, all other southern Gold Coasters have every reason to be justifiably proud of both the Currumbin and Point Danger Air Sea Rescue units. Air Sea Rescue is a vital branch of the Bureau of Emergency Services, which was formed in 1989. The Air Sea Rescue unit has to cover vast amounts of coastline. Time expired.

Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (10.09 p.m.): Tonight, I wish to warn the public about a company called Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd, which was registered on 1 November 1989. Its principal activity was acting as tax consultants and agents. The directors of that company were Kenneth Cameron Macrae, Graham Charles Simpson, and Ian Francis Paine. None of those people belongs to any of the recognised accounting bodies. At the time of listing, the shareholders of the company were Gary John Edwards, who held one A-class share, Graham Charles Simpson, who held one B- class share, and Kenneth Cameron Macrae, who held one B-class share. Apparently, in about November or December 1989 this company was able to obtain registration as a tax agent. In order to become registered, it had to supply details of one person who was to be the original nominee of the company. That person had to satisfy the requirements for registration as a tax agent, that is, the person had to be a fit and proper person, etc. I do not know who the original nominee of the company was; however, I believe that one of the directors of the company was an eligible person for registration purposes. The company was able to obtain registration only by giving shares with a minimum of 25 per cent of the voting right to a person who was able to satisfy registration requirements. Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd began operating as tax agents and established offices in Toowong, Toowoomba and Mackay, and eventually in Monto and Townsville. Another company called Moussefield Pty Ltd was established on 19 July 1989. Its principal activity was acting as a family trust company. The directors of that company were the same as for Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd, that is Kenneth Cameron Macrae, Graham Charles Simpson, and Ian Francis Paine. Moussefield Pty Ltd bought land and a building on a corner of Newton and Lister Streets, Monto, for $65,000. The contract was settled on 24 January last year. Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd began operating from part of that building in February 1992. They moved into Monto and the surrounding district with a very hard-sell campaign, door-to- door canvassing, promises to review previous tax returns, and promises to show how to reduce tax, etc. It was a high pressure selling campaign. Accountants from other areas where this company operated advised that this was normal procedure for that company. It was reported that in the Mackay district, representatives of the company posed as tax office auditors as a means of gaining access to previous years’ tax returns. The method 2982 18 May 1993 Legislative Assembly of operation is to set clients up in companies, trusts, superannuation funds etc., even when those structures could not be warranted. They were able to charge handsome fees for the establishment and ongoing compliance work for these unwarranted structures. In the Queensland Government Gazette No. 8 of 8 May 1992, the Australian Taxation Office gave notice of an action that it had commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland in the matter of the corporations law and in the matter of Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd. This was notice of an application for winding up of the company. A search of court records showed that the company, Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd, owed group tax—that is, tax deducted from employees’ wages—to the tax office for the period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991 amounting to $46,925.82. This application was not proceeded with, as the sum of money outstanding was paid on or about 26 May 1992. Failure to remit group tax is a very serious taxation offence. If the Australian Taxation Office had decided to prosecute, the company could have been liable for a fine of up to $25,000. The registration of any registered tax agent convicted of an offence under the Taxation Administration Act must be cancelled or suspended for a minimum of three months. Information available indicates that the company was also in arrears with group tax payments for the 1991-92 financial year, but the Australian Taxation Office did not institute prosecution action with regard to that. It is interesting to note that the directors of Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd and Moussefield Pty Ltd were able to obtain finance of $65,000 to buy a building in Monto at the same time that Charles Cameron and Associates was in debt to the Australian Taxation Office to the tune of almost $50,000. I believe that both companies were effectively owned and operated by the same people. On 22 January this year, a notice was placed in the window of the Monto office to the effect that Coopers and Lybrand had been appointed as provisional liquidators of Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd. The Monto office was closed on 22 January 1993. The provisional liquidator had been in Monto on Thursday 21 January 1993 and Friday 22 January 1993, and had taken possession of company assets such as file records, etc. I believe that the provisional liquidator was appointed on the application of Graham Charles Simpson. Apparently, the other two directors were totally opposed to this action. On 22 January 1993, phone calls made to the Mackay office of Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd were still being answered as, “Charles Cameron and Associates”. When an inquiry was made as to whether the company was in liquidation and how it could continue to operate, I was advised that the Brisbane operations were in liquidation but that the Mackay and Townsville operations were not. The provisional liquidator advised that directors of Charles Cameron and Associates Pty Ltd are claiming that the company had not operated as a tax agent for six months and that all the work was now being done by another registered tax agent. I do not see how this claim can be sustained as the phone was being answered as “Charles Cameron and Associates”, the signwriting on the office window stated the same information, and Charles Cameron and Associates stationery and business cards were being used. The company has left creditors unsatisfied in the Monto district as well as, I believe, in other centres in which it had operated. Time expired.

Judicial Statements on Violence towards Women Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (10.14 p.m.): In January this year, Justice Derek Bollen achieved notoriety by making outrageous statements in the summing-up of a rape case to the effect that “there is nothing wrong with a husband, faced with his wife's initial refusal to engage in intercourse, to persuade her to change her mind with rougher than usual handling”. The subsequent outcry was justified as men and women in Australia were repulsed by this judicial advocacy of violent sex. Mr Justice Bollen later attempted to explain his statement and, frankly, I found his explanation just as bad as his original statement. Statements have been made in this House and in other Parliaments Legislative Assembly 18 May 1993 2983 around Australia by members of all political persuasions decrying this evidence of judicial ignorance. I had believed that enough had been said on this matter and that the community outrage would have made other members of the judiciary aware of public feeling on these issues. But, no; we have seen a recent spate of decaying, out-of-touch judges, who seem to have become stuck in some sort of medieval time warp where man must be allowed to have his wicked way and women must submit. We have heard another statement made by Mr Justice Bland—when sentencing an 18-year-old youth who had admitted raping a 15-year-old girl—that when a female says "No", she often means “Yes”, and expressing virtual admiration for the fact that his youthful virility enabled him to commit rape on an under-age girl after drinking 10 pots of beer and three bourbons. But the absolute pits was reading the unbelievably outrageous remarks of Justice Norman O’Brien, who believed that a 17-year-old rape victim was not traumatised by rape because she “was probably comatose at the time”, having been knocked senseless and having had her throat cut. Mr Deputy Speaker, enough is enough! I cannot remain silent any longer. I am sure that every female member of Parliament, on both sides, will have had enough discussion with victims of domestic violence, victims of rape and incest, rape crisis centres and their support groups, to know just how damaging these judicial statements are. They are giving a clear, horrific message that this violent behaviour is not only excusable but somehow acceptable. I have often been dismayed by comments by schoolboys or unthinking people that reinforce dated stereotypes regarding rape—that the victim must have “asked for it” by her demeanour, her dress, her actions, her race, her sexual history, all of which have caused the victim to be doubly violated by the perpetrator and again by the judicial process. It has taken several decades of debate and public awareness to change these attitudes to see an increase of rape reporting from less than 10 per cent to about 30 per cent. But when these fallacies are repeated by learned judges, they carry more weight; they set precedents; they reinforce stereotypes and do far more lasting damage. Let us get one thing absolutely clear: rape is not about sex. It is not just having sex with someone who is not one’s regular partner. It is not a sexual act nor a measure of masculine virility. Rape is an act of violence which uses sex as a weapon. It is motivated not by sexual desire but by aggression and the desire to exert power and humiliation. It is a violation of one’s self—a violence that attacks the wellbeing and self-esteem of its victim with often long-term psychological effects, as well as physical damage. It can interfere with that victim’s current and future personal relationships. It is used as an instrument of war, of terror and torture that plays a brutalising role for both the victim and the perpetrator. The criminal justice system can play a major role in changing attitudes and preventing rape and revictimisation. It is of dire concern to me that, while statistics show that Australia has an unfortunately high level of rape and sexual assault, fewer rapists are going to gaol despite an increase in reporting and an increase in the number of perpetrators being arrested. This seems to relate clearly to a reluctance by the criminal justice system to accept rape as a violent and not a sexual act. I call on all reasonable, civilised members of this Chamber, both men and women, to send a clear message to that minority of the judiciary who are so set in their archaic ways that they seem to get their kicks from the violence related in courts that this is clearly unacceptable. If they are so out of step with society, they should make the effort to re-educate their thinking or step down and do the women of Australia a favour. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.